People vs.
Yatar more than one circumstances; 2) facts on which the inferences are derived are
Gr no. 150224, 19 May 2004
Circumstantial evidence; DNA is admissible as evidence
Facts:
At 9am, Judilyn and her husband, togethe with Isabel Dawang left for their farm
leaving Kathylyn alone in the house.
Later, at 10am, Anita Wania and Beverly Deneng saw appellant at the back of the
house of Isabel. They went inside the house to have a drink of water. Anita then asked the
appellant what he was doing there, and he replied that he was getting lumber to bring to the
house of his mother.
At 12:30pm, Judilyn saw appellant descend the ladder from the 2 nd floor of the
house of Isabel and run towards the back of the house. He was wearing a white T-shirt and
black jeans. Later, she noticed that the appellant was already wearing a black t-shirt and
blue jeans; and that his eyes were reddish and sharp.
Later that evening, Isabela arrived home. She went up to the ladder to the 2nd floor
to see if Kathylyn was there. She then found out the naked body of Kathylyn full of stab
wounds that her intestines could already be seen.
When questioned by the police authorities, appellant denied any knowledge of
Kathylyn’s death. He tried to escape but apprehended. Appellant pleaded not guilty during
arraignment.
After trial, appellant was convicted of the crime of rape with homicide. He
questioned the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, post mortem
report by the attending physician indicates that no hymenal lacerations, contusions or
hematoma were noted on the victim but he discovered the presence of semen in the vaginal
canal of the victim. Subsequent testing also showed that the DNA of the sperm specimen
from the vagina of the victim was identical the semen to be that of the appellant’s gene type.
Appellant contends that the blood sample taken from him as well as the DNA tests
were conducted in violation of his right to remain silent as well as his right against self-
incrimination under the constitution.
Issues:
1. Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to warrant conviction.
2. Whether DNA evidence does not violate the appellant’s right to self
incrimination, hence, admissible as evidence.
Ruling:
1. Yes.
Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to warrant a conviction, must form an
unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused,
to the exclusion of others, is the perpetrator of the crime. To determine whether
there is sufficient circumstantial evidence, 3 requisites must concur: 1) there is
Evidence- Villones, A
proven; and 3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Yes.
The kernel of right is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial
compulsion. The right against self- incrimination is simply against the legal process
of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply
where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but as part of
object evidence. Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to finger printing,
photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA, as there is no testimonial compulsion
involved.
People vs. Gerrico Vallejo y Samartino
Gr no. 144656, 9 May 2002
“Circumstantial evidence; DNA testing”
Facts:
Victims mother, Ma. Nida Diolola, sent her 9 year old daughter, Daisy
Diolola, to their neighbors house so that Aimee Vallejo, the sister of the accused-
appellant, could help daisy with her lessons. An hour later, Daisy came back with
the accused-appellant. They were looking for a book which accused could copy to
make a drawing that Daisy would submit to her teacher. When Ma. Nida woke up,
she noticed that Daisy was not yet home. She started looking for her daughter and
proceeded to the house of Aimee. Aimee’s mother told her that Daisy wasn’t there.
She also asked the accused-appellant, since he was the last person seen with
Daisy, but he told her that daisy went to her classmates house to borrow a book.
Jessiemin Mataverde told Ma. Nida that Daisy was playing infront of her house and
even watched television in her house but she left with accused-appellant.
In the morning of 11 June 1999, Nida was informed that the dead body of
her daughter was found tied to the root of an aroma tree by the river. Accused-
appellant was then invited by the policemen for questioning. They also recovered
the bloodstained shirts and shorts which were turned-over to the NBI for lab
examination.
Accused-appellant then confessed to Municipal mayor. He also executed
a hand written confession.
The DNA samples were gathered. The forensic chemist of the NBI
testified that the vaginal swabs of the victim during collected during the autopsy
contained the DNA profiles of the accused.
The accused-appellant then denied his confession stating that he only
admitted the crime because he was tortured by the policemen. He also claimed
 that the written confession was merely copied from a pattern given to him by the
police.
The trial court rendered a decision finding the accused-appellant guilty of
the offense charged.
Issues:
1. Whether circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
2. Whether the DNA testing samples were contaminated.
Ruling:
1. Yes.
Under Rule 133, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Evidence, circumstantial
evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if:
a) There is more than one circumstance;
b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
c) The combination of all circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
2. No.
DNA is an organic substance found in a persons cells which contains his or
her genetic code. Except for identical twins, each persons DNA profile is distinct
and unique.
When a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene of the crime
or from the victims body for the suspect’s DNA. This is the evidence sample. The
evidence sample is then matched with the reference sample taken from the
suspect and the victim.
The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an association exists
between the evidence sample and the reference sample.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should
consider, among other things, the following data:
1) How the samples were collected;
2) How they were handled;
3) The possibility of contamination of the samples;
4) The procedure followed in analyzing the samples;
5) Whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in
conducting the tests; and
6) The qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
The vaginal swabs taken from the victim yielded positive for the presence
of human DNA. Upon analysis by experts, they showed the DNA profile of
accused- appellant.
Evidence- Villones, A
Campos vs. Pp and FWCC
Gr no. 187401, 17 September 2014
Facts:
Campos obtained a loan, payable on installments, from respondent FWCC. She
issued postdated checks in favor of FWCC to cover the agreed installment payments. 14 of
these checks were drawn against her current account with BPI Family Bank. These were,
however, dishonored when presented for payment.
Campos failed to satisfy her obligation with FWCC despite demand. Hence, she
was charged before the MeTC with violations of BP 22. She was tried in absentia. She was
convicted of 14 counts of violations of BP22. RTC uphold MeTC’s decision. CA affirmed
RTC’s ruling.
Issue:
1. Whether a demand letter that was sent through registered mail is sufficient to
satisfy the requirements of BP 22 as to knowledge of the fact of the dishonor
of the subject checks
Ruling:
Yes.
Sec. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds-
The making, drawing, and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee
because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within 90 days
from the date of the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency
of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due
thereon, or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within (5)
banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee.
The mere presentation of registry return receipts that cover registered mail was not
sufficient to establish that written notices of dishonor had been sent to or served on issuers
of checks. The authentication by affidavit of the mailers was necessary in order for service
by registered mail to be regarded as clear proof of the giving of notices of dishonor and to
predicate the existence of the 2nd element of the offense.
Campos categorically declared in her petition that, “she has in her favor evidence
to show that she was in good faith and indeed made arrangements for the payment of her
obligations subsequently after the dishonor of checks.” This statement was a confirmation
that she actually received the required notice of dishonor from FWCC.
Documents to prove such arrangements should have been presented before the
MeTC during the trial, yet Campos opted to be tried in absentia, and thus waived her right to
present evidence.
Expertravel and Tours, Inc. vs. CA and Korean Airlines
 Gr no. 152392, 26 May 2005
“The courts can take judicial notice on matters pertaining to business transactions made by
individuals through teleconferencing”
Facts:
KAL, through Atty. Aguinaldo, filed a complaint against ETI with the RTC for the
collection of money. The verification and certification against for forum shopping was
signed by Atty. Aguinaldo, who indicated that he was the resident agent and legal counsel of
KAL.
ETI filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Atty. Aguinaldo was
not authorized to execute the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping.
During the hearing, Atty. Aguinaldo claimed that he had been authorized to file the
complaint through a resolution of the KAL Board of Directors approved during a special
meeting which was conducted through a special teleconference. However, the corporation
had no written copy of the aforesaid resolution.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. ETI filed a motion for reconsideration
of the order, contending that it was inappropriate for the court to take judicial notice of the
said teleconference without any prior hearing. ETI filed a petition for certiorari and
mandamus assailing the orders of the RTC. CA dismissed the petition.
Issue:
Whether the courts can take judicial notice on matters pertaining to business
transactions made by individuals through teleconferencing.
Ruling:
Yes.
Matters of judicial notice have (3) material requisites:
1) The matter must be one of common and general knowledge;
2) It must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and
3) It must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court.
The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is
that of notoriety. Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced by
public records and facts of general notoriety. Moreover, a judicially noticed fact must be one
not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it is either:
1) Generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court;
2) Capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
Things of common knowledge, of which courts take judicial matters coming to the
knowledge of men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they
can be matters which are generally accepted by mankind as true and are capable of
ready and unquestioned demonstration. A court cannot take judicial notice of any fact
Evidence- Villones, A
which, in part, is dependent on the existence or non-existence of a fact which the court
has no constructive knowledge.
In this age of modern technology, the courts may take judicial notice that business
transactions may be made by individuals through teleconferencing. Teleconferencing is
interactive group communication through an electronic medium.
Even given the possibility that Atty. Aguinaldo and Suk Kyoo Kim participated in a
teleconference along with the respondents Board of Directors, the Court is not convinced
that one was conducted; even if there had been one, the Court is not inclined to believe that
a board resolution was duly passed specifically authorizing Atty. Aguinaldo to file the
complaint.
Dr. Milagros L. Cantre vs. Sps. John David Z. Go and Nora S. Go
Gr no. 160889, 27 April 2007
Res ipsa loquitur- the mere existence of the injury justifies the presumption of negligence
Facts:
Petitioner Milagros Cantre was the attending physician of respondent Nora Go.
Nora gave birth to her 4th child. She suffered profuse bleeding inside her womb due to some
parts of the placenta which were not completely expelled from her womb after delivery.
Consequently, she suffered hypovolemic shock. Petitioner and her assisting resident
physician performed various medical procedure to stop the bleeding and restore Nora’s BP.
Her BP was frequently monitored with the use of sphygmomanometer.
Petitioner then ordered a droplight to warm Nora and her baby. Her husband, John
David, noticed a fresh gaping wound in the inner portion of Nora’s left arm, close to armpit.
He was then informed that it was a burn. Petitioner when confronted claimed that such injury
was caused by the BP cuff.
The medico-legal officer testified that Nora’s injury appeared to be a burn and that
a droplight when placed near the skin for about 10 minutes could cause such burn. Nora’s
injury was referred to a plastic surgeon at the same hospital for skin grafting. Unfortunately,
this worsen the condition of the arm. Her arm would never be the same. Respondent
spouses filed a complaint for damages against petitioner. The trial court rendered a decision
in favor of the respondent spouses. CA affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification.
Issues:
1. Whether the questioned exhibits are admissible as evidence.
Ruling:
Yes
The questioned exhibits consist mostly of Nora’s medical records, which were
produced by the hospital during trial pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. Petitioners
counsel admitted the existence of the same when they were formally offered for admission
by the trial court. A ruling on the negligence of petitioner may be made based on the res
ipsa loquitur doctrine even in the absence of such additional exhibits.
In cases involving medical negligence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows the
mere existence of an injury to justify a presumption of negligence on the part of the person
who controls the instrument causing the injury, provided that the following requisites concur:
1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
someone’s negligence;
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or
defendants; and
3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is
eliminated.
Dr. Fernando P. Solidum vs. Pp
Gr no. 192123, 10 March 2014
Facts:
Gerald Albert Gercayo was born with an imperforate anus. 2 days after his birth, he
underwent a colostomy. Gerald, then 3 years old, was admitted at the Ospital ng Maynila for
a pull- through operation. Dr. Solidum was one of the anesthesiologist of such operation.
During the operation, Gerald experienced bradycardia and went into coma, His coma lasted
for (2) weeks, but he regained consciousness only after a month. He could no longer see,
hear or move.
Ma. Luz Gercayo lodged a complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in serious
physical injuries against the attending physicians.
RTC rendered its judgment finding Dr. Solidum guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries.
Issues:
1. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable herein.
2. Whether Dr. Solidum was liable for criminal negligence
Ruling:
1. No.
Res ipsa loquitur means that “where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under
the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of
things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident
arose from want of care. Res ipsa loquitur is applied in conjunction with the doctrine of
common knowledge.
In order to allow resort to the doctrine, the following essential requisites must first be
satisfied, to wit:
Evidence- Villones, A
1) The accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur unless someone is
negligent;
2) The instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was under the exclusive
control of the person charged; and
3) The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution
of the person injured.
The Court considers the application here of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
inappropriate. Although it should be conceded without difficulty that the 2 nd and 3rd elements
were present, considering that the anesthetic agent and the instruments were exclusively
within the control of Dr. Solidum, and that the patient, being then unconscious during the
operation, could not have been guilty of contributory negligence, the 1st element was
undeniably wanting.
2. No.
Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of
another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance that the circumstances justly
demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. Reckless imprudence, on the other
hand, consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice, an act from which material
damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person
performing or failing to perform such act.
An action upon medical negligence- whether criminal, civil or administrative- calls for
the plaintiff to prove by competent evidence each of the following (4) elements, namely:
a) The duty owed by the physician to the patient, as created by the physician- patient
relationship, to act in accordance with the specific norms or standards established
by his profession;
b) The breach of the duty by the physician’s failing to act in accordance with the
applicable standard of care;
c) The causation; ie there must be a reasonably close and causal connection
between the negligent act or omission and the resulting injury; and
d) The damages suffered by the patient.
Here, the prosecution presented no witnesses with special medical qualifications in
anesthesia to provide guidance to the trial court on what standard of care was applicable. It
would consequently be truly difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the 1st (3)
elements of a negligence and malpractice action were attendant.
Prudential Bank vs. Judge Castro and Atty. Grecia
A.C no. 2756, 12 November 1987

Facts:
MACRO and GALAXY were indebted to Prudential Bank. MACRO executed a
mortgage over the MACRO property in favor of Prudential Bank to guarantee the then, as
well as future, obligations of MACRO and GALAXY.
Despite demand, MACRO did not pay its obligations. A “notice of sale by notary”
was issued for the extra-judicial foreclosure sale of the MACRO property. MACRO then filed
the complaint in the RTC alleging that the president and general manager of MACRO, Go
Cun Uy, had no authority to mortgage the MACRO property and that the execution of the
mortgage was due to fraudulent manipulations of complainant bank.
Respondent Judge Castro issued a TRO to the Register of Deeds restraining it
from registering any deed of sale of the MACRO property. He then resolved the RTC case
declaring the mortgage of the MACRO property void. Complainant bank filed a motion for
reconsideration. Without ruling on the former’s motion for reconsideration, respondent judge
ordered the ROD to cancel the registration of the deed of real estate mortgage.
(7) days after, MACRO sold the MACRO property to Falconi. Respondent judge
considered his decision in the RTC case to be final and ordered the issuance of a writ of
execution, which also constituted a denial of complainant Bank’s appeal.
Complainant bank caused a notice of lis pendens to be annotated on FALCONI’s
title. The Court then ordered to cancel the new owner’s duplicate of TCT, to cancel TCT in
the name of FALCONI; and to restore the old TCT with annotated mortgage lien in favor of
complainant bank.
Issue:
Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in this case.
Ruling:
Yes.
Evidence- Villones, A
Dr. Emmanuel Jarcia, Jr. and Dr. Marilou Bastan vs. Pp
Gr no. 187926
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as a rule of evidence is unusual to the law of negligence
which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and
furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence.
Facts:
Belinda Santiago lodged a complaint with the NBI against petitioners Dr. Jarcia and
Dr. Bastan, for their alleged neglect of professional duty which caused her son to suffer
serious physical injuries.
Roy Jr. was hit by a taxicab and he was rushed to the Manila Doctors Hospital for
an emergency medical treatment. An x-ray pf the victim’s ankle was ordered and the result
showed no fracture as read by Dr. Jarcia.
Dr. Bastan also examined the victim and informed Mrs. Santiago that since it was
only the ankle that was hit, there was no need to examine the upper leg.
After 11 days, Roy Jr. developed fever, swelling of the right leg and misalignment
of the right foot. Mrs. Santiago brought Roy back to the hospital and the x-ray revealed a
right mid-tibial fracture and a linear hairline fracture in the shaft of the bone.
RTC found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple
imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries. CA affirmed the RTC decision.
Issue:
Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable.
Ruling:
Yes.
Res ipsa loquitur means “where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under
the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of
things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords
reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident
arose from want of care.”
Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence whereby negligence of the alleged
wrongdoer may be inferred from the mere fact that the accident happened provided the
character of the accident and circumstances attending it lead reasonably to belief that in the
absence of negligence it would not have occurred and that thing which caused injury is
shown to have been under the management and control of the alleged wrongdoer.
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as a rule of evidence is unusual to the law of
negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct
proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence.
 The doctrine, however, is not a rule of substantive law, but merely a mode of proof
or a mere procedural convenience.
The requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur are:
1) The accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is
negligent;
2) The instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive
control of the person in charge; and
3) The injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution
of the person injured.
Lucas vs. Lucas
Gr no. 190710, 6 June 2011
Facts:
Petitioner Jesse Lucas filed a petition to establish illegitimate filiation before the
RTC. Petitioner narrated that this mother, Elsie Uy, had an intimate relationship with
respondent Jesus Lucas. Elsie eventually got pregnant and gave birth to petitioner. The
name of petitioner’s father was not stated in his birth certificate. However, Elsie later on told
petitioner that his father is respondent.
Respondent objected reiterating that DNA testing cannot be had on the basis of a
mere allegation pointing to respondent as petitioner’s father. RTC dismissed the case based
on Herrera vs. Alba, stating that there are (4) significant procedural aspects of a traditional
paternity action which the parties have to face:
1) A prima facie case;
2) Affirmative defenses;
3) Presumption of legitimacy; and
4) Physical resemblance between the putative father and the child.
The court opined that petitioner must 1st establish these (4) procedural aspects before
he can present evidence of paternity and filiation, which may include incriminating acts or
scientific evidence like blood group test and DNA test results.
Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case considering that his mother did not
personally declare that she has sexual relations with respondent, and petitioners statement
as to what his mother told him about his father was clearly hearsay; the birth certificate was
not signed by respondent; and although that he was treated as the child of respondent by
the latter or his family.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the RTC resolved in his favor. CA
decided the petition in favor of respondent.
Issue:
Evidence- Villones, A
Whether a prima facie showing is necessary before a court can issue a DNA
Testing order.
Ruling:
No.
The statement in Herrera vs. Alba that there are 4 significant procedural aspects in
a traditional paternity case which parties have to face has been widely misunderstood and
misapplied in this case.
A prima facie case is built by a party’s evidence and not by mere allegations in the
initiatory pleading.
The Rule on DNA Evidence was enacted to guide the Bench and the Bar for the
introduction and use of DNA evidence in the judicial system. It provides the prescribed
parameters on the requisite elements for reliability and validity, the possible sources of
error, the available objections to the admission of DNA test results as evidence as well as
the probative value of DNA evidence.
Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence merely provides for conditions that are
aimed to safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the DNA testing. Section 4 states: SEC. 4.
Application for DNA Testing Order. The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu
proprio or on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation,
order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon
a showing of the following:
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
(b) The biological sample:
(i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested;
or
(ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require
confirmation for good reasons;
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is
relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as
potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.
This does not mean, however, that a DNA testing order will be issued as a matter
of right if, during the hearing, the said conditions are established.
It should be stressed that the issuance of a DNA testing order remains
discretionary upon the court. The court may for example, consider whether there is absolute
necessity for the DNA testing. If there is already preponderance of evidence to establish
paternity and the DNA test result would only be corroborative, the court may, in its
discretion, disallow a DNA testing.
Evidence- Villones, A