PEOPLE vs VALDEZG.R. No. 129296 September 25, 2000 FACTS: The police force of Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya received a tip from an unnamed informer about the presence of a marijuana plantation allegedly owned by Abe Valdez. Thereafter the Chief of Police of Villaverde formed a reaction team to verify the report and instructed them to uproot said marijuana plants and arrest Valdez. The following day, the police team together with the informer left for the site where the marijuana plants were allegedly being grown. After a 3-hour trek the police arrived at the place and found Valdez in his nipa hut. They looked around the area where Valdez had his kaingin and saw 7 5-foot high, flowering marijuana plants in 2 rows, approximately 25 meters from appellant's hut. One of the police asked Valdez who owned the prohibited plants and, according to the former, the latter admitted that they were his. The police uprooted the seven marijuana plants. The police took photos of appellant standing beside the cannabis plants. Valdez was then arrested and charged with a violation of the Dangers Drugs Act of 1972. The RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt ISSUE: WON the seized marijuana plants are admissible in evidence against the accused. RULING: No The Court held that the search and seizure without a warrant that was made by the police officers was violative of Sec. 2 Art. 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the rights of persons against unreasonable searches and seizure. The Constitution[31] lays down the general rule that a search and seizure must be carried on the strength of a judicial warrant. Otherwise, the search and seizure is deemed "unreasonable." In the instant case, there was no search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination of the existence of probable cause. From the declarations of the police officers themselves, it is clear that they had at least one (1) day to obtain a warrant to search Valdez's farm. Furthermore, contrary to OSG’s contention, the plain view doctrine cannot apply in the case. Said doctrine applies where the police inadvertently came across the object. Clearly, their discovery of the plants was not inadvertent. The seized marijuana plants were not "immediately apparent" and a "further search" was needed. In sum, the marijuana plants in question were not in "plain view" or "open to eye and hand." Therefore, the marijuana plants cannot, as products of an unlawful search and seizure, be used as evidence against Valdez. They are fruits of the proverbial poisoned tree. It was, therefore, a reversible error on the part of the court a quo to have admitted and relied upon the seized marijuana plants as evidence to convict appellant. In the instant case we find that, from the start, a tipster had furnished the police appellant's name as well as the location of appellant's farm, where the marijuana plants were allegedly being grown. While the police operation was supposedly meant to merely "verify" said information, the police chief had likewise issued instructions to arrest appellant as a suspected marijuana cultivator. Thus, at the time the police talked to appellant in his farm, the latter was already under investigation as a suspect. The questioning by the police was no longer a general inquiry. We find appellant's extrajudicial confession flawed with respect to its admissibility. For a confession to be admissible, it must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) it must be express; and (4) it must be in writing. [51] The records show that the admission by appellant was verbal. It was also uncounselled. A verbal admission allegedly made by an accused during the investigation, without the assistance of counsel at the time of his arrest and even before his formal investigation is not only inadmissible for being violative of the right to counsel during criminal investigations, it is also hearsay. [52] Even if the confession or admission were "gospel truth", if it was made without assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver of such assistance, the confession is inadmissible in evidence, regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.[53] consistent with the theory that all the accused are guilty of the offense charged. - Upon reaching the Ador residence. the Adors were all subjected to paraffin examination. it should be acted on and weighed with great caution. The rules of evidence allow the courts to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. much less corroborated. the circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused. the police was also informed of the dying declaration of deceased Chavez pointing to the Adors as the assailants. even if such confession were gospel truth. which he fired on the night of the killing.[56] Thus. Thus. for circumstantial evidence to suffice. [58] The test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on record are sufficient to convict the accused is that the series of the circumstances proved must be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. - On the way to the crime laboratory. to the exclusion of all others. The information was relayed to Major Idian. - Both appellants were found guilty by the trial. all the male members of the Ador family were told to go to the police station. are suspects in the killing of Abe Cuya and Rodolfo Chavez. [54] Also. and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. who ordered PO3 Nepomuceno to accompany him in recovering the gun. (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. then Deputy Chief of Police of Naga City. 2004 FACTS: - The appellants. [78] The records are bare of any indication that the accused have waived their right to counsel. The police had already begun to focus on the Adors and were carrying out a process of interrogations that was lending itself to eliciting incriminating statements and evidence: the police went to the Ador residence that same evening upon being informed that the Adors had a long-standing grudge against the Cuyas. [57] Like an ornate tapestry created out of interwoven fibers which cannot be plucked out and assayed a strand at a time apart from the others. The investigation thus was no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime as the Adors were already being held as suspects for the killings of Cuya and Chavez. when taken without the assistance of counsel without a valid waiver of such assistance regardless of the absence of such coercion. [55] Circumstantial evidence which has not been adequately established. rational hypothesis except that of guilt. the following day. 140538-39 June 14.PEOPLE vs ADOR G. III. whether verbal or non-verbal. retrieved the gun from under a fallen coconut trunk and turned it in to the latter. or the fact that it had been voluntarily given. Nos. [53] The evidence must exclude each and every hypothesis which may be consistent with their innocence. Admissions under custodial investigation made without the assistance of counsel are barred as evidence. is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Godofredo. ISSUE: WON the admissions of Godofredo Ador without counsel may be admitted as evidence in the case.R. including the right to counsel. a suspects confession. Major Idian. (1) there should be more than one circumstance. and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that they are innocent and with every other possible. PO3 Nepomuceno and some others accompanied Godofredo to the latters residence. Sec. any of their admissions are inadmissible in evidence against them. together with PO3 Nepomuceno. hence. is inadmissible in evidence. cannot by itself be the basis of conviction. Godofredo told his police escort that he had been entrusted with a handgun which he kept in his residence. and. have already attached to the Adors. Consequently. 12(1) and (3). [52] All the circumstances must be consistent with each other. 1987 Constitution. RULING: No The admissions made by Godofredo to Major Idian and PO3 Nepomuceno including the gun in question cannot be considered in evidence against him without violating his constitutional right to counsel. the rights of a person under custodial investigation. any waiver of these rights should be in writing and undertaken with the assistance of counsel. thus the appeal. As we have held. . went to their backyard. Godofredo was already under custodial investigation when he made his admissions and surrendered the gun to the police authorities. [51] It may be the basis of a conviction so long as the combination of all the circumstances proven produces a logical conclusion which suffices to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. there were no other suspects as the police was not considering any other person or group of persons. Godofredo and Diosdado III Ador. and pursuant to Art. such as what was undertaken by the police in the identification of appellant by Lydia. (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness. (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time. alienates the esteem of every just man. And the police pointed appellant to her. all told. has been held to be an underhanded mode of identification for "being pointedly suggestive. A person who uses tobacco may also have nitrate or nitrite deposits on his hands since these substances are present in the products of combustion of tobacco. the first requirement for circumstantial evidence to warrant conviction of appellant has not been met. coarse and highly singular method of identification. courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors. should be taken only as an indication of a possibility but not of infallibility that the person tested has fired a gun. In People v. and commands neither respect nor acceptance. in a number of cases. he must be acquitted. pharmaceuticals. [29] Lydia knew that she was going to identify a suspect.34 But even assuming arguendo that appellants being positive for gunpowder may be credited as circumstantial evidence indicating his culpability.[ A showup. the sister of the victim. subverting their reliability as an eyewitness. therefore. The only witness in the crime was Lydia MercadoLledo. when she went to the police station. and. In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects. The presence of nitrates. however. 32 the Court acquitted the accused despite the finding of gunpowder nitrates on his hand. The value of the in-court identification made by Lydia. and told her that he was the suspect. while he was behind bars. (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification.[30] The unusual. alone. RULING: No It is well settled that nitrates are also found in substances other than gunpowder. (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification. and. generating confidence where there was none.[34]Thus. was charged of murder for allegedly killing Roberto Mercado. then alone in the detention cell. and leguminous plants such as peas. 2003 FACTS: - Appellant. activating visual imagination. (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. 149889 Dec. it does not always indubitably show that said nitrates or nitrites were caused by the discharge of firearm. 2. who conducted the paraffin test on appellant. The prosecution having failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt.33 In fact. prosecution witness Police Superintendent Liza Madeja Sabong. the trial court convicted appellant by the decision on review. ISSUE: WON the result of the paraffin test is conclusive. such as explosives. is largely dependent upon the out-of-court identification she made while appellant was in the custody of the police.PEOPLE vs BACONGUIS GR No. testified that a person who fires a gun can transfer gunpowder from his hands to someone standing very near him even if the second person did not fire a gun himself.[19] this Court held that corruption of out-of-court identification contaminates the integrity of in-court identification during the trial of the case. Ruel Baconguis. and alfalfa. which revolts against accepted principles of scientific crime detection. that is only one circumstance. and since no other circumstance was established by the prosecution. beans. whose name had priorly been furnished by her brother-policeman. viz: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime. The person tested may have handled one or more of a number of substances which give the same positive reaction for nitrates or nitrites. and in open court as the person she saw leaving the house. . Jr.. While it can establish the presence of nitrates or nitrites on the hand. Teehankee. Crediting Lydia’s positive identification of appellant as the man she saw leaving her house and jumping over the fence and the results of the paraffin test. Prosecution witness Lydia identified appellant. fireworks. noting that: Scientific experts concur in the view that the result of a paraffin test is not conclusive.[20] (Underscoring supplied) The totality of circumstances test has been fashioned to assure fairness as well as compliance with constitutional requirements of due process in regard to out-of-court identification. it can be established conclusively that the man is not the father of a particular child. made in the prescribed manner. and courts in others. capable of being monitored by sensors attached to his body. RULING: No Accused-appellants' culpability was established mainly by testimonial evidence given by the victim herself and her relatives. The blood test was adduced as evidence only to show that the alleged father or any one of many others of the same blood type may have been the father of the child. - Accused-appellants were convicted by the trial court of multiple murder complexed with attempted murder for the death of Florentino. the accused filed an Addendum to Appellant's Brief urging that the favorable results of their lie detector tests with the NBI be admitted into the records. After conviction. The lie detector reports state that when accused-appellants answered NO to a series of questions related to the incident the polygrams revealed (they had) no specific reactions indicative (of) deception. the child. But group blood testing cannot show only a possibility that he is. The trial court convicted Tumimpad of the crime basing its decision on the results of the "Major Blood Grouping Test" and "Pheno Blood Typing" conducted on the 2 accused and the victim. Moreno Tumimpad. 1994 FACTS: - - Accused-appellant. 132676 April 4. RULING: No A lie detector test is based on the theory that an individual will undergo physiological changes. Court of Appeals 19: Paternity — Science has demonstrated that by the analysis of blood samples of the mother. when he is not telling the truth. Some of the decisions have recognized the conclusive presumption of nonpaternity where the results of the test. The findings of such blood tests are not admissible to prove the fact of paternity as they show only a possibility that the alleged father or any one of many others with the same blood type may have been the father of the child. and intolerable results avoided. As held by this Court in Janice Marie Jao vs. Norwela. He allegedly rape Sandra Salcedo. What is the value of the blood test as evidence. They allegedly caused the explosion in the house of the victims by means of a hand grenade.PEOPLE vs TUMIMPAD GR No. 109144 August 19. After the filing of briefs. . have recognized the value and the limitations of such tests. such as have occurred where the finding is allowed to turn on oral testimony conflicting with the results of the test. ISSUE: WON the accused-appellants should be acquitted based on the poygrams. The result showed that Tumimpad had the same blood type with the child conceived by the victim. 2001 FACTS: - - ISSUE: WON the lower court erred in convicting Tumimpad based on the result of the blood test. a 15-year old mongoloid child. and the alleged father. 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 vs CARPO GR No. was charged and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. the case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. Statutes in many states. This is one of the few cases in which the judgment of the Court may scientifically be completely accurate. Nissan and Noemi Dulay. show the impossibility of the alleged paternity. stating that a certain Vicente “Vic” Del Rosario of Brgy. 2001 FACTS: - - Petitioner. observation. It was established that the crime took place in the wee hours of the morning. While the room had a door.[12] such as in the instant case. could identify the attacker. PNP. was found guilty of murder for the killing of his brother-inlaw. [17] Petitioner presented to the head of the raiding team. Norsagaray. Bulacan. Norzagaray. Chief.[16] In fact. as a veinte nueve. Christopher. Vicente Del Rosario. The court is duty bound to examine the evidence assiduously to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. ISSUE: WON the testimony of Christopher is credible enough to convict Meneses. at around three oclock. It is true that the court may rely on the certification of the Chief. . had not been issued a license to carry a firearm. just roused from sleep and his eyes adjusting to the unlit room. Bigte. Firearms and Explosives Division. RULING: No petitioner submitted that he was not the person referred to in the said certification because he is Vicente del Rosario y Nicolas from Barangay Tigbe. in Norzagaray. except its conformity to our knowledge. is not credible. as Christopher did. Roman Meneses.[13] Nowhere in the description of the crime scene by witness SPO3 Mendoza in his testimony was it established that there was light or illumination of any sort by which Christopher could see the attacker. Norzagaray. Operations Branch. The crime took place in a makeshift room measuring about three by five square meters. there was no mention of a window which could have allowed entry of some kind of light from the outside. was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of firearms. We find that the trustworthiness of the identification of appellant by Christopher is dubious. such certification referred to another individual and thus.PNP. [18] However. that at around three in the morning during the Christmas season. before the crack of dawn. Cesar Victoria. PNP on the absence of a firearm license. The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of both barangay Tigbe and barangay Bigte. it is still quite dark and that daylight comes rather late in this time of year. Among the evidences presented against him was a certification issued by the Chief. raising reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as to appellants culpability.PEOPLE vs MENESES GR No. the trial court erred grievously in not taking judicial notice of the barangays within its territorial jurisdiction. a valid firearm license. who testified that he was awakened from sleep at around 3:00 in the morning and saw his father being stabbed in the heart with a veinte nueve by Meneses. Bulacan. Bulacan. The prosecution failed to paint a crystal-clear picture of the environment by which Christopher could have made an accurate and reliable identification of the attacker. Christopher Victoria. 142295 May 31. Christophers testimony being improbable. cannot prevail over a valid firearm license duly issued to petitioner. Firearms and Explosives Division. 1998 FACTS: - Accused-appellant. We have no test of the truth of human testimony. Police Senior Inspector Jerito A. Petitioner argued that he is Vicente Del Rosario of Brgy.[11] The court can take judicial notice of the laws of nature. It is highly improbable that a young boy. and experience. and that barangay Bigte in the certification was a typographical error. Tigbe. much less identify the knife used. RULING: No Meneses’ conviction is anchored entirely on the testimony of the single eyewitness. Bulacan. His conviction was based mainly on the testimony of the victim’s son. DEL ROSARIO vs PEOPLE GR No. Adique. who identified appellant as the one who he allegedly saw stab his father. ISSUE: WON the court is correct in convicting Del Rosario in consideration of the certification issued by the CFED. believing the prosecutions submission that there was only barangay Tigbe. PNP Criminal Investigation Command. and that he has a valid firearm license. Evidence is credible when it is such as the common experience of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. 111742 March 26. inexplicably. was charged with five counts of incestuous rape of her daughter. without identifying what it was. kinaray-a is not readily understandable to nor spoken by those born to the Hiligaynon regional language or who have lived in the areas under its sway for an appreciable period of time. or that the appellant was truly and honestly made of the charges and. there may be other local dialects spoken in certain parts thereof. Since all the complaints are not only in English but in technical legal language.PEOPLE vs ESTOMACO GR No. or Hiligaynon. The trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt in two of the cases filed against him. cognizant of the aforestated linguistic variations. the consequences of his guilty plea thereto. because it is either of public knowledge or readily capable of unquestionable demonstration. the local dialect is known as kinaray-a. The records are silent and do not reveal anything on this point. Melchor Estomaco. with variations. Yet a mans life is at stake while this Court wrestles with that dilemma created by an omission of official duty. - Accused-appellant. 1996 is egregious error. the same Barring previous exposure to or as a consequence of extended social or commercial intercourse. If said indication in the aforequoted portion of the transcript intended to convey that Ilonggo is merely a local dialect and was also the idiom referred to. [19] that in the central and northwestern part of Iloilo province and all the way up to and throughout Antique. is a regional language. including necessarily San Joaquin where the offenses were committed and of which appellant and his family are natives. The Court takes judicial notice. Negros Occidental and. Court: Likewise of very serious importance and consequence is the fact that the complaints were supposedly read to appellant in Ilonggo/local dialect. in Capiz. especially. since they are generally not well-versed in Ilonggo. Among said non-compliance is the proper reading of the complaints to the accused during his arraignment. (Judgment Set aside – Remanded) . it would be different if local dialect was used to denote an alternative and different medium but. there was no statement of record that appellant fully understood that medium of expression. we are again at sea as to whether and how the indictments were translated to Ilonggo and/or to kinaraya. FACTS: The significance of this distinction is found right in the provisions of Section 1(a) of Rule 116 which. [18] spoken in a major part of Iloilo province. or properly called Hiligaynon. nor how the dialogue between the presiding judge and appellant was translated. Within a province or major geographical area using a basic regional language. Parenthetically. deliberately required that the complaint or information be read to the accused in the language or the dialect known to him. The converse is true for those whose native tongue is the dialect of kinaray-a. 117485-86 April 22. to ensure his comprehension of the charges. respectively. the Supreme Court emphasized the consistency of non-compliance by the court a quo of the procedural rules to be observed for the validity of the arraignment of an accused. imposing upon him the penalties of reclusion perpetua and death. RULING: In the automatic review of the cases. This assumes added significance since Ilonggo.