You are on page 1of 4

Rule 130 Sec 1 – Object evidence

People Vs Rodolfo Manalo


Facts: Two separate complaint for Murder were filed against Respondent Rodolfo Manalo for the
death or Warlito Bonilla and Carlito Dimampo. When the victims Warlito Bonilla and Carlito
Dimampo were parking their motorcycle upon accompanying Carlos Lacbay to the latter’s home,
they were invited by the accused Manalo for a drink of wine, which they acceded.
When the victims were about to enter the house of the accused, The accused suddenly and
without any warning shot Diomampo on the head and then Bonilla once the template of the
distance was 3 meters from behind with a .45 caliber pistol. Lacbay who was standing a meter
behind the accused was shocked that he was unable to move. The accused told Lacbay that he
shot Diamampo and Bonilla because the former had impregnated his daughter(Dina Manalo).
Then after the accused asked Lacbay to dig but the latter refused, from which the accused
warned him not to leave the place for he would look someone to do the digging but Lacbay left
immediately after the accused had left him.

The Medico Legal examination conducted by Dr. Perez, who was the city health officer, after the
bodies of the victims were dugged up from a shallow pit under the banggerahan of the accused’s
house, revealed that both sustained gunshot wounds caused by a .45 caliber gun. The Accused
maintains that he was not responsible for the said act but rather he was a unwilling witness to the
horrible event perpetuated by persons unknown to him. RTC finds the Accused Rodolfo Manalo
guilty of two separate counts of murder.

Issue: W/N Accused Rodolfo Manalo should be found guilty of the crime of two counts of
murder despite the absence of physical evidence that accused fired a gun?
Ruling: Yes. Even if he subjected himself to paraffin test and the same yields a negative, it
cannot definitely conclude that he had not fired a gun as it is possible for one to fire a gun and
yet be negative for the presence of nitrates as when the hands are washed before the test. The
court even considered the possibility that that there will be no paraffin traces on his hands.
Lacbay who was the witness of the crime had emphatically and positively identified the accused
as the gunman from which deserves full merit and weight. His identification of the accused as
the gunman was positive and unshakeable. He had vividly testified in court on the time, the place
and the manner how the said killings were perpetrated by the accused. There was also an
extrajudicial statement made by the accused wherein he had admitted the killings but sought to
justify his acts by alleging that one of the victims tried to abuse his daughter.

There were also several letters sent by the accused to Marcelo Bonilla begging to agree to the
amount 14,000 as a settlement for the death of the two victims. He even asked for forgiveness for
the offense he had committed which was an admission that he had committed something wrong.
He also sent a letter to the fiscal requesting not to charge him for murder but only for homicide
for he did not have the intention to kill the victims but was only prompted to do so due to
circumstances beyond his control. RTC decision affirmed. Accused is Guilty

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE ENCARNACION


MALIMIT alias MANOLO, accused-appellant.
Facts: On April 15, 1991, around 8:00 in the evening, Batin the household boy, went to the store
of his employer to inform him that the dinner is ready. Upon entering the store Batin saw the
appellant with a bolo fleeing the store while his employer his laying in the floor bathing in his
own blood. Rondon on the other hand was on his way to store to buy fertilizer on his field when
he saw the appellant rushing out of the store with a blood-stained bolo.
Batin immediately went out of the store to seek help. Outside the store, he met Rondon. Wherein
they went to residence of the victim to inform them of the tragic incident. When they went back
to the store they noticed that the store’s drawer was opened and the victim’s wallet was stolen
from his Pocket. When the appellant was place under custody, it was discovered that he
possesses the wallet of the victim together with its content such as Malakis residence certificate,
his identification card and a bunch of keys As a defense, the appellant argued that such it was a
violation of his constitutional right against self-incrimination hence, the wallet and its contents
were in admissible. The Trial Court found the appellant guilty hence, the appeal.
Issue: Whether the wallet and its content were inadmissible as evidence?
Ruling: Yes. The wallet and its contents are admissible. The right against self-incrimination
guaranteed under our fundamental law finds no application in this case. This right, as put by Mr.
Justice Holmes in Holt vs. United States x x x is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral
compulsion, to extort communications from him x x x.
It is simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the [accused]s own lips, against his
will, admission of his guilt. It does not apply to the instant case where the evidence sought to
be excluded is not an incriminating statement but an object evidence. Infractions thereof
render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial
investigation. The admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue
and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is not affected even if obtained or taken in
the course of custodial investigation. Concededly, appellant was not informed of his right to
remain silent and to have his own counsel by the investigating policemen during the custodial
investigation. Neither did he execute a written waiver of these rights in accordance with the
constitutional prescriptions. Nevertheless, these constitutional short-cuts do not affect the
admissibility of Malakis wallet, identification card, residence certificate and keys for the purpose
of establishing other facts relevant to the crime. Thus, the wallet is admissible to establish the
fact that it was the very wallet taken from Malaki on the night of the robbery. The
identification card, residence certificate and keys found inside the wallet, on the other
hand, are admissible to prove that the wallet really belongs to Malaki.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LUCIANO JUMAMOY Y AÑORA,


alias "JUNIOR", accused-appellant.
FACTS: Two (2) separate informations for "Murder" and "Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm
and Ammunitions (sic)" were filed against accused Luciano Jumamoy. Appellant Luciano
Jumamoy and the victim Rolando Miel were once friends and belonged to the same 'barkada' until
sometime in 1970 when the former was stabbed by the latter on his left forearm. In the evening of
April 1, 1987, the victim and his younger brother Edgar, together with three other companions,
went to the Cultural Center of Inabanga, Bohol, where a 'disco' dance was being held. Upon
reaching the Center, the victim and his companions joined three other members of their 'barkada'
watching the disco outside. All of a sudden appellant appeared in front obliquely to the right of the
victim and fired three (3) successive shots at the latter. However, on his way to escape, appellant
passed by the victim's brother Edgardo and a companion. When appellant got near the two, the
former poked his gun at the victim's brother, and uttered, 'Unsa, laban ka?' ('What now, are you
taking sides?'). The trial court disregarded the accused's defense of alibi. The latter testified that
he had left Inabanga, Bohol for Cebu City on 29 March 1987 to look for employment. He recounts
that he stayed in the house of a friend, Feliciano Cenita, in Pasil, Cebu City from 1 April to 4 April
1987. In the evening of 4 April 1987, Jumamoy avers that he took a boat, the M/V Sweet Roro,
for Manila. The accused did not, however, present Feliciano Cenita as a witness despite his
(accused's) repeated manifestation of his intention to do so and the court's liberality in granting his
request for postponement for the said purpose. Instead, "out of the blue, the accused . . . presented
one Ramon Micutuan . . . to corroborate his claim that in the evening of April 1, 1987, he was in
Cebu City.

After trial, the court a quo promulgated its judgment finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crimes charged. One of the assigned errors is: “(T)he firearm alleged to have been
used by the accused in killing the victim was not presented in court during the trial. Its caliber and
make was (sic) never established by sufficient evidence, so that there is no basis to convict the
accused for illegal (sic) possession of firearm."

ISSUE: Whether or not it was indispensable for the prosecution to introduce and offer in evidence
the firearm which was used in the killing of the victim.

HELD: No. Nor can We agree with the accused that it was indispensable for the prosecution to
introduce and offer in evidence the firearm which was used in the killing of the victim. There is
no law or rule of evidence which requires the prosecution to do so; there is also no law which
prescribes that a ballistics examination be conducted to determine the source and trajectory of the
bullets. For conviction to lie it is enough that the prosecution establishes by proof beyond
reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the accused is the author thereof. The
production of the weapon used in the commission of the crime is not a condition sine qua non for
the discharge of such a burden for the weapon may not have been recovered at all from the
assailant. If the rule were to be as proposed by the accused, many criminals would go scot-free and
much injustice would be caused to the victims of crimes, their families and society. In the instant
case, it was established with moral certainty that the accused attacked, assaulted and shot the victim
Rolando Miel with an unlicensed firearm, thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple gunshot
wounds which caused his death. Such proof was all that was needed for the conviction of the
accused.