Physical Evidence

Physical Evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it

ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. – Where physical
evidence runs counter to the testimonial evidence, the physical
evidence should prevail. (Bank of the Philippine Islands bs. Reyes.
G.R. No. 157177, February 11, 2008)

It is physical evidence that bolsters the testimony of the witness.

(People vs. Larranaga)

DNA Evidence – The significance lies in the uniqueness of the totality

of the DNA of a person. It is a scientific fact that the totality of an
individual’s DNA is unique for the individual.

Paraffin Tests – Paraffin tests, in general, have been considered as

inconclusive by the Court because scientific experts concur in the view
that paraffin tests have proved extremely unreliable in use. The tests
can only establish the presence or absence of nitrates on the hand but
the tests alone cannot determine whether the source of the nitrates was
the discharge of the firearm. (People vs Cajumocan 430 SCRA 311)

Paraffin test is merely corroborative (People vs. Buduhan. G.R. No.

178196. August 6, 2008)

Evidence is required because of the presumption that the court is not

aware of the veracity of the facts involved in a case. It is therefore
incumbent upon the parties to prove a fact in issue thru the
presentation of admissible evidence. (Lagon vs. Hooven Comalco
Industries, Inc. 349 SCRA 363)

“In a petition for bail, the task of the prosecution is to prove that the
evidence of guilt is strong and to establish with the same quantum of
proof the identity of the person responsible therefor, because, even if
the commission of the crime is a given, there can be no conviction
without the identity of the malefactor being likewise clearly
ascertained.”

The totality of the evidence of the prosecution in proving that the

evidence of guilt is strong leaves must to be desired.

Finally, this court laments that object evidence retrieved from the scene
of the crime were not properly handled, and no results coming from
the forensic examinations were presented to the court. There was no
examination of the fingerprints found on the kitchen knife retrieved
from the manhole near the house of Chavez.100 There were no results
of the DNA examination done on the hair strands found with the knife
and those in the clutches of the victim. Neither was there a comparison
made between these strands of hair and Chavez’s. There was no report
regarding any finding of traces of blood on the kitchen knife recovered,
and no matching with the blood of the victim or Chavez’s. The results
of this case would have been rendered with more confidence at the
trial court level had all these been done. In many cases, eyewitness
testimony may not be as reliable — or would have been belied — had
object evidence been properly handled and presented.

We deal with the life of a person here. Everyone’s life — whether it be

the victim’s or the accused’s — is valuable. The Constitution and our
laws hold these lives in high esteem. Therefore, investigations such as
these should have been attended with greater professionalism and
more dedicated attention to detail by our law enforcers. The quality of
every conviction depends on the evidence gathered, analyzed, and
presented before the courts. The public’s confidence on our criminal
justice system depends on the quality of the convictions we
promulgate against the accused. All those who participate in our
criminal justice system should realize this and take this to heart.
G.R. No. 207950 September 22, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MARK JASON CHAVEZ y BITANCOR alias "NOY", Accused-
appellant.