This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2005-06-15 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The first real breakthrough of DNA as admissible and authoritative evidence in Philippine jurisprudence came in 2002 with our en banc decision in People v. Vallejo[24] where the rape and murder victim's DNA samples from the bloodstained clothes of the accused were admitted in evidence. We reasoned that "the purpose of DNA testing (was) to ascertain whether an association exist(ed) between the evidence sample and the reference sample. The samples collected (were) subjected to various chemical processes to establish their profile." | |||||
|
2004-05-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, inter alia, the following factors: 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.[29] | |||||
|
2004-04-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| To begin with, we are not persuaded to overturn the sworn statement of accused Narciso Saldaña, who admitted his participation in the kidnapping of the victims. Extrajudicial confessions are presumed to be voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive evidence showing that the declarant's consent in executing the same has been vitiated, the confession will be sustained.[99] The fact that it was the investigating officer, SPO4 Antonio Dizon, who requested Atty. Eligio Mallari to assist Saldaña does not cast doubt on Atty. Mallari's impartiality during the custodial investigation. Since there was no available lawyer from the Public Attorney's Office and Saldaña had expressed his inability to procure the services of a lawyer, it was incumbent upon the government, particularly the investigating officer, to provide Saldaña with a lawyer. Moreover, appellants do not cite bias or incompetence on the part of Atty. Mallari to assist as counsel for the accused Saldaña. In fact, it clearly appears that Atty. Mallari duly performed his duty to advise Saldaña on his constitutional rights to silence and to counsel. But Saldaña insisted on making the extrajudicial confession in the presence of his sister-in-law, voluntarily. His conviction is in order. | |||||
|
2003-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It is of judicial notice that the poblacion of Magallanes can be reached thru a jeep, which is the means of transportation from the town of Sorsogon for about one (1) hour only. Accused did not even present the person he resides with while in Sorsogon. [63] That Besmonte's wife corroborated his alibi is no moment. No other witness unrelated to appellant Besmonte was presented to corroborate his claim. Alibi cannot prosper if it is established mainly by the accused and his relatives, and not by credible persons.[64] This is because alibi is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove.[65] | |||||
|
2003-01-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Alibi is the weakest of all defenses, as it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Thus, it is viewed with caution especially when, as in the instant case, it is corroborated only by relatives of appellant.[22] Truly unconvincing is his alibi, which is supported only by his and his relatives' testimonies, not by more credible witnesses.[23] | |||||