People v Yatar ‫׀‬ GR No.

150224 ‫׀‬ May 19, 2004

TOPIC
General Rules of Admissibility

SUMMARY
Appellant was accused of rape with homicide. Semen was found in her vagina, and this was DNA tested and found positive
with his. Appellant questioned the admissibility of the evidence. Court ruled that the science of DNA typing involves the
admissibility, relevance and reliability of the evidence obtained under the Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant when it relates
directly to a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non- existence.

Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to warrant a conviction, must form an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and
reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of others, is the perpetrator of the crime. To determine whether
there is sufficient circumstantial evidence, three requisites must concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) facts on
which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubturthermore, the circumstantial evidence presentedby the prosecution proves beyond
doubt that the accusedcommitted the crime. The requirements to determine the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence were
complied with asfollows: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) facts on which the inferences are derived are proven;
and (3) thecombination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The DNA
evidence presented strengthens the conviction by circumstantial evidence.

ROC Rule 128 Secs 3 & 4

Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. — Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of
these rules. (3a)

Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. — Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (4a)

FACTS
 Joel Yatar alias “Kawit” was sentenced to Death for the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide of victim
Kathylyn D. Uba
 Facts of the care are:
o June 30, 1998— Judilyn Pas-a and her first cousin, 17 year old Kathylyn Uba, were on the ground floor
of the house of their grandmother, Isabel Dawang.
 They were talking about the letter sent by their aunt, Luz Yatar, to her husband, appellant Joel
Yatar, through Kathylyn’s friend, Cecil Casingan.
 Kathylyn handed the letter to appellant earlier that morning.

o 9 am— Judilyn and her husband, together with Isabel Dawang, left for their farm some 2km away
o 10am— Anita Wania (their aunt), and 15 year old Beverly, stopped by the house of Isabel
 They saw appellant at the back of the house. Anita asked what he was doing there, he said he
was getting lumber to bring to the house of his mother
o 12:30pm— While Judilyn was on her way home, she saw appellant descend the ladder from tehs
econd floor of the house of Isabel and run towards the back to the house
 Later, she noticed appellant, pacing back and forth behind the house.
o 1:30pm— Judilyn aw appellant again, wearing a different shirt (black this time, as opposed to white,
a while ago).
 He told her that she could get the lumber he stacked a while ago.
 She noticed his eyes were “reddish and sharp”
 He left when her husband arrived
o In the evening that day— Isabel came home and found that the lights in her house were off. She called
for Kathylyn.
 The door to the ground floor was open and the water container she asked Kathylyn to fill up
earlier was empty
  She went up the ladder and found the door was tied with a rope
 She found the naked, dead body of Kathylyn inside
 Her intestines were protruding out of her stomach
 The police were called and they discovered the victim’s panties, brassiere, denim pants, bag and sandals
beside her naked cadaver at the scene of the crime, and they found a dirty white shirt splattered with blood
within 50 meters from the house of Isabel.
 Appellant was placed under police custody
o On Jul 3, 1998— he asked if he could go to the bathroom. While he was accompanied to a bathroom
near the station, he was seen running away.
 He was then recaptures and charged with Rape and Homicide
 After trial, appellant was convicted of the crime of Rape with Homicide, defined and penalized under Article
266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997,
and was accordingly, sentenced to Death.
 Hence, this automatic review

Appellant assigns the ff errors:

1. Trial Court gravely erred in giving much weight to the evidence presented by the prosecution notwithstanding their
doubtfulness
2. Trial court erred in not acquitting him of the crime, due to reasonable doubt

ISSUE:
W/N he’s guilty. YAS.

RE: EVIDENCE
 Court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in determining the credibility of witnesses unless
there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or
the significance of which has been misinterpreted.

 Absent any showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, the trial judge’s assessment of
credibility deserves the appellate court’s highest respect

 The weight of the prosecution’s evidence must be appreciated in light of the well-settled rule which
provides that an accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, as long as sufficient
circumstantial evidence is presented by the prosecution to prove beyond doubt that the accused
committed the crime:
o Records show 11 wounds, 6 stab and 5 incised in the victim’s abdomen and back
o Time of death based on examination by Doctor: 9-12 hrs prior to completion of rigor mortis
 Estimated time of death was sometime between 9-12pm on June 30.
 Within the time frame whichin which Isabel saw appellant lurking
o Dr. Bartolo, attending physician, discovered the presence of seme in the vaginal canal.
 Only be done through sexual intercourse
o Victim had a bruise and some swelling in her right forearm indicating resistance to the appellant’s
assault
o DNA specimen from the vagina of the victim was identical semen to appellant’s gene type
 Re DNA: In Daubert v. Merrell Dow, it was ruled that pertinent evidence based on
scientifically valid principles could be used as long as it was relevant and reliable. Judges,
under Daubert, were allowed greater discretion over which testimony they would allow
at trial, including the introduction of new kinds of scientific techniques. DNA typing is one
such novel procedure.
 Evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue as to induce belief in
its existence or non- existence. Applying the Daubert test to the case at bar, the
DNA evidence is reasonably based on scientifically valid principles of human
genetics and biology.
  Independently of the evidence. Trial court appreciated the circumstantial evidence1
o Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to warrant a conviction, must form an unbroken chain
which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of others, is
the perpetrator of the crime.
o To determine whether there is sufficient circumstantial evidence, three requisites must concur:
 (1) there is more than one circumstance;
 (2) facts on which the inferences are derived are proven; and
 (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.


 Appellant: DNA evidence violates his right against self-incirmination (Sec 12 & 17, Art 3 of Consti)
 Court: contention is untenable. The kernel of the right 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.

 Appellant: DNA test is unconstitutional, it being tantamount to the application of an ex-post facto law
 Court: No ex-post facto law is involved in the case at bar. The science of DNA typing involves the
admissibility, relevance and reliability of the evidence obtained under the Rules of Court. Whereas an ex-
post facto law refers primarily to a question of law, DNA profiling requires a factual determination of the
probative weight of the evidence presented.

RE: ACQUITTAL ON REASONABLE DOUBT

Appellant’s assertion cannot be sustained.

[copy-pasting this cause it all sounds important]

 Generally, courts should only consider and rely upon duly established evidence and never on mere
conjectures or suppositions.
 The legal relevancy of evidence denotes “something more than a minimum of probative value,” suggesting
that such evidentiary relevance must contain a “plus value.”
o This may be necessary to preclude the trial court from being satisfied by matters of slight value,
capable of being exaggerated by prejudice and hasty conclusions.
o Evidence without “plus value” may be logically relevant but not legally sufficient to convict. It is
incumbent upon the trial court to balance the probative value of such evidence against the likely
harm that would result from its admission.
 The judgment in a criminal case can be upheld only when there is relevant evidence from which the court
can properly find or infer that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable

o 1 (1) Appellant and his wife were living in the house of Isabel Dawang together with the victim, Kathylyn Uba;
o (2) In June 1998, appellant’s wife left the house because of their frequent quarrels;
o (3) Appellant received from the victim, Kathylyn Uba, a letter from his estranged wife in the early morning of June 30, 1998;
o (4) Appellant was seen by Apolonia Wania and Beverly Denneng at 1:00 p.m. of June 30, 1998 near the kitchen of the house of Isabel
Dawang, acting strangely and wearing a dirty white shirt with collar;
o (5) Judilyn Pas-a saw appellant going down the ladder of the house of Isabel at 12:30 p.m., wearing a dirty white shirt, and again at
1:30 p.m., this time wearing a black shirt;
o (6) Appellant hurriedly left when the husband of Judilyn Pas-a was approaching;
o (7) Salmalina Tandagan saw appellant in a dirty white shirt coming down the ladder of the house of Isabel on the day Kathylyn Uba
was found dead;
o (8) The door leading to the second floor of the house of Isabel Dawang was tied by a rope;
o (9) The victim, Kathylyn Uba, lay naked in a pool of blood with her intestines protruding from her body on the second floor of the house
of Isabel Dawang, with her stained pants, bra, underwear and shoes scattered along the periphery;
o (10) Laboratory examination revealed sperm in the victim’s vagina
o (11) The stained or dirty white shirt found in the crime scene was found to be positive with blood;
o (12) DNA of the sample compared with the DNA profile of the appellant are identical; and (13) Appellant escaped two days after he
was detained but was subsequently apprehended, such flight being indicative of guilt.
 doubt requires moral certainty of guilt in order to sustain a conviction. Moral certainty is that degree of
certainty that convinces and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who
are bound to act conscientiously upon it. It is certainty beyond reasonable doubt.
o This requires that the circumstances, taken together, should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
leading, on the whole, to a satisfactory conclusion that the accused, and no one else, committed the
offense charged. In view of the totality of evidence appreciated thus far, we rule that the present
case passes the test of moral certainty.

 For there to be proof beyond reasonable doubt, motive is essential:

o Judilyn Pas-a, first cousin of the victim testified that:
 a few days before the victim was raped and killed, the latter revealed to her that “Joel Yatar
attempted to rape her after she came from the school.”
 The victim told Judilyn about the incident or attempt of the appellant to rape her
o Also, when her auntie Luz Dawang Yatar, wife of appellant, separated from her husband, “this Joel
Yatar threatened to kill our family.”

The following are the elements constitutive of rape with homicide are present: (1) the appellant had carnal
knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; (In
rape committed by close kin, moral influence or ascendancy takes the pace of violence and intimidation) and (3) by
reason or on the occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, appellant killed the
woman.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the RTC of Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga, Branch 25 in Criminal Case
No. 35-98, sentencing appellant Joel Yatar alias “Kawit” to Death for the special complex crime of Rape with
Homicide is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that he be ORDERED to pay the family of the victim Kathylyn Uba
civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P100,000.00, P93,190.00 in actual damages and P75,000.00 in moral
damages. The award of exemplary damages is DELETED. Upon the finality of this Decision and in accordance with
Art. 83 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 25 of Rep. Act No. 7659, let the records of this case be
forthwith forwarded to the President of the Philippines for the possible exercise of the pardoning power.

Costs de oficio. SO ORDERED.