Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT"


G.R. No. 150224 /42! SCRA 504 2004

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 and against her will and with
t h e u s e o f a bladed weapon stabbed the latter inflicting upon her fatal injuries resulting in her
untimely demise.
In t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , a p p e l l a n t r a i s e s t h e i s s u e o f c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s
S p e c i f i c a l l y 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.

ISSUE: 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.

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 the object of evidence., as 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 examinations the
hair samples may be admitted in evidence against him, for what is prescribed is the use of
testimonial compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature acquired from the accused
under duress prudence, a person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting and
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..

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen