17 December 2018

Mr. John
Cebu City,
Philippines

Dear John:

This legal opinion seeks to answer your question as to whether a lie detector test can be
a substantial evidence to prove the guilt of your employees after the incidents of stealing in
your company. You have asked us to give an opinion as to the validity under the laws of the
Philippines, regarding the representations. This opinion is confined to matters of the law and
the current jurisprudence of the Philippines. For the purpose of rendering this opinion, we have
made such legal and factual inquiries, including jurisprudence relevant or necessary for the
purpose hereof.

The Facts:

Per our discussion, you have narrated to us the following facts:

You are an owner of a manufacturing company for cellular phones and there have been
several incidents of theft. In order to arrest these incidents, and in order to determine the
responsible employees guilty of stealing the company’s cellular phones, you are planning to
implement a company policy subjecting your employees to a polygraph or lie detector test.

We have assumed that:

 The use of a lie detector test or a polygraph test result as a substantial evidence to
prove the guilt of your employees cannot be held conclusive or reliable under the
current Philippine jurisprudence.

Subject to the above, we have opinion that under the law there are currently no laws
introducing and regulating the use of a polygraph or lie detector test in the Philippines. A court
in the Philippines will not put credit and faith in the result of a lie detector test admitted as
evidence for the purpose of establishing guilt or innocence. In accordance with the current
jurisprudence, the Philippines currently assumes the same stance on polygraph results or lie
detector test results as American courts. American courts almost uniformly reject the results of
polygraph tests when offered in evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence
of the accused. The rule is no different in the Philippines. The reason for this is that a polygraph
or lie- detector test have not yet attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means
of ascertaining truth or deception.

The Applicable Jurisprudence:

In the following cases the court has repeatedly stated that a lie detector test cannot be a
reliable and conclusive source in determining the truth…
A polygraph is an electromechanical instrument that simultaneously measures and
records certain physiological changes in the human body that are believed to be involuntarily
caused by an examinee's conscious attempt to deceive the questioner. The theory behind a
polygraph or lie detector test is that a person who lies deliberately will have a rising blood
pressure and a subconscious block in breathing, which will be recorded on the graph. However,
American courts almost uniformly reject the results of polygraph tests when offered in evidence
for the purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of a crime, whether the
accused or the prosecution seeks its introduction, for the reason that polygraph has not as yet
attained scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or
deception. The rule is no different in this jurisdiction. Thus, in People v. Daniel, stating that much
faith and credit should not be vested upon a lie detector test as it is not conclusive. Appellant, in this
case, has not advanced any reason why this rule should not apply to him.||| (People v. Adoviso, G.R.
Nos. 116196-97, [June 23, 1999], 368 PHIL 297-312)

A lie detector test is based on the theory that an individual will undergo physiological
changes, capable of being monitored by sensors attached to his body, when he is not telling the
truth. The Court does not put credit and faith on the result of a lie detector test inasmuch as it
has not been accepted by the scientific community as an accurate means of ascertaining truth
or deception. [People v. Carpo G.R. No. 132676. April 4, 2001.]

In the following case, the Supreme Court even found the decision of the trial judge’s
observation and conclusions meritorious that a result of a lie detector test cannot be
appreciated. As quoted from the trial judge’s decision:
"As to the N.B.I. lie detector test report, the Court does not put much faith and
credit on it. It is well known that the same is not conclusive. Its efficacy depends
upon the time, place and circumstances when taken and the nature of the subject.
If subject is hard and the circumstances, as in this instant, were not conducive to
 affect the subject emotionally, the test will fail. The subject had nothing more to
fear because the trial was over. He was not confronted by the victim or other
persons whom he had a reason to fear. Naturally, his reaction to the questions
propounded was normal and unaffected and the apparatus could not detect it."
(pp. 172-173, CFI record) [People v. Daniel G.R. No. L-40330. November 20, 1978.]

Recommendation:
Thus, taking into consideration the abovementioned jurisprudence, a result from a
polygraph or lie detector test would yield fruitless results. I suggest an undertaking of a
different method in determining the guilt of your employees

This opinion is given for your sole benefit and may not be disclosed or relied upon by any other
person without our prior consent.

Very truly yours.

Atty. Godrick Go

Atty. Queenie Orlina

Atty. Karl Babiano