HOW IS MEDICINE RELATED TO LAW?

CRIM: Proving the cause or time of death.

CIVIL: Cause of Death/Injury.
LABOR: Validity of sickness which may lead to an employees termination.
REMEDIAL: Cause of action/How to prove the innocence or guilt of the
defendant/accused.

EVIDENCE is the means sanctioned by the Rules of Court of ascertaining in a

judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
If the means employed to prove a fact is medical in nature, then it becomes
MEDICAL EVIDENCE.
TYPES OF EVIDENCE
1. RELEVANT: The evidence should have a relation to the fact in issue as
to induce belief in its existence; directed to the matters in dispute. (Ex.
Birth cert to prove minority of the victim)

2. COMPETENT: Evidence that is not excluded by the Rules. (Opinion of

witness, unless expert or ordinary witness who has adequate
knowledge or sufficient familiarity)

3. DIRECT: Evidence which proves a fact without the need to make an

inference from another fact. (Testimony of a sole eyewitness, so long
as it is clear and worthy of credence)

4. CIRCUMSTANTIAL: Evidence that indirectly proves a fact in issue

through an inference which the fact finder draws from the evidence
established. (T-shirt allegedly owned by the accused found in the crime
scene with blood spatter)

5. CUMULATIVE: Evidence of the same kind and character which tends

to prove the same proposition. (3 witness testifying regarding the same
alleged crime)

6. CORROBORATIVE: Additional evidence of a different character to the

same point. (Positive result of a paraffin test, finger print on the gun,
and testimony of a witness)
7. POSITIVE: Evidence/testimony that affirms the happening of an event.
8. NEGATIVE: Evidence/testimony which states an event did not occur.
TYPES OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE
1. AUTOPTIC OR REAL addressed to the senses (see, hear, smell,
touch, or taste) of the Court.
Limitations: Indecency and Impropriety. But repulsive objects or those
offensive to the sensibilities may still be presented if necessary for
adjudication of the case depending on the sound discretion of the court.
2. TESTIMONIAL doctor as a witness.
a. ORDINARY WITNESS - A physician who testifies in court on
matters he perceived from his patient in the course of physicianpatient relationship; with the patients consent.
b. EXPERT- a physician on account of his training and experience
can give his opinion on a set of medical facts. He can deduce or
infer something, determine the cause of death, or render opinion
pertinent to the issue and medical in nature.
3. EXPERIMENTAL - if allowed by the Court to confirm or corroborate.
Ex. Administration of poison to an animal to show how long can a person
survive after the same poison.
4. DOCUMENTARY - writing or any material containing letters, words,
numbers, figures, symbols or other modes of written expression offered
as proof of their contents.
EX: Medical Certificate such as medical exam, autopsy, laboratory results, or
birth/death certificate.

5. PHYSICAL - articles and materials found in connection with the

investigation and which aids in establishing the identity of the
perpetrator or the circumstances under which the crime was
committed, or in general assist in the prosecution of a criminal.
a. Corpus Delicti objects or substances which may be part of the
body of the crime. (EX: Bloody knife or underwear with semen)
b. Associative evidence that may link the suspect to the crime.
(EX: Hair strand or finger prints found at the crime scene)
c. Tracing evidence evidence that may assist the investigator in
locating the suspect. (EX: GPS of the vehicle used to escape or
mobile phone tracker)
PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE
METHODS OF PRESERVING EVIDENCE
A. PHOTOGRAPHY AND RECORDING
Photography is considered to be the most practical, useful and reliable
means of preservation.
e.g. Photographs, audio, video tape, micro-film, Photostat, Xerox,
voice tracing, etc.
a. In medico-legal cases
e.g. wounds inflicted in the body, identity of a person, finger
printing, handwriting, materials like hair, fibers, blood stain,
semen and others, tire marks in the body in motor vehicle
accident.
b. In criminal cases
e.g. fires in case of arson, position of the body when killed, scene
of the crime, arrangement of surroundings, wounding weapon,
balistics-target, gun and bullet used, position of vehicle and
victim in motor vehicular accident, paraphernalia in the
commission of the crime.
c. In civil cases
e.g. fake or questioned documents, uses of sound recording in
preserving evidence, dying declaration, identity of the voice in
person, identity of any sound related to crime in dispute.
B. SKETCHING
Kinds of Sketch

1. Rough Sketch sketch that is made are the crime scene or

during the examination of living or dead body. On the latter,
an anatomic figure of the front, back and side part of the body
must made and bodily lesions indicated.
2. Finished Sketch sketch that is prepared from rough sketch
for court presentation.
Essential Elements to be Included in a Sketch
1. Measurement must be accurate.
2. Compass direction must always be indicated to facilitate
proper orientation in the case of crime scene.
3. Essential item which has a bearing in the investigation must
be included.
4. Scale and proportion must be stated by mere estimation.
5. There must be a title and legend to tell what it is and the
meaning of certain marks indicated therein.
C. DESCRIPTION
The process of putting into words the person or thing to be
preserved. Describing a thing requires keen observation and a
good power of attention, perception, intelligence and experience.
It must cause a vivid impression on the mind of the reader, a true
picture of the thing described.
The following are the minimum standard requirements which
must be satisfied in the description of the person or thing to
make it complete:
a. Skin Lesion kind, measurement, other descriptive
information of the lesion itself, location, orientation.
b. Penetrating Wound (Punctured, Stab or Gunshot) kind,
shape, other information from the wound itself, location,
orientation, direction, other structures involved, complications
and foreign elements that may be present.
c. Hymenal Laceration location, degree, duration, complication.
d. Person those requirement in portrait parle.
D. MANIKIN METHOD
A miniature model of a scene or of a human body indicating
marks of the various aspects of things to be preserved. An anatomical
model or statuette may be used and injuries are indicated with their
appropriate legends. Although it may not indicate the full detail of the

lesion, it is quite impressive to the viewer as to the nature and severity

of the trauma.

E. PRESERVATION IN THE MIND OF THE WITNESS

A person who perceived something relevant for proper
adjudication of a case may be a witness in court if he has the power to
transmit to others what he perceived. He would just have to make a
recital of his collection.
Principal drawbacks of preserving evidence in the mind of the
witness:
1. The capacity of a person to remember time, place and
event may be destroyed or modified by length of time,
age of the witness, confusion with other evidences,
trauma, disease, thereby making the recollection not
reliable.
2. The preservation is co-terminus with the life of the
witness. If the witness dies, then the evidence is lost.
3. Human mind can easily be subjected to too many
extraneous factors that may cause distortion of the
truth. Other persons may influence a witness to serve
the interest of another or state untruthful facts to
justify an end.
F. SPECIAL METHODS
The special way of treating certain type of evidence may be
necessary. Preservation may be essential from the time it is recovered to
make condition unchanged up to the period it reaches the criminal
laboratory for appropriate examination. Preservation may be needed for
the remaining portion of the evidence submitted for future verification
and court presentation.
Some of the special ways of preservation are:
1. Whole human body embalming
2. Soft tissues (skin, muscles, visceral organs) 10% formalin
solution

3. Blood refrigeration, sealed bottle container, addition of

chemical preservatives.
4. Stains (blood, semen) drying, placing in a sealed container
5. Poison sealed container
Kinds of Evidence Necessary for Conviction
1. Direct Evidence that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid
of any inference or presumption
2. Circumstantial Evidence proof of facts from which, taken either singly
or collectively the existence of particular fact in dispute may be
inferred as a necessary or probable consequence
Elements to be sufficient for conviction
1. More than one circumstance
2. Facts from which the inferences are derived are proven
3. Combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
1. Preponderance of Evidence (Section 1, Rule 133)
- is a quantum of evidence applicable to civil cases
- means greater or superior weight of evidence
- evidence that is more convincing and more credible than the one
offered by the adverse party
Factors to be considered by the Court to determine whether or not
there is preponderance of evidence:
a) All the facts and circumstances of the case
b) The witnesses manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means
and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the
nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability of their
testimony
c) The witnesses interest or want of interest, and also their personal
credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial
d) The number of witnesses, although it does mean that
preponderance is necessarily with the greater number
2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

- based on the constitutional presumption of innocence

- does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of
error, produces certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind

JURISPRUDENCE
JovitoSalonga vs. Hon. Cruz-Pano
G.R. No. L-59524 Feb. 18, 1985
Facts:JovitoSalonga was charged with the violation of the Revised AntiSubversion Act after he wasimplicated, along with other 39 accused, by
Victor Lovely in the series of bombings in Metro Manila. Hewas tagged by
Lovely in his testimony as the leader of subversive organizations for two
reasons: (1)because his house was used as a contact point; and (2) because
of his remarks during the party of RaulDaza in Los Angeles. He allegedly
opined about the likelihood of a violent struggle in the Philippines if reforms
are not instituted immediately by then President Marcos.
Issue:Whether or not Salongas alleged remarks are protected by the
freedom of speech.
Held:Yes. The petition is dismissed.The petitioners opinion is nothing but a
legitimate exercise of freedom of thought andexpression. Protection is
especially mandated for political discussions. Political discussion is essential
tothe ascertainment of political truth. It cannot be the basis of criminal
indictments. The constitutionalguaranty may only be proscribed when such
advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminentlawless action and is
likely to incite or produce such action. In the case at bar, there is no threat
againstthe government.In PD 885, political discussion will only constitute
prima facie evidence of membership in asubversive organization if such
discussion amounts to conferring with officers or other members of
suchassociation or organization in furtherance of any plan or enterprise
thereof. In the case, there is noproof that such discussion was in furtherance
of any plan to overthrow the government through illegalmeans. Lovely also
declared that his bombing mission was not against the government, but
directedagainst a particular family. Such a statement negates any politically
motivated or subversive assignment.

To withhold the right to preliminary investigation, it would be to

transgress constitutional dueprocess. However, it is not enough that the
preliminary investigation is conducted to satisfy the dueprocess clause.
There must be sufficient evidence to sustain a prima facie case or that
probable causeexists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.
A testimony on preliminary investigation which is based on the affidavits of
others is hearsay and can hardly qualify as a prima facie evidence of
subversion. It should not have been given credence by the court in the first
place. Hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative value
as the affiant could not have been cross-examined on the facts stated
therein. Moreover, as Victor Lovely, himself, was personally examined by the
court, there was no need for the testimony of Col. Diego. Thus, the inquest
judge should have confined his investigation to Victor Burns Lovely, the sole
witness whose testimony had apparently implicated petitioner in the
bombings which eventually led to the filing of the information.

People of the Philippines vs. BasilioDamaso

GR No. 93516, August 12, 1992
Facts: Accsused-appellant charged in an information of violation of PD 1866
in connection with the crime of subversion assailed the legality of a search
and seizure conducted at his house at night time when he was not around,
on the ground that it violated constitutional rights against unreasonable
search and seizure.
Issue:
Whether or not a search on a house of a person without the
owners presence is valid.
Held: No. The search in the dwelling of the accused-appellant without his
knowledge is a violation of the constitutional immunity from unreasonable
searches and seizures. The testimonies of the witnesses are hearsay because
the witness testified on matters not on their own personal knowledge. The
Solicitor General argues that while testimonies may be hearsay, the same
are admissible because of the failure of counsel for appellant to object
thereto. It is true that the lack of objection to a hearsay testimony results in
its being admitted as evidence. But, one should not be misled into thinking
that since these testimonies are admitted as evidence, they now have
probative value. Hearsay evidence, whether objected or not, cannot be given
credence by the court.

People of the Philippines vsLucilla Valero

G.R. No. L-45283-84, March 19, 1982
Facts: In the morning of February 22, 1969 between 7:00 and 9:00 o'clock of
Saturday, Michael, aged 9 months, and Annabel, aged 1 year and 9 months,
both of whom are the children of Ceferino Velasco, died of poisoning after
eating bread containing endrin, a commercial insecticide. Likewise, Imelda,
another minor child of Ceferino, tasted the poisoned bread and would have
died as a consequence were it not for the timely medical assistance given
her. All these three minor children were in the balcony of their house at San
Rafael, Bulacan, when they partook of the poisoned bread.
On the same morning at about the same time that the three minor
children partook of the poisoned bread, three (3) puppies of Ceferino Velasco
under the balcony also died of poisoning.
Earlier that same morning at about 6:00 o'clock, Ceferino Velasco,
father of the victims, was seen throwing poisoned rats into a river near his
house. Investigations were conducted by Cpl. Bucot and Pat. Arturo Ventuso
both of the Police Department of San Rafael, Bulacan. Upon their arrival, they
saw the dead bodies of Michael and Annabel in the house of Ceferino Velasco
and the dead puppies under the balcony. They also saw several pieces of
sliced pan scattered in the sala of the house, near the balcony, and under
the balcony. They picked up some pieces of sliced bread under the balcony,
wrapped them in a piece of paper and submitted them to a chemist for
examination. It was found that the bread contained endrin, a poisonous
insecticide. The two minor children, Michael and Annabel, were also
autopsied and the necropsy reports showed that both children died of
poisoning by endrin. Samples of the blood and internal organs of both
Michael and Annabel were also examined by a chemist and it was found that
they contained endrin.
The evidence of the prosecution and the defense conflict as to the
source of the poisoned bread. The evidence of the prosecution shows that
the poisoned bread was given to the children by Alfonso Valero alias Pipe, a
deaf-mute brother of the defendant Lucila Valero, and that it was Lucila
Valero who gave the bread to Pipe for delivery to the minor children. On the
other hand, the defendant Lucila Valero denies that she ever gave bread to
her deaf-mute brother, Pipe, for delivery to the minor children. The evidence

for the defense tends to show that the Velasco children might have eaten
one of the sliced poisoned bread used by their father in poisoning rats in his
garden.
Issue:
Whether or not the non-presentation of Pipe makes the
testimony of other witness hearsay evidence.
Held: Pipe who was the alleged source of the vital information for the
prosecution was never presented as a witness either for the prosecution or
for the defense. Jaime and Velasco were presented as prosecution witnesses
to convey to the court what they learned from Pipe by a sign language. The
evidence is purely hearsay. The presentation of such evidence likewise
violates the principle of res inter alios acta. The rights of a party cannot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.
The failure of the defense counsel to object to the presentation of
incompetent evidence, like hearsay evidence or evidence that violates the
rule of inter alios acta, or his failure to ask for the striking out of the same
does not give such evidence any probative value. The lack of objection may
make any incompetent evidence admissible but admissibility would not be
equated with weight of evidence. Hearsay evidence whether objected to or
not has no probative value.

10