Andal vs. People, GR No.

138268-69,

Facts: Petitioners convicted of rape with homicide seek a writ of habeas corpus on the basis of a claim of mistrial and/or that
the decision if the RTC was void. The petitioners argue that the trial court was ousted of jurisdiction to try their case since the
pre-trial identification of the accused was made without the assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver from the accused.

Issue: WON a writ of habeas corpus should be granted.

Held: No. The extraordinary writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to inquire into questions of violation of the
petitioners’ constitutional rights and that this court has jurisdiction to entertain this review. The jurisdiction of this court has
been expanded to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.

In this case findings show that there was no violation of the constitutional rights of the accused and a resultant deprivation of
liberty or due process of law. The accused were sentenced to the supreme penalty of death as a result of a valid jurisdiction,
after a fair and equitable trial.

The issue of DNA tests as a more accurate and authoritative means of identification than eye-witness identification need
not be belabored. The accused were all properly and duly identified by the prosecutions principal witness. Olimpio Corales, a
brother in law of accused Jurry and Ricardo Andal. DNA testing proposed by petitioners to have an objective and scientific basis
of identification of semen samples to compare with those taken from the vagina of the victim are thus unnecessary or are
forgotten evidence too late to consider now.
The trial court imposed and this Court affirmed the correct sentence.
The death penalty is what the law prescribes in cases involving rape with homicide.[7]
We agree with the accused that they should be afforded every opportunity to prove their innocence, especially in cases
involving the death penalty; in this case, the Court can state categorically that every opportunity was provided the
accused. However, painful the decision may be in this case, we have conscientiously reviewed the case.
Four (4) Justices of the Court maintain their position as to the unconstitutionality of Republic Act No. 7659 in so far as it
prescribes the death penalty for certain heinous crimes; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority to the effect
that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty may be lawfully imposed in proper cases as the one at bar.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we hereby resolve to DENY the petition for habeas corpus, and declare valid the judgment rendered
by the trial court and affirmed by this Court. This resolution is final.
No costs. SO ORDERED.
Pp vs Vallejo

FACTS:

On July 10, 1999 (Rosario, Cavite), at about 1pm, 9-year old Daisy Diolola went to her neighbor’s house to seek help in an
assignment. It was a Saturday. Gerrico Vallejo, the neighbor, helped Daisy in her assignment. At 5pm of the same day, Daisy’s
mom noticed that her child wasn’t home yet. She went to Vallejo’s house and Daisy wasn’t there. 7pm, still no word of Daisy’s
whereabouts. The next morning, Daisy’s body was found tied to a tree near a river bank. Apparently, she was raped and
thereafter strangled to death.

In the afternoon of July 11, the police went to Vallejo’s house to question the latter as he was one of the last persons with the
victim. But prior to that, some neighbors have already told the police that Vallejo was acting strangely during the afternoon of
July 10. The police requested for the clothes that Vallejo wore the day Daisy disappeared. Vallejo complied and the clothes
were submitted for processing.

The person who processed the clothing was Pet Byron Buan, a Forensic Biologist of the NBI. At the instance of the local fiscal,
he also took buccal swabs (mouth/cheek swabs) from Vallejo and a vaginal swab from Daisy’s body for DNA testing. Dr. Buan
found that there were bloodstains in Vallejo’s clothing – Blood Type A, similar to that of the victim, while Vallejo’s Blood Type is
O.

Buan also found that the vaginal swab from Daisy contained Vallejo’s DNA profile.

Meanwhile, Vallejo already executed a sworn statement admitting the crime. But when trial came, Vallejo insisted that the
sworn statement was coerced; that he was threatened by the cops; that the DNA samples should be inadmissible because the
body and the clothing of Daisy (including his clothing – which in effect is an admission placing him in the crime scene – though
not discussed in the case) were already soaked in smirchy waters, hence contaminated. Vallejo was convicted and was
sentenced to death by the trial court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the DNA samples gathered are admissible as evidence.

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the findings of Dr. Buan are conclusive. The court reiterated that even though DNA
evidence is merely circumstantial, it can still convict the accused considering that it corroborates all other circumstantial
evidence gathered in this rape-slay case.

The Supreme Court also elucidated on the admissibility of DNA evidence in this case and for the first time recognized its
evidentiary value in the Philippines, thus:

DNA is an organic substance found in a person’s cells which contains his or her genetic code. Except for identical twins, each
person’s DNA profile is distinct and unique.

When a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene of the crime or from the victim’s 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. The samples collected are subjected to various chemical processes to establish their profile.32 The test may yield three
possible results:

1) The samples are different and therefore must have originated from different sources (exclusion). This conclusion is absolute
and requires no further analysis or discussion;

2) It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the test, whether the samples have similar DNA types (inconclusive). This
might occur for a variety of reasons including degradation, contamination, or failure of some aspect of the protocol. Various
parts of the analysis might then be repeated with the same or a different sample, to obtain a more conclusive result; or

3) The samples are similar, and could have originated from the same source (inclusion). In such a case, the samples are found to
be similar, the analyst proceeds to determine the statistical significance of the Similarity.

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among others things, the following data:
how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure
followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and
the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT"

FACTS
Accused-appellant was sentenced to death for the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide, and ordering him to pay the
heirs of the victim. Appellant was charged to have had carnal knowledge of a certain Kathylyn Uba against her will, and with the
use of a bladed weapon, stabbed the latter inflicting upon her fatal injuries resulting in her untimely demise.

In the instant case, appellant raises the issue of credibility of witnesses, specifically assigning as error on the part of the trial
court, the latter’s giving of much weight to the evidence presented by the prosecution notwithstanding their doubtfulness.

Double space
ISSUE (1)
Whether appellant’s contentions as regards the witnesses’ credibility are meritorious.

HELD: NO.
The issue regarding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses should be resolved against appellant. This Court will not
interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses unless there appears in the record
some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been
misinterpreted.

Well-entrenched is the rule that the findings of the trial court on credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal
unless cogent reasons are presented necessitating a reexamination if not the disturbance of the same; the reason being that
the former is in a better and unique position of hearing first hand the witnesses and observing their deportment, conduct and
attitude. Absent any showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of
weight which would affect the result of the case, the trial judge’s assessment of credibility deserves the appellate court’s
highest respect. Where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by improper motive,
their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.

The weight of the prosecution’s evidence must be appreciated in light of the well-settled rule which provides that an accused
can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, as long as sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented by the prosecution
to prove beyond doubt that the accused committed the crime.

Double space
ISSUE (2)
Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence

HELD: 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, three requisites must concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) facts on which
the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.

Double space
ISSUE (3)
In an attempt to exclude the DNA evidence, the 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 Secs. 12 and 17
of Art. III of the Constitution.

Is the contention of appellant tenable?

HELD: NO.
The kernel of the 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.
We ruled in People v. Rondero that although accused-appellant insisted that hair samples were forcibly taken from him and
submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for forensic examination, the hair samples may be admitted in evidence
against him, for what is proscribed is the use of testimonial compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature acquired from
the accused under duress.

Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA, as there is no
testimonial compulsion involved. Under People v. Gallarde, where immediately after the incident, the police authorities took
pictures of the accused without the presence of counsel, we ruled that there was no violation of the right against self-
incrimination. The accused may be compelled to submit to a physical examination to determine his involvement in an offense
of which he is accused.
 Estate of Ong v. Diaz

Facts:

Minor Joanne Diaz, represented by her mother Jinky Diaz filed a complaint for compulsory recognition with prayer for support
against Rogelio Ong before RTC

February 1993: Jinky married Japanese Hasegawa Katsu

November 1993: Jinky and Rogelio got acquainted and fell in love

January 1994-September 1998: Jinky and Rogelio cohabited

February 1998: Joanne was born, Rogelio paid all expenses, recognized child as his

September 1998: Rogelio abandoned them and stopped giving support, alleging tha the is not the father of the child

RTC ordered defendant to recognize plaintiff as natural child and provide monthly support

RTC granted Rogelio’s Motion for New Trial (because he was declared in default before)

RTC declared Joanne to be the illegitimate child of Rogelio Ong with Jinky Diaz. Support tocontinue until she reaches majority
age.

Rogelio appealed to CA but he died in February 2005 during its pendency

December 2000: CA granted appeal and remanded case to RTC for the issuance of an orderdirecting the parties to make
arrangements for DNA analysis for the purpose of determiningthe paternity of Joanne

Issue:

WoN CA erred in remanding the case for DNA analysis despite the fact that it is no longer feasible due to Rogelio’s death

Held:

No, the death of the petitioner does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for as long as there exist appropriate
biological samples of his DNA/ Even if Rogelio already died, any of his biological samples may be used for DNA testing
“Biological sample” means any organic material originating from a person’s body, even if found in inanimate objects, that is
susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva,and other body fluids, tissues, hairs, and bones.

Death of Rogelio cannot bar the conduct of DNA testing. According to jurisprudence, DNA testing, which examines genetic
codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child andany physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to.
(People v. Umanito, citingTecson v. COMELEC)Petition denied for lack of merit. CA decision is affirmed

NOVER BRYAN SALVADOR y DE LEON - versus - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

Spouses Ernesto and Margarita Zuiga had three daughters, namely: Marianne, Mary Ann and the victim Arlene. Mary Ann was
married to the petitioner herein. The Zuiga family, including Mary Ann and the petitioner were living together at 550 Coloong
I, Valenzuela City. Their residence had three bedrooms one for the Zuiga spouses; the other for Marianne and Arlene; and the
last for Mary Ann and the petitioner.On September 20, 1997, the Zuiga spouses, together with Marianne, went to Bulacan to
attend the wake of Ernestos mother; while Mary Ann with her new born child, and Arlene, stayed at their Valenzuela
home. Petitioner, at that time, asked permission to attend a birthday party.At about 9:00 in the evening, petitioner,
accompanied by Eduardo Palomares, returned home to get some karaoke tapes to be used at the birthday party. They
thereafter went back to the party and stayed there until 12 midnight before heading back home.
At 4:30 in the morning, the following day, the Zuiga spouses and Marianne arrived home. They opened the main door which
was then locked. After preparing for sleep, Marianne proceeded to the room which she was sharing with Arlene. There she saw
Arlene, who suffered stab wounds, already dead. After seeing Arlenes body, the Zuiga spouses rushed to the room of Mary Ann
and the petitioner. While Mary Ann proceeded to Arlenes room, petitioner stayed at the sala and cried. He was later seen
embracing Mary Ann and telling her that he was innocent.

At around 5:00 in the morning, police investigators arrived. The police found no forcible entry into the house; no valuables were
missing; and no bloodstains in other parts of the house except Arlenes room. They likewise discovered, on top of the kitchen
table, petitioners underwear (briefs), gray t-shirt and short pants. They further found hair strands on Arlenes bed. These pieces
of evidence were brought to the laboratory for examination.The NBI Forensic Biologist also examined petitioners briefs, t-shirt
and short pants, and found that the briefs and shirt were positive of type O human blood, Arlenes blood type.

Petitioner was thus charged with Homicide in an Information. The aforementioned facts were established during the
prosecutions presentation of evidence. It was further testified to by the witnesses that petitioner owned a knife otherwise
known as balisong, which he usually brought every time he went out. Ill motive was shown by petitioners previous act of
peeping through the bathroom and Arlenes room on two occasions while she was taking a bath and while she was inside the
room with Marianne.For his part, all that the petitioner could offer was bare denial of the accusations against him.The RTC
rendered a Decision finding the petitioner guilty of homicide. The RTC considered the following circumstantial evidence
sufficient to establish petitioners. On appeal, the CA affirmed petitioners conviction.

ISSUE: WON DNA MAYBE USED TO PROVE THE SUSPECTS GUILT.

RULING:

As to petitioners shirt and briefs, as correctly held by the trial court (and as affirmed by the appellate court), they were found to
be stained with type O blood (the victims blood type). Instead of questioning the absence of proof that he was not of the same
blood type as the victim, petitioner should have presented evidence that he indeed has type O blood. The fact remains that
petitioner offered no explanation why his shirt and briefs contained bloodstains. It is, therefore, correct to conclude that they
were stained with the victims blood.

Moreover, the absence of scratches and bruises on petitioners body parts does not negate the trial courts conclusion that the
victim had the chance to struggle with the petitioner. This is so because, at the time the petitioner attacked the victim
between 1:00 and 4:00 in the morning, she was most likely asleep and was only awakened by the petitioner; she was,
therefore, not in a position to offer strong resistance. This explains why such struggle produced no bruises and scratches.

The presence of petitioners wife inside the house at that time does not likewise negate the commission of the
crime. Considering that his wife was a nursing mother who definitely had sleepless nights, she could not be expected to be
conscious of everything that happened outside her room.

More importantly, intent to kill was duly established by the witnesses when they testified relative to the peeping
incident. Although there was no evidence or allegation of sexual advances, such incident manifested petitioners evil motive. It is
a rule in criminal law that motive, being a state of mind, is established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or statements
of the accused before or immediately after the commission of the offense, deeds or words that may express it or from which
his motive or reason for committing it may be inferred. Motive and intent may be considered one and the same, in some
instances, as in the present case.

Lastly, the DNA analysis made by the NBI expert placed the petitioner at the scene of the crime. Such evidence was considered,
together with the other circumstances discussed earlier. The individual pieces of evidence may not be sufficient to point to the
accused as the author of the crime. However, when taken together, they are more than enough to establish beyond reasonable
doubt that petitioner committed the crime of homicide. We would like to emphasize at this point that the peculiarity of
circumstantial evidence is that the guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one particular piece of
evidence. It is more like a puzzle which, when put together, reveals a remarkable picture pointing towards the conclusion that
the accused is the author of the crime.

The prosecutions evidence, especially the testimonies of the witnesses who happen to be the victims relatives, was not
weakened by the fact of such relationship. The Court notes that petitioner himself is a relative of the witnesses, albeit by
affinity, being the husband of the victims sister. It is unnatural for a relative, who is interested in vindicating the crime, to
accuse somebody else other than the real culprit. For her/him to do so is to let the guilty go free. Where there is nothing to
indicate that witnesses were actuated by improper motives on the witness stand, their positive declarations made under
solemn oath deserve full faith and credence.

We also reiterate the well-settled rule that this Court accords great weight and a high degree of respect to factual findings of
the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, as in the present case. Here, the RTC was unequivocally upheld by the CA,
which was clothed with the power to review whether the trial courts conclusions were in accord with the facts and the relevant
laws. The credibility given by the trial courts to prosecution witnesses is an important aspect of evidence which appellate courts
can rely on, because of the trial courts unique opportunity to observe the witnesses, particularly their demeanor, conduct, and
attitude, during the direct and cross-examination by counsels.

People v. Rufino Umanito

FACTS

Around 9PM, private complainant AAA was accosted by a young male (whom she later knew as Umanito). He waited for her by
the creek, and he pointed as knife at her abdomen. He dragged her into the Home Economics Building of Daramuangan
Elementary School. He undressed her while still holding the knife. He set her down on a bench, put down the knife, and had sex
with her. He dressed up and threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. Six months later, AAA ’ s mother noticed the
prominence on her stomach, and it was then that she divulged to her mother the alleged rape. Her mother brought her to the
police station. (Umanito’ s alibi: He was at home all day. Re: AAA, he admitted that he courted her but she spurned him. He
conjectured that she had a crush on him since she frequently visited him.)

RTC rendered judgment against Umanito and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua. Umanito ’s appeal was
transferred to the CA for intermediate review (as per Mateo ruling), and CA affirmed RTC. Umanito seeks acquittal on
reasonable doubt, with the belated filing of the case and AAA ’ s questionable credibility as grounds. He also said that AAA filed
the complaint only upon her mother ’s insistence; this supports his claim that AAA had sex with another (a married man). Also,
he claimed that there were several inconsistencies in her assertions.

CASE IS REMANDED TO THE RTC FOR RECEPTION OF DNA EVIDENCE

RATIO

The fact that AAA bore a child because of the purported rape may provide the definitive key to Umanito ’ s absolution, since it
can now be determined with reasonable certainty WON he is the father of her child. AAA and her child are directed to submit
themselves to DNA testing under the aegis of the New Rule on DNA Evidence (AM No. 06-11-5-SC) which took effect on 15 Oct
2007 (a few days before promulgation of this case).

DNA print / identification technology is now recognized as a uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to
absolve one erroneously accused, where biological evidence is available. The groundwork for acknowledging the strong weight
of DNA testing was first laid out in Tijing v. CA . Herrera v. Alba discussed DNA analysis as evidence and traced the development
of its admissibility in our jurisdiction. Tecson v. COMELEC said that in case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to
establish, DNA testing could be resorted to.

The determination of WON Umanito is the father (through DNA testing) is material to the fair and correct adjudication of
his appeal. Under Sec. 4 of AM No. 06-11-5-SC, the courts are authorized, after due hearing and notice, motu proprio to order a
DNA testing. However, since SC is not a trier of facts, it would be more appropriate that the case be remanded to RTC for
reception of evidence.

The hearing should be confined to ascertaining the feasibility of DNA testing with due regard to the standards set. RTC should
order the DNA testing if it finds it to be feasible in this case. RTC shall determine the institution to undertake the testing, and
the parties are free to manifest their comments on the choice. After the DNA analysis is obtained, it shall be incumbent upon
the parties who wish to avail of the same to offer the results in accordance with the rules of evidence, which shall be assessed
by RTC in keeping with Sections 7 (Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence) and 8 (Reliability of DNA testing
methodology). RTC is also enjoined to observe confidentiality and preservation of DNA evidence.

To facilitate the execution of this resolution, although the parties are primarily bound to bear the expenses for DNA
testing, such costs may be advanced by SC if needed.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, versus ALFREDO PASCUAL Y ILDEFONSO,

FACTS: The conviction of accused-appellant stemmed from an Amended Information dated February 23, 2001, filed with the
RTC for the crime designated as Rape with Homicide and Robbery. During trial, the defense presentedas witness, Aida Viloria-
Magsipoc, forensic chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

Said witness testified on the result of the DNA analysis which she conducted on the specimens submitted by the trial court
consisting of the victim's vaginal smear and panty. According to her, no DNA sample from the suspect was present on the
aforesaid specimens.[8] On cross-examination, she declared that based on DNA testing, she could not determine if a woman
was raped or not. She further declared that in this case, it was possible that the stained vaginal smear prevented a complete
and good result for the DNA profiling. Upon being questioned by the court, the forensic chemist confirmed that DNA testing on
the subject specimens was inconclusive and that the result was not good, as the specimens submitted, i.e., the stained vaginal
smear and the dirty white panty, had already undergone serological analysis.[9]

The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the trial court's decision. Hence, accused-appellant seeks for a final review of
his case and makes much of the result of the DNA analysis conducted by the NBI that his profile was not in the victim's vaginal
smear. As such, he argues he is innocent of the crime charged.

ISSUE: Does the result of the DNA examination entitle the accused-appellant to an acquittal?

RULING: In People v Yatar, the Supreme Court held that in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should
consider, inter alia, the following factors: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of
contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures
were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.[39]

In the case at bar, while the DNA analysis of the victim's vaginal smear showed no complete profile of the accused-appellant,
the same is not conclusive considering that said specimen was already stained or contaminated which, according to the forensic
chemist, Aida Villoria-Magsipoc, deters a complete and good result for DNA profiling. She explained in her testimony that
generally, with the vaginal smear, they could see if there is a male profile in the smear. However in this case, when they
received the vaginal smear on the stained slide, the same had already undergone serological analysis. Hence, according to the
chemist, the DNA testing conducted on the specimen subject of this case was inconclusive.[40] In light of this flawed procedure,
we hold that the result of the DNA examination does not entitle accused-appellant to an acquittal.

ANTONIO LEJANO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES/

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HUBERT JEFFREY P. WEBB ET. AL, G.R. No. 176864. Dec. 14, 2010

Facts:

On June 30, 1991 Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela, nineteen years old, and xxx, seven, were brutally slain at their
home in Parañaque City. Following an intense investigation, the police arrested a group of suspects, some of whom gave
detailed confessions. But the trial court smelled a frame-up and eventually ordered them discharged. Thus, the identities of the
real perpetrators remained a mystery especially to the public whose interests were aroused by the gripping details of what
everybody referred to as the Vizconde massacre.

Four years later in 1995, the National Bureau of Investigation or NBI announced that it had solved the crime. It presented star-
witness Jessica M. Alfaro, one of its informers, who claimed that she witnessed the crime. She pointed to accused Hubert
Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio "Tony Boy" Lejano, Artemio "Dong" Ventura, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio "Pyke" Fernandez, Peter
Estrada, Miguel "Ging" Rodriguez, and Joey Filart as the culprits. She also tagged accused police officer, Gerardo Biong, as an
accessory after the fact. Relying primarily on Alfaro's testimony, on August 10, 1995 the public prosecutors filed an information
for rape with homicide against Webb, et al.

The Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, presided over by Judge Amelita G. Tolentino, tried only seven of the accused since
Artemio Ventura and Joey Filart remained at large.

The prosecution presented Alfaro as its main witness with the others corroborating her testimony. These included the medico-
legal officer who autopsied the bodies of the victims, the security guards of Pitong Daan Subdivision, the former laundrywoman
of the Webb’s household, police officer Biong’s former girlfriend, and Lauro G. Vizconde, Estrellita’s husband.
Webb’s alibi appeared the strongest since he claimed that he was then across the ocean in the United States of America. He
presented the testimonies of witnesses as well as documentary and object evidence to prove this. In addition, the defense
presented witnesses to show Alfaro's bad reputation for truth and the incredible nature of her testimony.

But impressed by Alfaro’s detailed narration of the crime and the events surrounding it, the trial court found a credible witness
in her. It noted her categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank testimony, undamaged by grueling cross-examinations.

On January 4, 2000, after four years of arduous hearings, the trial court rendered judgment, finding all the accused guilty as
charged and imposing on Webb, Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, and Rodriguez the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
on Biong, an indeterminate prison term of eleven years, four months, and one day to twelve years. The trial court also awarded
damages to Lauro Vizconde.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, modifying the penalty imposed on Biong to six years
minimum and twelve years maximum and increasing the award of damages to Lauro Vizconde.

The appellate court did not agree that the accused were tried by publicity or that the trial judge was biased. It found sufficient
evidence of conspiracy that rendered Rodriguez, Gatchalian, Fernandez, and Estrada equally guilty with those who had a part in
raping and killing Carmela and in executing her mother and sister.

On April 20, 2010, as a result of its initial deliberation in this case, the Court issued a Resolution granting the request of Webb
to submit for DNA analysis the semen specimen taken from Carmela’s cadaver, which specimen was then believed still under
the safekeeping of the NBI.

The Court granted the request pursuant to section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence to give the accused and the prosecution
access to scientific evidence that they might want to avail themselves of, leading to a correct decision in the case.

Unfortunately, on April 27, 2010 the NBI informed the Court that it no longer has custody of the specimen, the same having
been turned over to the trial court. The trial record shows, however, that the specimen was not among the object evidence that
the prosecution offered in evidence in the case.

This outcome prompted accused Webb to file an urgent motion to acquit on the ground that the government’s failure to
preserve such vital evidence has resulted in the denial of his right to due process.

Controlling Issues:

1. Whether or not Alfaro’s testimony as eyewitness, describing the crime and identifying Webb, Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez,
Estrada, Rodriguez, and two others as the persons who committed it, is entitled to belief; and

2. Whether or not Webb presented sufficient evidence to prove his alibi and rebut Alfaro’s testimony that he led the others in
committing the crime.

Other Issues:

1. Whether or not the Court should acquit him outright, given the government’s failure to produce the semen specimen that
the NBI found on Carmela’s cadaver, thus depriving him of evidence that would prove his innocence; and

2. Whether or not Webb, acting in conspiracy with Lejano, Gatchalian, Fernandez, Estrada, Rodriguez, Ventura, and Filart, raped
and killed Carmela and put to death her mother and sister.

Held:

The Right to Acquittal Due to Loss of DNA Evidence

Webb claims, citing Brady v. Maryland, that he is entitled to outright acquittal on the ground of violation of his right to due
process given the State’s failure to produce on order of the Court either by negligence or willful suppression the semen
specimen taken from Carmela.

When Webb raised the DNA issue, the rule governing DNA evidence did not yet exist, the country did not yet have the
technology for conducting the test, and no Philippine precedent had as yet recognized its admissibility as evidence.

Consequently, the idea of keeping the specimen secure even after the trial court rejected the motion for DNA testing did not
come up. Indeed, neither Webb nor his co-accused brought up the matter of preserving the specimen in the meantime.

Parenthetically, after the trial court denied Webb’s application for DNA testing, he allowed the proceeding to move on when he
had on at least two occasions gone up to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to challenge alleged arbitrary actions taken
against him and the other accused.

They raised the DNA issue before the Court of Appeals but merely as an error committed by the trial court in rendering its
decision in the case. None of the accused filed a motion with the appeals court to have the DNA test done pending adjudication
of their appeal. This, even when the Supreme Court had in the meantime passed the rules allowing such test. Considering the
accused’s lack of interest in having such test done, the State cannot be deemed put on reasonable notice that it would be
required to produce the semen specimen at some future time.

Suspicious Details

Alfaro had been hanging around at the NBI since November or December 1994 as an "asset." She supplied her handlers with
information against drug pushers and other criminal elements. Some of this information led to the capture of notorious drug
pushers like Christopher Cruz Santos and Orlando Bacquir. Alfaro’s tip led to the arrest of the leader of the "Martilyo gang" that
killed a police officer. Because of her talent, the task force gave her "very special treatment" and she became its "darling,"
allowed the privilege of spending nights in one of the rooms at the NBI offices.

When Alfaro seemed unproductive for sometime, however, they teased her about it and she was piqued. One day, she
unexpectedly told Sacaguing that she knew someone who had the real story behind the Vizconde massacre. Sacaguing showed
interest. Alfaro promised to bring that someone to the NBI to tell his story. When this did not happen and Sacaguing continued
to press her, she told him that she might as well assume the role of her informant.

Webb’s U.S. Alibi

Among the accused, Webb presented the strongest alibi through (a) the travel preparations; (b) the two immigration checks; (c)
details of US sojourn; (d) the second immigration check; and (e) alibi versus positive identification; and (f) a documented alibi.

To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence that (a) he was present at another place
at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals expressed marked cynicism over the accuracy of travel documents like the passport as
well as the domestic and foreign records of departures and arrivals from airports. They claim that it would not have been
impossible for Webb to secretly return to the Philippines after he supposedly left it on March 9, 1991, commit the crime, go
back to the U.S., and openly return to the Philippines again on October 26, 1992. Travel between the U.S. and the Philippines,
said the lower courts took only about twelve to fourteen hours.

Effect of Webb’s alibi to others

Webb’s documented alibi altogether impeaches Alfaro's testimony, not only with respect to him, but also with respect to
Lejano, Estrada, Fernandez, Gatchalian, Rodriguez, and Biong. For, if the Court accepts the proposition that Webb was in the
U.S. when the crime took place, Alfaro’s testimony will not hold together. Webb’s participation is the anchor of Alfaro’s story.
Without it, the evidence against the others must necessarily fall.

Conclusion

In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains doubts about the innocence of the
accused since an open mind is willing to explore all possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his
guilt. For, it would be a serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on to one’s inner being,
like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth.

Will the Court send the accused to spend the rest of their lives in prison on the testimony of an NBI asset who proposed to her
handlers that she take the role of the witness to the Vizconde massacre that she could not produce?

The Supreme Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated December 15, 2005 and Resolution dated January 26, 2007 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00336 and ACQUITS accused-appellants Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano,
Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong of the crimes of which they
were charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately
RELEASED from detention unless they are confined for another lawful cause.

JESSE U. LUCAS, vs. JESUS S. LUCAS,

FACTS: Petitioner, Jesse U. Lucas, filed a Petition to Establish Illegitimate Filiation (with Motion for the Submission of Parties to
DNA Testing)2 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, Valenzuela City. The RTC, finding the petition to be sufficient in
form and substance, issued the Order3 setting the case for hearing and urging anyone who has any objection to the petition to
file his opposition. After learning of the September 3, 2007 Order, respondent Jesus Lucas filed a motion for
reconsideration. Respondent argued that DNA testing cannot be had on the basis of a mere allegation pointing to respondent
as petitioner's father. Moreover, jurisprudence is still unsettled on the acceptability of DNA evidence.

The court dismissed respondent's arguments that there is no basis for the taking of DNA test, and that jurisprudence is still
unsettled on the acceptability of DNA evidence. It noted that the new Rule on DNA Evidence11 allows the conduct of DNA
testing, whether at the court's instance or upon application of any person who has legal interest in the matter in litigation.

ISSUE: Is a prima facie showing necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing order?

RULING: 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 (i.e., the
proper procedures, protocols, necessary laboratory reports, etc.), 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." It seeks "to ensure that the evidence
gathered, using various methods of DNA analysis, is utilized effectively and properly, [and] shall not be misused and/or abused
and, more importantly, shall continue to ensure that DNA analysis serves justice and protects, rather than prejudice the
public."35

As a preliminary matter, before the court may issue an order for compulsory blood testing, the moving party must show that
there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the
action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing must be held in which the court can determine
whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case which warrants issuance of a court order for blood testing.37
This condition precedent should be applied to protect the putative father from mere harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing
on the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of
paternity.

Notwithstanding these, 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.