I

GENERAL CONSIDERATION

LEGAL MEDICINE is a branch of Medicine which deals with the application of medical
knowledge to the purposes of law and in the administration of justice.

FORENSIC MEDICINE is a branch of Legal Medicine wherein medical science is applied to

elucidate legal problems. It deals with investigation, preparation, preservation and
presentation of evidence and medical opinion in courts and other legal, correctional law-
enforcement settings. Its application is not limited only to legal issues but also covers historical,
environmental and socio-political issues.

MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE denotes the knowledge of law in relation to the practice of

medicine. In Philippine jurisdiction, Forensic Medicine and Medical Jurisprudence are branches
of Legal Medicine.

CRIMINALISTICS is the science and profession dealing with the recognition, collection,
identification, individualization, and interpretation of physical evidence, and the application
of the natural sciences to law-science matters.

History of Legal Medicine:

In 2600 BC, Imhotep, a physician in his time, was renown for his studies in pathology
and physiology related to Legal Medicine. In 460-355BC, Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine,
discussed the lethal effects of wounds. Antistius was the first police surgeon who autopsied
Julius Ceasar. He discovered that Caesar suatained 23 wounds and only one penetrated the chest
cavity. In 1584-1659, Paulua Zacchias was the first to describe the importance and application
of medicine to the proper administration of justice. He is known as the Father of Forensic
Medicine. In the 12th century, during the reign of King Richard I, he established the Office of the
Coroner. This office combined the medical and legal approach to dealing with crimes. The
Coroner’s duty was to keep records of all criminal matters in England and was responsible for
investigating all deaths thought to be the result of suicide or homicide. With time, the need for a
more scientific investigation of unnatural deaths became apparent, and coroners began calling
physicians for help. To prepare doctors for this responsibility, in 1807, the University of
Edinburgh in Scotland established the Department of Legal Medicine. The early Americans
brought with them the coroner system. After the creation of the United States, elected officials
appointed coroners. In 1877, Massachusetts adopted a statewide system requiring that the
Coroner’s Office be replaced by an Office of the Medical Examiner, to be headed by a
physician. In 1915, New York City established a comprehensive program wherein the medical
examiner was authorized to investigate all deaths resulting from criminal violence, accidents,
suicides and those that occurred suddenly to people who appeared to be in good health.
Distinction Between Legal Medicine and Medical Jurisprudence:

Legal Medicine Medical Jurisprudence

- a branch of medical science. - a branch of law.
- medicine applied to law and the - law applied to the practice of medicine.
administration of justice.
- basically originate from the development - emanates from acts of Congress, Executive
of medical science. Orders, Administrative Circulars,
customs & usages, decisions of
tribunals which have relation to the
practice of medicine.
-based on principle of coordination - based on principle of subordination
(medicine to law & justice) (duty of physician to obey the law)

Medical Jurist / Medical Examiner / Medicolegal Officer / Medicolegal Expert / Forensic

Expert is a physician who specializes in medicolegal duties.

Distinction Between an Ordinary Physician and a Medicolegal Expert:

Ordinary Physician Medicolegal Expert
- sees an injury / disease on the point of - sees an injury / disease on the point of
view of treatment. view of cause.
- purpose is to arrive at a definitive - reports all bodily injuries / lesions and
diagnosis testifies in court.
- minor / trivial injuries are ignored. - records all bodily injuries no matter how
small

What are these so-called Medicolegal Cases?

1. Injuries or deaths involving persons who have no means of being identified.
2. Persons pronounced as “ Dead on Arrival”/”Dying on Arrival” (DOA).
3. Deaths under the following circumstances:
a. Death occurring within 24 hours of admission when the clinical cause of death
is unknown or undeterminable.
b. Unexpected sudden death especially when the deceased was in apparent good
health.
c. Death due to natural disease but associated with physical evidence suspicious
of foul play.
d. Death as a result of violence, accident, suicide or poisoning.
e. Death due to improper or negligent act of another person.
4. They also involve victims of physical injuries caused by any of the following:
a. physical violence such as gunshot wounds, stab wounds, mauling, etc.
b. vehicular accidents
c. asphyxia (lack of oxygen due to suffocation, strangulation, hanging, choking,
crushing, or drowning)
d. electrocution, chemical or thermal insult
e. accident, “attempted” homicide or suicide
f. poisoning
 5. Cases of child abuse, domestic violence, rape, alcoholism and drug addiction.
6. Cases involving the mental competency of the person
7. Iatrogenic causes brought about by negligent acts or omissions of the hospital staff
resulting in violation of rights of patients or leading to ones physical and mental
incapacitation, physical injury and death.

Evidence is the means, sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding
the truth respecting a matter of fact (Section 1, Rule 128). Physical evidence is as a rule more
reliable than eyewitness testimony.

Medical evidence is the means employed to prove an act, which is medical in nature.

Admissibility of evidence- For the evidence to be relevant, it must have such a relation to the
fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Section 3 of Rule 128 of the
Philippines Rules of Court provides that evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue
and is not excluded by the laws of these rules. The admissibility of evidence depends on its
relevance and competence.
Relevance- evidence must be important to the issues for the resolution of the case
Competence- evidence should not be gathered from illegal search or seizure, it
should not be a fruit of the poisonous tree (Poisonous tree Doctrine).

Admissibility is not the same as Weight of Evidence- admissibility of evidence depends on its
relevance and competence while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already submitted
and its tendency to convince and persuade.

Preponderance of Evidence. In civil cases, the party having burden of proof must establish his
case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight
of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of
the case, the witnesses’ manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of
knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the
probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their
personal credibility insofar as the same may legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may
also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the
greater number. Section 1, Rule 133).

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt. In criminal cases, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral
certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced
mind. (Section 2, Rule 133). An extrajudicial confession, made by an accused, shall not be a
sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (Section 3,
Rule 133).
Substantial Evidence- In Administrative complaints, the amount of relevance evidence which is
reasonable in mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Types of Medical Evidence:

1. Autoptic / Real Evidence- this is evidence made known to the senses- vision, hearing,
taste, smell and touch. Examples are: specimens, cadavers, etc. Limitations of such
evidence:
a. indecency and impropriety
b. repulsive objects and those offensive to sensibilities
2. Testimonial Evidence- a physician or any professional / specialist may be called to court
to testify. He may be:
a. Ordinary Witness- a physician may be called to testify on matters perceived
from his patient in the course of physician-patient relationship. One is prohibited
from stating opinions about the case from quoting statements made by other
people.
b. Expert Witness- a physician on account of his training and experience can give
his opinion on a set of medical facts. One is allowed to express an opinion about
the validity of the evidence in a case and may quote the statements of other
experts in support of an opinion.
Testimony of expert witness must be construed to have been presented not to sway the court in
favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the determination of the issue before it. It has
been said of expert testimonies: Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies,
they may place whatever weight they may choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the
facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the
province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his
actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported
his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid
witness, the relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he
testifies, and any other matters which deserve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the
expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and
circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be
given controlling effect. The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of
his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in
the absence of abuse of discretion.
(People vs Baid, G.R. No. 129667, July 31, 2000) [Justice Bellosillo, Second Division, People
vs Basite, G.R. No. 150382, October 2, 2003].
3. Experimental Evidence- application / demonstration in court of an experiment / test to
prove / corroborate ones allegation.
4. Documentary Evidence- an instrument on which is recorded by means of letters, figures,
or marks intended to be used for the purpose of recording that matter which may be
evidentially used.
5. Physical Evidence- articles and materials, which are found in connection with the
investigation.
6. Video Evidence- a recording of a medical procedure- autopsy, clinical session, ward
observation, etc.
Methods of Preserving Evidence

1. Photography and Sound Recording:

This includes photostats, microfilms, movie films, phonography, telephotos, x-ray
records, etc. This way of preserving evidence will not change the normal
proportion and condition of the objects or sounds. It could last for a longer time in
the file records.
2. Sketching:
This is drafting an outline of the object to be preserved. A rough representative as
to the size, relation, position, location of the identifying marks may be placed in
paper. In most cases, proportion, natural configuration and details are ignored.
3. Description:
A descriptive narration of the evidence to be preserved. The investigator must use
the appropriate terms for the location, size and color of the thing described.
4. Testimony of witnesses:
Preservation of evidence in the mind of a person is not an ideal method because:
a. the human mind may later be influenced by some external factor, especially by
another person, in a way that evidence will not exactly manifest the truth.
b. The preservation will only last during the lifetime of the evidence preserved in
ones mind.

All persons who can perceive, are perceiving and can make their perception
known to others, may be a witness. Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the
case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for
disqualification. (Section 20, Rule130).

The following persons cannot be a witness:

a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such
that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others;
b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the
facts and of relating them truthfully. (Section 21, Rule 130).

Privileged Communication- persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the

following cases:
a. Qualified Privileged Communication- A physician is not allowed to disclose those
informations to others as regards to matters he perceived from his patient during the
physician-patient relationship. He cannot in a civil case reveal any information without
the consent of the patient; information which he may have acquired in attending to such
patient in a professional capacity, which would blacken the character of the patient (Ex.
HIV+ patient)
 A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to
communications made to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public
interest would suffer by the disclosure. (Section 24, Rule 130).
The husband or wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the
consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the
other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal
case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or
ascendants. (Section 22,Rule 130)

b. Absolute Privileged Communication- An attorney cannot, even with a search warrant

or without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the
client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional,
employment, nor can an attorney’s secretary, stenographer or clerk be examined without
the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which
has been acquired in such capacity.
A minister or priest cannot, even with a search warrant or ordered by superiors or without
the consent of the person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made
to or any advice given by him in his professional character in the course of discipline
enjoined by the church to which the minister or priest belongs.

Parental and Filial Privilege. No person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other
direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. (Section 25, Rule 130).

Dying Declaration- are considered exemption to the hearsay rule since they are made in
extremis, when the declarant is at the point of death. For then , the motive to commit falsehood is
improbable and the inclination is only to speak the truth. To be admissible, it must be:
1. declarant was conscious of his impending death
2. declaration must be regarding ones impending death.
3. declarant was in full possession of his mental faculties when he made the declaration.
4. evidence is presented in court in a case of homicide, murder or parricide wherein the
declarant was the victim.

Res Gestae (Startling Event) Utterances refer those exclamations and statements made by
either the participants, victims or spectators to a crime immediately before, during or after the
commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a
spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no
opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. A declaration is
deemed part of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule
when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling
occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and
(3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending
circumstances.
Even the sole testimony of a witness like the victim himself who positively identified the
accused is enough proof to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime committed by
said accused. The defense of alibi and denial cannot prosper in the light of the positive
identification by the complainant himself given immediately after a startling occurrence known
in law as the res gestae.

A case involves Ernie, a homosexual and beautician. One time when he was seated alone on a
bench outside the Church in their town, a person later identified as Marco approached him and
asked for a cigarette. When Ernie could not produce one, Marco immediately stabbed him with a
switch knife and ran away. Ernie walked a short distance and called for help. Two of his
homosexual friends, Duday and Tonya, came to his aid and brought him to a hospital upon his
request. He was admitted at about 12:40 a.m. He was operated on at about 5 a.m. which ended at
7:30 a.m. Thereafter, SPO1 Luis went to the hospital to investigate and took his ante-mortem
statement. He stated in the presence of the doctor that it was Marco who stabbed him. So the
latter was charged with the crime of frustrated murder. At the trial he pointed to Marco as his
assailant. He said that he recognized him because he used to see him at town fiestas playing
hantak. Moreover, a month before the incident, he had an accidental sexual affair with Marco
who thereafter asked him money but he had none. Marco on the other hand, put up the defense of
alibi. He said he came to know Ernie only in court and claimed that at the time of the incident, he
was inside the church decorating the alter with flowers from neighbors. He named 41 persons
inside the church watching him until he finished at midnight and went to his house which was
located 200 meters away. His testimony was collaborated by Martha, the second degree cousin of
his mother. The lower court found him guilty although only for frustrated homicide. The court
held that Ernie’s positive identification of Marco as the one who stabbed him prevails over the
denial and alibi of the latter. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Nevertheless,
Marco still appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the ante-mortem statement of Ernie
was not part of the res gestae since it was taken only after Ernie’s operation the following
morning and not spontaneously after the occurrence of the act. Besides, no other witnesses were
presented to support his claim. But the Supreme Court declared his contentions without merit.
The SC said that Ernie’s statement was still part of res gestae because it was taken a few hours
after the operation when he regained consciousness. Therefore it is still the reflex product of
immediate sensual impressions. It was the shocking event speaking through him and he did not
have the opportunity to concoct or contrive the story. So it is part of res gestae and admissible as
evidence. Besides, it was not really impossible for Marco to be at the place of the stabbing
outside the church which was only 200 meters away and reachable in less than 5 minutes from
his house. The SC likewise said that Ernie’s statement after his operation was not the sole basis
for his conviction. He also pointed to Marco after surviving the incident and during the trial as
the assailant who stabbed him. Coviction of the accused may be had on the basis of the credible
and positive testimony of a single witness like Ernie if found credible by the Trial Court. This
testimony prevails over alibi and denial which, if not substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, is negative and self-serving. Thus Marco is really guilty of frustrated homicide and
should be sentenced to imprisonment of 4 years, 2 months and a day minimum to 8 years and 1
day as maximum. (Zarate vs Regional Trial Court etc. G.R. 152263, July 3, 2009)
Applications of Legal Medicine:
Civil Law- deals with a system of norms or rules of a character general and common which
regulate the relations of persons, individual or collective, and which protects the person in his
personality as well as interests both moral and patrimonial.
Hereditary succession
Paternity & Filiation Individual capacity
Determination & termination of civil personality
Marriage and legal separation
Criminal Law- deals with crimes and their punishment, as well as with procedure for their
purpose.
Crimes against chastity Felonies and circumstances
Crimes against individual Civil liability
Crimes relative to drugs Crimes against civil status of persons
Quasi-offenses
Remedial Law- deals with rules concerning pleadings, practices and procedures in courts
Physical / mental status of the individual
Hospitalization of insane people
Special Laws- applies to a particular nature, persons or things or class.
Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165) Labor Code
Code of Sanitation (PD 856) Organ Donation Act
Family Code Youth & Child Welfare
Labor Code Employees Compensation Law

Personalities in Legal Medicine and Forensic Medicine:

Paulus Zacchias- (1584-1659) Father of Forensic Medicine
Dr. Pedro Solis- Father of Philippine Legal Medicine
Mathieu Orfila- considered as the father of forensic toxicology. He wrote first treatise
on poisons and their effects in 1814.
Alphonse Bertillon- devised the first scientific system of personal identification, using
body measurements known as anthropometry.
Francis Galton- undertook the first definitive study of fingerprints and developed a
method of classifying fingerprints.
Leone Lattes- devised a simple procedure for determining the blood type (A,B,O and
AB) of a dried bloodstain.
Calvin Goddard- was the first to use a comparison microscope to determine if a bullet
was fired from a specific gun.
Albert Osborn- developed fundamental principles of document analysis and was
responsible for the acceptance of documents as scientific evidence
by the courts.
Hans Gross- described the application of scientific disciplines to the field of criminal
investigation. He introduced the first forensic journal, “Kriminologic”. He
described how forensics would be assisted by the fields of microscopy,
chemistry, physics, mineralogy, zoology, botany, anthropometry and
fingerprinting.
Edmond Locard- demonstrated how the principles developed by Hans Gross could be
incorporated into a workable crime lab. Locard’s exchange principle states
that once contact is made between two surfaces a transfer of material(s)
will occur.
Karl Landsteiner- first discovered human blood groups and was awarded the Nobel
Prize for his work in 1930. Together with A.S. Wiener, they first described
Rh blood groups.
Paul Uhlenhuth- German immunologist who developed the precipitin test for species.