Submit a comparative analysis not later than 12:00MN of

June 27, 2021:

Between the ruling in People vs Vallejo and People vs Joel

Yatar

The cases of Vallejo and Yatar are cases of Rape with

Homicide where both the accused were found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

In the cases of People vs. Vallejo and People vs Yatar, the

issue is whether the result of the DNA testing conducted may
be used as evidence for the conviction of the accused.

In the Vallejo Case, which is the first real breakthrough in the

admission of DNA as evidence, the Court rendered much
importance to the findings of the Forensic Biologist and Chemist
from the NBI. The blood samples and DNA test revealed the
identity of Vallejo. In this case, the Supreme Court also
provided some principles to consider in assessing the probative
value of DNA:

(1) how the samples were collected;

(2) how they were handled;
(3) the possibility of contamination;
(4) the procedure followed in analyzing the samples;
(5) whether the proper standards and procedures were
followed; and
(6) the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.

In the case of Joel Yatar, DNA testing showed that the DNA of
the sperm specimen from the vagina of the Kathylyn was
identical to the gene type found on Yatar’s semen. The DNA
results were included in the principal evidence. It was stated in
this case that DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can
link a suspect to a crime or eliminate one from suspicion in the
same principle as fingerprints are used. Furthermore, forensic
DNA evidence is helpful in proving that there was physical
contact between an assailant and a victim. If properly collected
from the victim, crime scene or assailant.

It was also reiterated in the case of Yatar, the factors provided

for in the Vallejo case, to consider the probative value of DNA
or the “Vallejo Standards”: 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.

Submit a comparative analysis not later than 12:00MN of

June 27, 2021:

Between the ruling in  Raymond Pe Lim vs CA  vis-à-vis Arnel

Agustin vs  Ca vis-à-vis Rosendo Herrera vs Rosendo Alba

The cases mention below are cases of filiation of a child

wherein DNA Analysis as evidence is discussed.

The case of Raymond Pe Lim, in 1997, is of paternity and in

this case, the use of DNA as evidence, it being a relatively new
science, has not been accorded yet with official recognition by
our courts. According to the Supreme Court, the issue of
paternity still have to be resolved by such conventional
evidence as the relevant incriminating acts, verbal and written,
by the putative father.

As compared to the case of Arnel Agustin which is also a

paternity case, the parties here were directed to submit
themselves to a DNA paternity test. The issue being that
according to Agustin, DNA is not recognized by this Court as a
conclusive means of proving paternity and he also contends
that compulsory testing violates his right to privacy and right
against self-incrimination. This case was the very first time that
the admissibility of DNA testing as a means for determining
paternity has actually been the focal issue in a controversy. The
Court forcefully reiterated in this case their stand that DNA
testing is a valid means of determining paternity. With regard
DNA testing being violative of his right against self-
incrimination, the Court cited the case of Jason Yatar stating
that, the kernel of the right against self-incrimination 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 object evidence.

Lastly, as compared to the two above-mentioned paternity

case, in the case of Herrera,
The Supreme Court held that a complete match between the
DNA profile of the child and the DNA profile of the putative
father does not necessarily establish paternity. Trial courts
should require at least 99.9% as a minimum value of the
Probability of Paternity prior to a paternity inclusion. It was also
held that the value of less than 99.9% of paternity should only
be considered as corroborative evidence. The value of 99.9%
or higher would result to a refutable presumption of paternity
and it can be disputed if the Vallejo Standards are not complied
with.

DOMINGO AGYAO MACAD@ AGPAD vs.PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES

FACTS:

In the afternoon of November 27, 2011, POI Falolo who was not

on duty, boarded a bus bound for Bontoc, Mountain Province.
He sat on the top of the bus as it was full. At Botbot, Macad
boarded the bus. He threw his carton baggage over to POI
Falolo. Macad, also carrying a Sagada woven bag, then sat on
top of the bus, 2 meters away from POl Falolo.

When Macad threw his carton box, PO1 Falolo already

suspected that it contained marijuana because of its distinct
smell and irregular shape. He was also dubious of the Sagada
woven bag that petitioner had because it was supposed to be
oval but it was rectangular in shape. POI Falolo planned to
inform other police officers at the barracks but he was unable to
do so because he ran out of load to send a text message. Upon
reaching Bontoc, Macad alighted at Caluttit, while PO1 Falolo
went down at the DPWH Compound to buy load for his cellular
phone. Unable to find any store selling load, POI Falolo hailed a
tricycle and asked to be brought to Caluttit. PO1 Falolo seated
at the back of the driver. When the tricycle arrived at Caluttit,
petitioner was still there and hailed and rode inside the same
tricycle, with POI Falolo still seated behind the driver. 7

When the tricycle reached the COMPAC circle, PO1 Falolo

stopped the tricycle and called SPO2 Suagen who was then on
duty. While SPO2 Suagen approached them, PO1 Falolo asked
Macad if he could open his baggage, to which the latter replied
in the affirmative. However, Macad suddenly ran away from the
tricycle towards the Pines Kitchenette. Both police officers ran
after him and apprehended him in front of Sta. Rita Parish
Church. Petitioner was then handcuffed and he, together with
his baggage, were brought to the Municipal Police Station. 8

At the police station, the baggage of petitioner were opened

and these revealed 11 bricks of marijuana from the carton
baggage and 6 bricks of marijuana from the Sagada woven
bag. The seized items were marked, photographed and
inventoried in the presence of petitioner, the barangay
chairman, a prosecutor and a media representative. The bricks
from the carton baggage weighed 10.1 kilograms; while the
bricks from the Sagada woven bag weighed 5.9 kilograms. The
items were brought to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office for
a forensic examination, which yielded a positive result for
marijuana.

The RTC found petitioner guilty of transporting illegal drugs,

it ruled that petitioner's warrantless arrest was legal because he
was caught in flagrante delicto of transporting marijuana, and,
as such, the subsequent search and seizure of the marijuana
was legal as an incident of a lawful arrest. The CA affirmed the
RTC's decision. The appellate court agreed that the search
conducted was an incident of a lawful arrest because
petitioner's warrantless arrest was valid.

ISSUE:

Whether the prosecution substantially complied with the chain

of custody rule.

HELD:

Yes. The Court finds that the prosecution was able to

sufficiently comply with the chain of custody rule under Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR. When petitioner was
apprehended, he and his baggage were brought to the
Municipal Police Station. There, the seized items, consisting of
eleven 11 bricks of marijuana from the carton baggage and six
(6) bricks of marijuana from the Sagada woven bag, were
marked, photographed and inventoried. At that moment, the
presence of petitioner, Barangay Chairman Erlinda Bucaycay,
DOJ representative Prosecutor Golda Bagawa, a media
representative Gregory Taguiba, and a certain Atty. Alsannyster
Patingan were secured by the police officers. Accordingly, all
the required witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were
obtained. Petitioner does not even question the sufficiency of
the required witnesses.

The seized items were also immediately weighed. The 11 bricks

from the carton baggage weighed 10.1 kilograms; while 6 bricks
from the Sagada woven bag weighed 5 .9 kilograms.

After the marking, inventory and taking of photographs, SPOl

Lopez prepared the inventory report and allowed the witnesses
to sign it. SPO1 Lopez also signed the spot report. The seized
items were then turned over to PO2 Canilang who thereafter
brought the said items along with the request for laboratory
examination to SPO3 Cayabas of the Provincial Crime
Laboratory, Bontoc, Mountain Province. SP03 Cayabas then
made a request for examination to the Regional Crime
Laboratory Office. There, PSI Biadang received the request for
examination, along with the seized items. After the examination,
all the bricks tested positive for marijuana. The subject bag and
carton, together with the seized marijuana bricks, were all
identified in open court by POI Falolo and PSI Biadang.

Clearly, the prosecution was able to establish the chain of

custody of the seized drugs. They were able to prove that all
the persons who handled the drugs were duly accounted for
and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
were maintained by these persons until their presentation in
court. In addition, there was no lapse or gap in the handling of
the seized items because the witnesses of the prosecution
correctly identified the persons involved in the custody of the
seized marijuana bricks.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MIKE OMAMOS y PAJO, 

FACTS:

On July 16, 2008, in the afternoon, a team of police officers

conducted a buy-bust operation at Carmen Public Market. PO3
Vicente led the team composed of PO2 Pacampara, PO2
Tabalon, PO3 de Oro, and PO3 Tagam. The operation took off
from an informant's tip that Omamos will be bringing in large
quantity of dried marijuana leaves.

The team met the informant at the Carmen Public Market. He

told his team that Omamos had arrived and was standing near
the office of the City Economic Enterprise Department . The
team assigned the informant as a poseur-buyer. The pre-
arranged signal was for the informant to take off his bull cap.
The informant handed appellant marked P20.00 bill and fake
P1,000.00 bill. In turn, Omamos handed a bag of dried
marijuana leaves to the informant who opened the bag. After
confirming it contained marijuana, he took off his bull cap.

As soon as they saw the pre-arranged signal, the police

officers, who had positioned themselves a few meters away,
closed in, introduced themselves as police officers, and placed
Omamos under arrest. They informed appellant of his offense
and apprised him of his constitutional rights. They recovered
from him the marked P20.00 bill and the fake P1,000.00 bill.
They brought him for investigation to the City Anti-Illegal Drugs
Task Force Office at the Maharlika Police Station.

PO3 Pacampara held the heat-sealed the plastic bag containing

the seized item. He marked it "Exhibit-A MPO", affixed his
signature to it, and wrote thereon the date of arrest. The seized
item went through chemical testing which yielded positive
for cannabis sativa. The testimony of PSI Salvacion, Forensic
Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Patag, Cagayan de Oro
City was dispensed with after the parties stipulated on the tenor
and purpose of her testimony.

ISSUE:

Whether the police officers comply with the chain of custody

rule.

HELD:
In drug related cases, the State bears the burden not only of
proving the elements of the offense but also the corpus
delicti itself. The dangerous drugs seized from Omamos
constitutes corpus delicti. It is imperative that the prosecution
establish that the identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs
were duly preserved in order to support a verdict of conviction. It
must prove that the substance seized from appellant is truly the
substance offered in court as corpus delicti with the same
unshakeable accuracy as that required to sustain a finding of
guilt.

In proving the compliance with the chain of custody rule, the

following must be proved:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the dangerous
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
Second, the turnover of the dangerous drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the dangerous
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked dangerous
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

In this case, PO3 Manuel Pacampara, Jr. testified that he

marked the dangerous drugs in the police station and not at the
place of arrest. The failure of the arresting officers to
immediately mark the seized drugs engendered serious doubts
on whether the marijuana leaves bought by the poseur-buyer
from appellant were indeed the very same ones indicated in the
Chemistry Report. The first link also includes compliance with
the physical inventory and photograph of the seized dangerous
drug. This is done before the dangerous drug is sent to the
crime laboratory for testing. PO3 Pacampara was also evasive
when asked whether an inventory was accomplished.

Indeed, there is nothing on record showing the required

inventory and photography were complied with. The
prosecution's formal offer of evidence did not bear them. Nor
did the prosecution explain the absence of these requirements
or its inability to comply with them.

When it comes to the 4th link, the Court held that in n drug
related cases, it is of paramount necessity that the forensic
chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the handling and
analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for
examination i.e. when and from whom the dangerous drug was
received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it;
description of the specimen; and the container it was in.
Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name and
method of analysis used in determining the chemical
composition of the subject specimen.

Here, the testimony of PSI Salvacion was dispensed with

because the defense admitted her proposed testimony. It
appears that the proposed testimony, was contained in her
affidavit, only covered her findings on the drug sample
submitted by PO3 Pacampara. She did not discuss how she
handled the dangerous drug from the time she received it until
the time it got presented in court. There was further no
description of the method she utilized in analyzing the chemical
composition of the drug sample.

Indeed the chain of custody should ideally be perfect and

unbroken, this is almost always impossible to obtain. However,
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 bears a
saving clause allowing leniency whenever compelling reasons
exist that would otherwise warrant deviation from the
established protocol so long as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved.. In this case,
however, the arresting police officers did not at all offer any
explanation which would have excused their failure to comply
with the chain of custody rule. True, marking was done but the
same was defective as the required witnesses under Section 21
(1) of RA 9165 were not present. In sum, the condition for the
saving clause to become operational was not fulfilled. For this
reason, there is no occasion for the proviso "as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved", to even come into play.