1

CALIDA, MANIGBAS, QUE, ROQUE, VILLARIN | GROUP 7

JUDGE BONIFACIO | EVIDENCE
DIGEST OF THE DIGEST
OPINION RULE
(RULE 130, SECS. 48-50)
DILAG & CO. V. MERCED : Dilag fled a case
against Merced for the theft of his truck.
Merced claimed that he purchased the truck in
good faith and he relied on his certifed copy
of the certifcate of registration. Merced
impugns the testimony of Aguilar, (as a
witness to testify on the alleged tampering of
the motor number), on the ground that he is
not ualifed as e!pert on motor numbers.
DOCTRINE: "here is no precise reuirement as
to the mode in which skill or e!perience shall
ha#e been acuired. $cientifc study and
training are not always essential to the
competency of a witness as an e!pert. A
witness may be competent to testify as an
e!pert although his knowledge his knowledge
was acuired through the medium of practical
e!perience rather than scientifc study and
research.
UNITED STATES V. TRONO: "rono et al. were
accused of ill treatment of three persons
arrested, as a result of which one died.
Defense admits the fact of arrest but denies ill
treatment. Dr. %casiano testifed to the e&ect
that the deceased had not died due to wounds
but by hepatic colic, a disease su&ered by the
deceased for a long time.
DOCTRINE: 'ourts are not bound to submit to
e!pert testimony. "hey are free to weigh
them. "hey can gi#e or refuse to gi#e them
any #alue as poof or they can counterbalance
such e#idence with other elements of
con#iction which ha#e been adduced during
the trial.
PEOPLE V. ADOVISO : Ado#iso was charged
with double murder. (e o&ered in e#idence
the testimony a )*% polygraph e!aminer who
conducted a test on him. "he e!aminer+s
report re#ealed that ,there were no specifc
reactions indicati#e of deception to pertinent
uestions rele#ant to the in#estigation of the
crime.-
DOCTRINE: 'ourts are not bound to submit to
e!pert testimony. .aith and credit must not be
#ested upon the lie detector test, which is not
conclusi#e as the polygraph has not yet
attained scientifc acceptance as a reliable
and accurate means of ascertaining truth or
deception.
PEOPLE V. VALLEJO : /alle0o was charged with
rape with homicide. "he prosecution
submitted D)A e#idence gathered from the
body of the #ictim which matched the D)A
profle of /alle0o. (e assailed the D)A
analysis, claiming that it failed to show that
the samples submitted for D)A testing were
not contaminated after ha#ing been soaked in
smirchy water before being submitted to the
laboratory.
DOCTRINE: %n assessing the probati#e #alue
of D)A e#idence, courts should consider,
among other things, the following data1 how
the samples were collected, how they were
handled, the possibility of contamination of
the samples, the procedure followed in
analy2ing the samples, whether the proper
standards and procedures were followed in
conducting the tests, and the ualifcation of
the analyst who conducted the tests.
STATE V. GARVER : 3ar#er et al. robbed and
shot a person. (e set up the defense of
insanity. 3ar#er+s mother related to the 0ury
the history of her son+s insanity. "he court
re0ected the phrases ,such a terrible shape-
and ,physically ill- used in her testimony on
the theory that they were mere opinions or
conclusions of the witness.
DOCTRINE: "he general rule is that a witness
may testify only to facts and not to opinions or
conclusions. *ut lay witnesses are freuently
permitted to use the so4called ,short4hand-
descriptions, in reality opinions, in presenting
to the court their impression of the general
physical condition of a person.
UNITED STATES V. STIFEL : $tifel allegedly
murdered a person by sending him an
e!ploding package consisting of a mailing
tube with a screw4on top. "he e!pert
testimony of a chemist and microanalyst
indicated the materials used for the bomb
were found to be microscopically identical to
the materials which were in the stocky room
where $tifel worked. "he e!pert testimony
was assailed on the ground that the test was
too new and unreliable and had not yet been
accepted by scientists in its particular feld.
DOCTRINE: 5n uestions of science, skill or
trade or others of the like kind, persons of skill
or e!perts may not only testify to facts, but
are permitted to gi#e their opinion in
e#idence.
DAUBERT V. MERRELL : "wo minor children
with serious birth defects, along with their
parents alleged in their suit against
respondent that the children+s birth defects
had been caused by the mothers+ prenatal
ingestion of a prescription drug marketed by
respondent.
DOCTRINE: $cientifc e#idence is admissible if
supported by sound methodology. "he trial
0udge discharges his or her responsibility by
acting as a gate4keeper, and admitting such
e#idence as is supported by sound
methodological principles, while e!cluding
that built upon speculation and con0ecture.
"his permissi#e rule honors one of the central
tenets of the .ederal 6ules of 7#idence by
fa#oring admissibility of all potentially
rele#ant e#idence.
8
CALIDA, MANIGBAS, QUE, ROQUE, VILLARIN | GROUP 7
JUDGE BONIFACIO | EVIDENCE
UNITED STATES V. BONDS: (artlaub was
gunned down in his #an. *onds et al. were
con#icted of conspiracy and federal frearms
o&enses. "he gun used in the shooting and
(artlaub+s #an were found abandoned behind
a hotel, both spattered with blood. $erology
tests showed that the blood matched those
found in *onds+ blood.
DOCTRINE: D)A tests meet the e!pert
testimony reuirement. $cientifc e#idence is
admissible if it is both rele#ant and reliable.
"he following is a non4e!clusi#e list of factors1
(1) whether a theory or techniue can be
tested, (8) whether the theory or techniue
has been sub0ected to peer re#iew and
publication, (9) the known or potential rate of
error in using a particular scientifc techniue
and the e!istence and maintenance of
standards controlling the techniue+s
operation an (:) whether the theory or
techniue has been generally accepted in the
particular scientifc feld.
JIMENEZ V. COMMISSION : "he lot was
donated by the 'ommission to the ;nited
'hurch, as e#idenced by a "'" and a Deed of
Donation. <imene2 claims that their parents
ne#er sold the lot to the 'ommission and
;nited 'hurch and that the purported
signatures of their parents ha#e been found to
be forgeries by go#ernment handwriting
e!perts.
DOCTRINE: 5pinions of handwriting e!perts
are not binding upon courts. A fnding of
forgery does not depend entirely on the
testimonies of handwriting e!perts, because
the 0udge must conduct an independent
e!amination of the uestioned signature in
order to arri#e at a reasonable conclusion as
to its authenticity. 6esort to these e!perts is
not mandatory or indispensable to the
e!amination or the comparison of
handwriting.
PEOPLE V. PRECIADOS : "he accused were
claimed by the wife of the #ictim to ha#e
conspired and murdered her husband by
forcing him to drink insecticide. %n an a=da#it,
she alleged that by peeping through a two4
inch hole in the 8
nd
>oor of an old rice mill, she
saw the appellant holding a hand grenade
while his other arm was locked in a
stranglehold around the neck of the other
#ictim who knelt on the >oor.
DOCTRINE: An a=da#it does not pro#e the
truthfulness of the allegations made and
contained therein. "he testimony of its single
purported eyewitness, while positi#e, was less
than credible. $uch testimony of the lone
witness did not meet the test to sustain a
0udgment of con#iction which must be both
positi#e and credible.
PEOPLE V. DURANAN : A retard accused
Duranan of raped her twice. Duranan posited
that the retard+s mental age was not pro#en.
;nder the 6?', an essential element for the
prosecution for rape of a mental retardate is a
psychiatric e#aluation of the complainant+s
mental age to determine if her mental age is
under twel#e.
DOCTRINE: %t is competent for the ordinary
witness to gi#e his opinion as to the sanity or
mental condition of a person, pro#ided the
witness has had su=cient opportunity to
obser#e the speech, manner, habits, and
conduct of the person in uestion. "herefore,
the mother of the rape #ictim, though not a
psychiatrist, if she knows the physical and
mental condition of the party, how she was
born, what she is su&ering from, and what her
attainments are, is competent to testify on the
matter.
BURDEN OF PROOF & PRESUMPTIONS
(RULE 131, SECS. 1-4)
CIIL C!SES
PORENELLOSA V. LTA: ?ornellosa bought a
portion of the $anta 'lara 7state. After @
installments, the go#ernment refused to
accept further payments. ?ornellosa found out
that the lot had been subdi#ided into two
smaller lots.

DOCTRINE: A party claiming a right granted or
created by law must pro#e his claim by
competent e#idence. (e is duty4bound to
pro#e his allegations in the complaint and
must rely on the strength of his e#idence and
not on the weakness of that of his opponent.
.urthermore, the law reuires that such
transmission of real rights must be embodied
in a public document.
IFC V. TOBIAS: "obias bought on installment
a Dodge truck. (e e!ecuted a promissory note
which is secured by a chattel mortgage on the
dodge truck. "he seller indorsed the
promissory note to %.'. %.' demanded
payment of the balance or to surrender the
dodge truck. "obias replied that he will
surrender the truck because it met an
accident and there was too much delay in the
repair. %.' alleged that it had no knowledge of
the accident and decided not to get the truck
anymore.
DOCTRINE: "he allegation of %.' is a negati#e
allegation and needs no e#idence to support
it, not being an essential part of the statement
of the right on which the cause of action is
founded.
CRIMIN!L C!SES
PEOPLE V. PAJENADO: ?a0enado shot a
person and was con#icted for his murder and
for illegal possession of a frearm.
HELD: %n criminal cases, the burden of proof
as to the o&ense charged lies on the
9
CALIDA, MANIGBAS, QUE, ROQUE, VILLARIN | GROUP 7
JUDGE BONIFACIO | EVIDENCE
prosecution and that a negati#e fact alleged
by the prosecution must be pro#en if ,it is an
essential ingredient of the o&ense charged.-
"he mere fact that the ad#erse party has the
control of the better means of proof of the fact
alleged should not relie#e the party making
the a#erment of the burden of pro#ing it. A
party who alleges a fact must be assumed to
ha#e acuired some knowledge thereofA
otherwise, he could not ha#e alleged the
same.
UNITED STATES V. DUBE: Dube was tried on
an indictment charging him with robbery of a
bank. (e did not deny that he committed the
robbery, but introduced the testimony of a
psychiatrist and a psychologist that he was a
schi2ophrenic when he committed the o&ense.
"he prosecution did not present e!pert
opinion e#idence but relied instead on cross4
e!amination and the lay testimony of two
bank tellers and Dube+s accomplice.
HELD: A criminal defendant is presumed sane,
but the introduction of e#idence of insanity
dispels the presumption and sub0ects the
prosecution to the burden of pro#ing sanity
beyond a reasonable doubt. "he e!pert
testimony is not conclusi#e e#en where
uncontradicted.
PEOPLE V. VERZOLA: /er2ola clubbed to
*ernardo in the presence of <osefna. (is body
was carried and left at the foot of the stairs of
his house. /er2ola changed his clothes and
went to the municipal building and reported to
the police authorities that *ernardo had died
in an accident. <osefna ga#e a written
statement pointing to /er2ola as the assailant
of *ernardo. /er2ola e!ecuted a written
statement admitting that he clubbed *ernardo
se#eral times. *oth /er2ola and <osefna
repudiated their e!tra0udicial confessions.
/er2ola claims that he killed *ernardo in self4
defense.
DOCTRINE: )o such proof of self defense was
adduced. 5nce an accused has admitted the
killing of a human being, the burden is on him
to establish the e!istence of any circumstance
which may 0ustify the killing or at least
attenuate the o&ense committed. "o establish
his e!culpation, or the 0ustifcation for the act,
he must pro#e such a=rmati#e allegation by
clear, satisfactory and con#incing e#idence.
PATTERSON V. NEW YORK: ?atterson
became estranged from his wife, 6oberta. "he
latter was ha#ing an a&air with )orthrup.
?atterson borrowed a ri>e and went to the
residence of his father4in4law where he saw
6oberta in a state of semi4undress in the
presence of )orthrup. (e killed )orthrup by
shooting him twice in the head. %n )ew Bork,
the $tate permits a person accused of murder
to raise an a=rmati#e defense that he ,acted
under the in>uence of e!treme emotional
disturbance for which there was a reasonable
e!planation or e!cuse.-
DOCTRINE: A=rmati#e defenses constitute a
separate issue that the defendant is reuired
to carry the burden of persuasion. "he $tate
need only pro#e the e!istence of the elements
constituting the o&ense beyond reasonable
doubt. Due process reuires that only the
most basic procedural safeguards be
obser#ed. "he state is only reuired to pro#e
beyond reasonable doubt all the elements
included in the defnition of the o&ense
charged. ?roof of the e!istence or
none!istence of a=rmati#e defenses is not
constitutionally reuired.
VERGARA V. PEOPLE: ?erpetual e!ecuted a
promissory note and issued postdated checks
corresponding to the amount of the loan for
each a#ailment from the continuing credit line
granted to it by C%/7'56. /ergara issued one
of the checks in her capacity as ?resident and
3M of ?erpetual. "he check was dishonored
for insu=ciency of funds. C%/7'56 #erbally
informed /ergara of the dishonor of the check.
DOCTRINE: ;nder the euipoise rule, where
the e#idence on an issue of fact is in euipoise
or there is doubt on which side the e#idence
preponderates, the party ha#ing the burden of
proof loses. %f the prosecution fails to
discharge its burden of pro#ing the
e#identiary facts that would establish the
prima facie presumption of knowledge of the
insu=ciency of funds the constitutional
presumption of innocence tilts in fa#or of the
accused. %n criminal cases, the prosecution+s
cases must rise and fall on the strength of its
own e#idence, ne#er on the weakness of the
defense.
PEOPLE V. MADERA: Madera was charged of
two counts of rape. Madera did not present
other e#idence other than his sole testimony.
Madera argued that he could not ha#e raped
the #ictim since his wife and her siblings were
still awake and they were aware that he called
her to massage him. "he #ictim identifed
Madera as the accused by pointing to him
during which she was crying.
DOCTRINE: Dhen the issue in#ol#es the
credibility of a witness, the trial court+s
assessment is entitled to great weight, e#en
fnality, unless it is shown that it was tainted
with arbitrariness or there was an o#ersight of
some fact or circumstance of weight and
in>uence. "he trial court has the uniue
opportunity to obser#e the witness frsthand
and note his or her demeanor and manner of
testifying.
PEOPLE V. TAMPOS: "he rape #ictim testifed
that "ampos+ penis did not penetrate her
organ. 5n re4direct, howe#er, she said that
there was actual contact of the penis and her
#agina. Dhen asked to point to the part of her
body that was touched by the penis,
complainant pointed to a part a little abo#e
:
CALIDA, MANIGBAS, QUE, ROQUE, VILLARIN | GROUP 7
JUDGE BONIFACIO | EVIDENCE
the #agina. "he #ictim clarifed that "ampos+
organ did not ,pass- her #agina but only its
lower portion. $he stated that it was ,not on
the middle but on the lower portion- or on the
lower tip of the #agina.
DOCTRINE: $light penetration of the labia by
the male organ still constitutes rape. %t is
su=cient that there be entrance of the male
organ within the labia of the pudendum.
Absence of hymenal laceration does not
dispro#e se!ual abuse especially when the
#ictim is of tender age. Mere touching, no
matter how slight, of the labia or lips of the
female organ by the male genital, e#en
without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is
su=cient to consummate rape. 6upture of the
hymen or #aginal lacerations are not
necessary for rape to be consummated. An
intact hymen does not negate a fnding that
the #ictim was raped. "o commit the crime of
rape the rupture of the hymen is not
indispensable.
PEOPLE V. CUADRO: 'omplainant alleged on
the witness stand that 'uadro, her step4
father, on f#e occasions, had se!ual
intercourse with her by inserting his penis in
her #agina. 'uadro denied the rape charges.
"he defense insisted that the complainantEs
grandmother helped the #ictim fle this rape
case in order to force him and his common4
law wife to separate.
DOCTRINE: "he #ictimEs actuation+s after the
rape and her testimony during trial bear the
earmarks of a credible witness. "he conduct of
the #ictim immediately following the alleged
assault is of utmost importance in establishing
the truth or falsify of the charge. %n rape
cases, the accused may be con#icted solely
on the testimony of the #ictim, pro#ided such
testimony is credible, natural, con#incing and
consistent with human nature and the normal
course of things. Alibi is an inherently weak
defense whose #alue loses a lot when time
and distance do not make the imputed o&ense
impossible of commission.
PEOPLE V. ACAAC: Aca4ac was charged of
rape. (e contends that the way complainant
narrated the details of how she was allegedly
raped is not the way an innocent child below
18 years of age testifes, but the way a
woman, who is worldly and e!perienced in
se!, will testify.
DOCTRINE: Dhere an alleged rape #ictim says
she was se!ually abused, she says almost all
that is necessary to show that rape had been
in>icted on her person, pro#ided her
testimony meets the test of credibility. Denial
cannot pre#ail o#er the positi#e identifcation
and categorical testimony of complainant. "he
rule is that between the positi#e declarations
of the prosecution witnesses and the negati#e
statements of the accused, the former
deser#es more credence.
PRESUMPTIONS
PASCUAL V. ANGELES: Angeles and Miguel
?ascual, in behalf of his sister 'iriaca ?ascual
entered into a lease agreement for a certain
parcel of land. After 'iriaca died, Miguel
inherited the same from her. Despite demands
and e!tensions, Angeles was still unable to
comply to pay his rent notwithstanding his
continued possession of the land. Angeles
denied specifcally under oath the
genuineness and due e!ecution of the lease
attached to the complaint.
DOCTRINE: "he tenant cannot deny the title
of his landlord at the time of the
commencement of the relation of landlord and
tenant between them. Moreo#er, the
presumption, therefore, is that the contract
was e!ecuted for a good and su=cient
consideration.
ORMAC!EA V. TRILLAMA: 5rmachea fled a
collection claim against "rillana that were
engaged in a business together with Cawa as
their managing agents. "rillana e!ecuted #ales
which stated that he owed the business. "he
business was dissol#ed. "rillana claimed that
he had already paid the debt after deli#ering
tuba to Cawa. (e presented a document
signed by Cawa stating that he had no more
debt to the partnership. "he document was
dated after the dissolution of the partnership.
DOCTRINE: Dhere the e#idence of
indebtedness is in the possession of the
creditor, it is presumed that the debt has not
been paid yet.
PEOPLE V. PADIERNOS: ?adiernos was
sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder
of her husband. $he claimed that he pushed
her against the wall and he reached under the
bed for his gun. $eeing this, she pulled a knife
from under the bed, closed her eyes, and
started slashing from side to side. )on4
presentation of the written statement of a
witness to the police ga#e rise to the
presumption that it ,contained declarations
disastrous to the prosecution case.-
DOCTRINE: "he presumption that suppressed
e#idence is unfa#orable does not apply where
the e#idence was at the disposal of both the
defense and the prosecution. Dhere the
defense fails to show their inability to acuire
and use for themsel#es e#idence allegedly
suppressed by the prosecution, the
presumption that the allegedly suppressed
e#idence is unfa#orable will not apply.
YEE !EM V. UNITED STATES: Bee (em was
arrested for possessing opium, in #iolation of
the Act of .ebruary F, 1FGF, which prohibits
importation and possession of opium, and
which pro#ides a presumption of guilt for mere
possession of said opium.
H
CALIDA, MANIGBAS, QUE, ROQUE, VILLARIN | GROUP 7
JUDGE BONIFACIO | EVIDENCE
DOCTRINE: "he presumption of guilt for mere
possession of opium is constitutional. %n order
that legislation presumption of one fact from
e#idence of another may not constitute a
denial of due process, it is only essential that
there shall be some rational connection
between the fact pro#ided and the ultimate
fact presumed, and that the inference of one
fact from proof of another shall not be
unreasonable as to be purely arbitrary
mandate.
COUNTY COURT V. ALLEN "hree adult
males and a si!teen year old female were
0ointly tried for possession of two loaded
handguns, a loaded machine gun, and o#er a
pound of heroin, all disco#ered by the police
after being stopped for speeding. A )ew Bork
statute pro#ides that, with certain e!ceptions,
the presence of a frearm in an automobile is
presumpti#e e#idence of its illegal possession
by all persons then occupying the #ehicle.
DOCTRINE: "he presumption of possession is
rational because of the e!istence of a ,rational
connection- between the basic facts that the
prosecution pro#ed and the ultimate fact
presumed.
SANDSTROM V. MONTANA: $andstrom, a
schi2ophrenic, was charged with ,deliberate
homicide- for purposely or knowingly causing
<essen+s death. "he defense howe#er held that
he was entitled to a lesser sentence since,
although he confessed to the crime, he did not
commit the act knowingly or purposely, as
pro#en by the testimonies of two mental
health e!perts. "he 0udge instructed the 0ury
that ,the law presumes that a person intends
the ordinary conseuences of his #oluntary
acts.-
DOCTRINE: %n a case in which intent is an
element of the crime charged, a 0ury
instruction to the e&ect that the ,law
presumes that a person intends the ordinary
conseuences of his #oluntary acts- #iolates
the due process reuirement that the state
pro#e e#ery element of a criminal o&ense
beyond a reasonable doubt, since the 0ury
might interpret the presumption as a
conclusi#e presumption.
PEOPLE V. CARINO: A bodyguard of Mayor
$anche2 was killed by an unknown assailant.
'ariIo et al. were men of Mayor $anche2.
"hey alighted from a 0eep and entered the
alley leading to the house. 'ariIo et al. shot
/alentin+s brother.
DOCTRINE: 6elationship, by itself, does not
gi#e rise to any presumption of bias or ulterior
moti#e, nor does it impair the credibility of
witnesses or tarnish their testimonies. "he
relationship of a witness to the #ictim would
e#en make his testimony more credible, it
being unnatural for a relati#e who is
interested in #indicating the crime charged
and prosecute another person other than the
real cuplrit. 6elati#es of #ictims of crimes ha#e
a natural knack for remembering the faces of
the assailants more than anybody else, and
would be concerned with obtaining 0ustice for
the #ictim by ha#ing the felon brought to
0ustice and meted the proper penalty. %n the
absence of any improper moti#e on the part of
the witness, his relationship to the #ictim
cannot impair the weight of his testimony.