Monday, April 14, 2014

THE DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST THOSE IN PUBLIC OFFICE DURING A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IS A FUNCTION THAT BELONGS TO THE OMBUDSMAN:

     The Ombudsman is vested with the sole power to investigate and prosecute, motu proprio or upon the complaint of any person, any act or omission which appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.  It has the discretion to determine whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not. (M.A. JIMENEZ ENTERPRISES, INC., VS. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, JESUS P.  CAMMAYO G.R. NO. 155307, JUNE 6, 2011, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).

Friday, April 11, 2014

EVIDENCE OF MENTAL RETARDATION:

     People vs. Dalandas, G.R. No. 140209, December 27, 2002; People vs. Cartuano, G.R. No. 112457-58, March 29, 1996, does not preclude the presentation by the State of proof other than clinical evidence to establish the mental retardation of the victim. For sure, the courts are not entirely dependent on the results of clinical examinations in establishing mental retardation. In People vs. Almacin, G.R. No. 113253, February 19, 1999, for instance, the Court took into consideration the fact that the victim was illiterate and unschooled in concluding that she was mentally incapable of assenting to or dissenting from the sexual intercourse. Also, in People vs. Dumanon, (G.R. No. 123096, December 18, 2000), the High Court concurred in the trial court’s observation and conclusion that the victim was a mental retardate based on her physical appearance and on her difficulty to understand and answer the questions during her testimony. (People vs. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011, Bersamin, J.).

IMPOTENCE:

     Impotence, as a defense in a prosecution for rape, is both physical and medical question that should be satisfactorily established with the aid of an expert and competent testimony. (People vs. Aliviano, G.R. No. 133985. July 10, 2000, De Leon, Jr., J.).

Thursday, April 10, 2014

BLOOD GROUPING TEST:

     Where the issue is admissibility and conclusiveness of blood grouping tests to disprove paternity, rulings have been much more definite in their conclusions. For the past three decades, the use of blood typing in cases of disputed parentage has already become an important legal procedure. There is now almost universal scientific agreement that blood grouping tests are conclusive as to non-paternity, although inconclusive as to paternity — that is, the fact that the blood type of the child is a possible product of the mother and alleged father does not conclusively prove that the child is born by such parents; but, if the blood type of the child is not the possible blood type when the blood of the mother and that of the alleged father are crossmatched, then the child cannot possibly be that of the alleged father. (Jao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49162, July 28, 1987, Padilla, J.).

PHOTOGRAPHS:

     According to American courts, photographs are admissible in evidence in motor vehicle accident cases when they appear to have been accurately taken and are proved to be a faithful and clear representation of the subject, which cannot itself be produced, and are of such nature as to throw light upon a disputed point. Before a photograph may be admitted in evidence, however, its accuracy or correctness must be proved, and it must be authenticated or verified first. (Macalinao vs. Ong, G.R. No.146635, December 14, 2005, Tinga, J.)