PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
JOERAL GALLENO
G.R. No. 123546 July 2, 1998
FACTS:
Joeral Galleno was charger with statutory rape committed against Evelyn Obligar, a five year old girl. The
prosecution presented three expert witnesses namely Dr. Alfonso Orosco, Dr. Ma. Lourdes Lanada and
Dr. Machael Toledo, whose testimonies convinced the trial court that rape was committed against
Obligar. Galleno contended that he should be acquitted since the expert testimonies were not
impeccable considering that the doctors found that there was no presence of spermatozoa, and that
they were not sure as to what caused the laceration in the victim’s vagina.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the lacking testimonies of the expert witnesses as to the occurrence of carnal
knowledge should result to the acquittal of the accused.
RULING:
As a general rule, witnesses must state facts and not draw conclusions or give opinions. It is the courts’s
duty to draw conclusions from the evidence and form opinions upon the facts proved. However,
conclusions and opinions of witnesses are received in many cases and are not confined to expert
testimony, based on the principle that either because of the special skill or expert knowledge of the
witness or because of the nature of the subject matter under observation or for other reasons, the
testimony will aid the court in reaching a judgment.
In the case at bar, the trial court arrived at its conclusions not only with the aid of expert testimony of
doctors who gave their opinions as to the possible cause as to the victim’s laceration but also the
testimony of the other prosecution witness, especially the victim herself. In other words, the trial court
did not rely solely on the testimony of the expert witnesses. Such expert testimony merely aided the
trial court in the exercise of its judgment on the facts. Hence, the fact that the experts enumerated
various possible causes of the victim’s laceration does not mean the trial court’s interference is wrong.
The absence of spermatozoa in the victim’s vagina does not negate the conclusion that it was his penis
which was inserted in the victim’s vagina. In rape, the important consideration is not the emission of
semen but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. THE HON. NICASIO YATCO
G.R. No. L-9181 November 28, 1955
FACTS:
Juan Consunji, Alfonso Panganiban, and another whose identity is still unknown, were charged with
having conspired together in the murder of one Jose Ramos. During the progress of the trial, counsel for
the defendant Panganiban interposed a general objection to any evidence on such confession made by
defendant Consunji on the ground that it was hearsay and therefore incompetent as against the other
accused Panganiban.
The lower court ordered the exclusion of the objected evidence but on a different ground which is the
prosecution could not be permitted to introduce the confessions of defendants Juan Consunji and
Alfonso Panganiban to prove conspiracy between them, without prior proof of such conspiracy by a
number of definite acts, conditions and circumstances.
OSG filed a petition for certiorari before the SC for the review and annulment of the lower Court’s order
completely excluding any evidence on the extrajudicial confessions of the accused Juan Consunji and
Alfonso Panganiban without prior proof of conspiracy.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower court is correct in excluding the prosecution’s evidence.
RULING:
No. The lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the complete exclusion of the
prosecution’s evidence on the alleged confessions of the accused Juan Consunji at the stage of the trail
when the ruling was made. Section 14, Rule 123 of Rules of Court, is specific as to the admissibility of the
extrajudicial confession of an accused, freely and voluntarily made, as evidence against him.
Section 14. Confession - The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging the truth of his guilt as
to the offense charged, may be given in evidence against him.
Under the rule of multiple admissibility of evidence, even if Consunji’s confession may not be competent
as against his co-accused Panganiban, being hearsay as to the latter or to prove conspiracy between
them without conspiracy being established by other evidence, the confession of Consunji was,
nevertheless, admissible as evidence of the declarant’s own guilt and should be admitted.
The practice of excluding evidence on doubtful objections to its materiality or technical objections to the
form of the questions should be avoided. In a case of any intricacy of its impossible for a judge of first
instance, in the early stages of the development of the proof, to know with any certainty whether
testimony is relevant or not, and where there is no indication of bad faith on the part of the Attorney
offering the evidence, the court may as a rule safely accept the testimony upon the statement of the
attorney that the proof offered will be connected later. At any rate, in the final determination and
consideration of the case, the trial Court should be able to distinguish the admissible from inadmissible,
and reject what, under the rules of evidence, should be excluded. There is greater reason to adhere to
such policy in criminal cases where questions arise as to the admissibility of evidence for the prosection,
for the unjustified exclusion of evidence may lead to the erroneous acquittal of the accused or the
dismissal of the charges, from which the People can no longer appeal.
