342 SCRA 213 – Conflict of Laws – Private International Law – Proof of Foreign Law

In the Orinoco River in Venezuela, it is a rule that ships passing through it must be piloted by pilots familiar to the river.
Hence, in 1988 Captain Nicandro Colon, master of Philippine Roxas, a ship owned by Philippine President Lines, Inc.
(PPL), obtained the services of Ezzar Vasquez, a duly accredited pilot in Venezuela to pilot the ship in the Orinoco
River. Unfortunately, Philippine Roxas ran aground in the Orinoco River while being piloted by Vasquez. As a result,
the stranded ship blocked other vessels. One such vessel was owned Wildvalley Shipping Co., Ltd. (WSC). The
blockade caused $400k worth of losses to WSC as its ship was not able to make its delivery. Subsequently, WSC
sued PPL in the RTC of Manila. It averred that PPL is liable for the losses it incurred under the laws of Venezuela, to
wit: Reglamento General de la Ley de Pilotaje and Reglamento Para la Zona de Pilotaje No 1 del Orinoco. These two
laws provide that the master and owner of the ship is liable for the negligence of the pilot of the ship. Vasquez was
proven to be negligent when he failed to check on certain vibrations that the ship was experiencing while traversing
the river.
ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine President Lines, Inc. is liable under the said Venezuelan laws.
HELD: No. The two Venezuelan Laws were not duly proven as fact before the court. Only mere photocopies of the
laws were presented as evidence. For a copy of a foreign public document to be admissible, the following requisites
are mandatory:
(1) It must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy; and
(2) It must be accompanied by a certificate by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice
consular or consular agent or foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office.
And in case of unwritten foreign laws, the oral testimony of expert witnesses is admissible, as are printed and published
books of reports of decisions of the courts of the country concerned if proved to be commonly admitted in such courts.
Failure to prove the foreign laws gives rise to processual presumption where the foreign law is deemed to be the same
as Philippine laws. Under Philippine laws, PPL nor Captain Colon cannot be held liable for the negligence of Vasquez.
PPL and Colon had shown due diligence in selecting Vasquez to pilot the vessel. Vasquez is competent and was a
duly accredited pilot in Venezuela in good standing when he was engaged.
 Remedial Law – Evidence – DNA Evidence – Admissibility
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.
RAYMOND PE LIM, petitioner,

COURT OF APPEALS, JOANNA ROSE C. PE LIM, Minor represented by her Natural

Mother and Guardian, MARIBEL CRUZ y TAYAG, respondents.

FACTS

In 1978, the petitioner Raymond Lim and respondent Maribel Cruz fist met in a club along
Roxas Boulevard on the very first day when the latter was just sixteen years old and working
as an attendant in the said club. The petitioner showed interest to the respondent and started
courting her which he succeeded. They started cohabiting in different areas in Manila in which
the petitioner was the one paying for their rentals. In July 1981, Maribel already pregnant,
left for Japan but returned in October of the same year.

In January 1982, Maribel gave birth to their daughter and it was the petition who shouldered
the hospitalization and even caused the registration of the name Joanna Rose Pe Lim on the
child’s birth certificate.

Towards the latter part of 1983, Maribel noticed that the petitioner’s feeling towards her
started to wane. It resulted to the petitioner’s abandonment of Maribel and their daughter.
Respondent tried to support themselves that it was never enough so that she sought for
support from the petitioner who kept on promising but nothing had been made. Hence, a
complaint was filed against the petitioner for support. However, the petitioner contended that
it was Maribel who insisted for them have that kind of intimacy which he never deemed it as
such. He even insinuated that he was not the father of the child considering the nature of
Maribel’s work as an entertainer. More so, the payment he made upon all expenses was just
a gesture of generosity since he wanted to help her out of that hard situation that she was in
with the promise that she is going to pay him back. Nevertheless, the RTC ruled in favor of
Maribel and it was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner’s acts would stand as evidence to justify his paternity.

HOLDING
Yes. Article 172 (2) states “An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a
private handwritten instrument and signed by the parents.” In this case the tenor of the
petitioner is that they are not just friends as claimed by the petitioner. It is clear that the
petitioner is the father of the child since he executed all responsibilities which
undeniably showed concern of a legitimate father such as payment of hospital bill, causing
the registration of the child using his surname and lastly the lines in his letters which much
love and concern to Maribel and their daughter

QUESTION
The alleged father did not sign the birth certificate of his alleged child. However, his name
was enter in the said document by the registrar. Could it a valid and competent evidence of
his paternity?

Answer:
No, it is an incompetent evidence of his paternity because it should be voluntarily and actually
signed by the father himself.
 [G.R. No. 129433. March 30, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff,
vs.
PRIMO CAMPUHAN Y BELLO, accused.
Facts:
Campuhan was a helper in the business of the family of the victim, a 4-year-old girl. One time, the mother of the victim
heard the latter cry, “Ayoko!”, prompting her to rush upstairs. There, she saw Campuhan kneeling before the victim,
whose pajamas and pany were already removed, while his short pants were down to his knees. Campuhan was
apprehended. Physical examination of the victim yielded negative results. No evident sign of extra-genital physical injury
was noted. Her hymen was intact and its orifice was only .5 cm in diameter.

Trial court found him guilty of statutory rape and sentenced him to death.

Issue:
Whether or not Campuhan is guilty of statutory rape.

Held: NO.
The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of woman below 12 as provided in RPC 335(3). The
victim was only 4 years old when the molestation took place, thus raising the penalty from “reclusion perpetua to death” to
the single indivisible penalty of death under RA 7659 Sec. 11, the offended party being below 7 years old. In concluding
that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of
hymen necessary; the mere touching of external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is
sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. But the act of touching should be understood as inherently part of the entry of
penis into the labias of the female organ, and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum (the part
instantly visible within the surface).

Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia by the penis, there can
be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.

Here, the prosecution failed to discharge its onus of proving that Campuhan’s penis was able to penetrate the victim’s
vagina however slight. Also, there were no external signs of physical injuries on the victim’s body to conclude that
penetration had taken place.

Issue #2:
What crime did Campuhan commit?

Held #2: ATTEMPTED RAPE.

Under RPC 6 in relation to RPC 335, rape is attempted when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by
overt acts, and does not perform all acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. All the elements of attempted rape are present in this case.

The penalty of attempted rape is 2 degrees lower than the imposable penalty of death for the crime of statutory rape of
minor below 7 years. Two degrees lower is reclusion temporal, which is 12 years 1 day to 20 years.

Applying ISLAW, and in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the maximum penalty shall be medium
period of reclusion temporal (14 years 8 months 1 day to 17 years 4 months), while the minimum is the penalty next lower
in degree – prision mayor (6 years 1 day to 12 years).

Issue #3:
May there be a crime of frustrated rape?

Held #3: NO.

In People vs Orita, SC finally did away with frustrated rape. Rape was consummated from the moment the offender had
carnal knowledge of the victim. All elements of the offense were already present and nothing more was left for the
offender to do. Perfect penetration was not essential; any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however
slight, was sufficient.

For attempted rape, there was no penetration of the female organ because not all acts of execution were performed or the
offender merely commenced the commission of the felony directly by overt acts.