[G.R. No. 144656. July 16, 2002]

PEOPLE vs. VALLEJO

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 16 2002.

G.R. No. 144656 (People of the Philippines vs. Gerrico S. Vallejo.)

Accused-appellant Gerrico S. Vallejo moves for a reconsideration of the decision of the Court, dated May 9, 2002, affirming the death sentence imposed on him by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City, for the rape-slay of a nine-year old child, Daisy D. Diolola, in Rosario, Cavite on July 10, 1999.

Accused-appellant contends (1) that he was forced by policemen to produce his bloodstained clothes and, therefore, such evidence is inadmissible; (2) that his oral confessions made to Mayor Renato Abutan and Pet Byron Buan are inadmissible in evidence; (3) that Atty. Lupo Leyva, who assisted him in the police investigation, was not an “independent counsel” as required in Article III, section 12, par. (a) of the Constitution because Atty. Leyva was counsel for the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Rosario, Cavite; (4) that the injuries sustained by accused-appellant constitute evidence of torture to which he was subjected by policemen to make him own up to the crime; and (5) that the DNA evidence presented by the prosecution is unreliable, the DNA test being nothing but “junk science.”

Most of the issues raised by accused-appellant have already been passed upon by this Court in its decision. Nevertheless, they will be discussed again in view of the gravity of the offense of which accused-appellant has been found guilty.

First. The allegation that accused-appellant was coerced by policemen to produce his garments, on which were found bloodstains matching the blood found on the victim’s clothing (t-shirt, short pants, and panties), is belied by his own testimony that it was he who accompanied the police to his house and pointed out to them the back portion of the house where the garments were placed together with the other laundry (TSN, Gerrico Vallejo, February 28, 2000, pp. 46-47). Nowhere in his testimony before the trial court did he claim that the policemen forced him to produce said clothing. As the search was made with the consent of accused-appellant, there was no need for a judicial warrant to make the items seized admissible in evidence.

Second. As to the admissibility of the oral confessions, the evidence shows that when Mayor Abutan questioned accused-appellant, the latter was not under custodial interrogation. Accused-appellant freely and voluntarily made the confession. For the same reason, his oral confession to NBI Forensic Biologist Pet Byron Buan is admissible considering that Mr. Buan was not an investigator. The records show that Mr. Buan asked the questions, which accused-appellant freely and spontaneously answered, out of mere personal curiosity. In accordance with the decision in People vs. Andan, 269 SCRA 95 (1997) and People vs. Mantung, 310 SCRA 819 (1999), therefore, these confessions are admissible in evidence.

Third. Nor is accused-appellant’s written confession (Exh. “N”) to the police inadmissible in evidence because Atty. Leyva was allegedly not an “independent counsel” within the meaning of Article III, section 12, par. (a) of the Constitution. Atty. Leyva testified that he had been in the private practice of law since 1986 after retiring from the Department of Foreign Affairs. He had been a legal consultant of Mayor Abutan of Rosario, Cavite since July 1998 (TSN, Atty. Lupo Leyva, September 10, 1999, pp. 5-6), but he was not in any way officially connected with the office of the Municipal Mayor. His relationship with Mayor Abutan was purely private and professional. What is more, it was accused-appellant who asked for the legal services of Atty. Leyva. When asked by Mayor Abutan if he wanted his lawyer to assist him in the police interrogation, accused-appellant answered in the affirmative.

Fourth. Accused-appellant contends that the external injuries found in his body during physical examination, which were all minimal, proved his claim that he had been tortured. He adds that “when hardened policemen beat and torture suspects into submission, they make it a point not to leave any torture marks” (Motion for Reconsideration, p. 11). (Accused-appellant made this allegation by way of refuting the statement in the decision in this case that if, as accused-appellant claimed, his private parts had indeed been pricked with a needle and burned with a lighted cigarette and- that he had been boxed and hit with a piece of wood (TSN, Gerrico Vallejo, February 28, 2000, pp. 23-24), Dr. Vertido would have found more than mere abrasions and hematoma on his left finger.) Accused-appellant does not explain, however, how so serious an injury as those he claimed to have suffered could have left no telltale signs on his body. The results of the examination would certainly have disclosed more serious and visible injuries than those actually found. Mere allegation is not equivalent to proof.

Fifth. Accused-appellant questions the reliability of the DNA analysis done by the NBI in this case. He calls the DNA testing in this country nothing but “junk science.” This generalization about the state of DNA science in the Philippines, like accused-appellant’s fulmination against “hardened policemen who leave no marks of torture” on their victims, is without any basis.

There is at the University of the Philippines, NSRI (Natural Sciences and Research Institute) DNA Analysis Laboratory, which has been conducting DNA typing research and analysis since 1996. No one reading the scientific papers presented at the Third Convention and Seminar of the Philippine Judges Association on June 11, 1999 can doubt the credibility of DNA tests done in the Philippines. As pointed out by Dr. Saturnina C. Halos, then Supervisor, UPNSRI DNA Analysis Laboratory, in her paper entitled “Current Trends in DNA Typing and Applications in the Judicial System”:

“The Philippines has now the facility and expertise in using DNA test by STR analysis for identification and for paternity testing. It will be of tremendous help in declogging the courts of civil cases involving paternity suits if DNA tests are accepted. DNA tests can also be used to exonerate innocent individuals in rape cases and other violent crimes where human tissues are left in scenes of crime. It is respectfully proposed that the justice system accept DNA tests as a reliable investigative tool for forensic purposes.” (The Court Systems Journal, vol. 4, p. 47 (1999))

There is another DNA testing laboratory at the National Bureau of Investigation. As NBI Forensic Chemist Magsipoc testified, the combined use of human resources and machines greatly minimize or eliminate the possibility of error in DNA testing (TSN, Aida Viloria-Magsipoc, January 18, 2000, pp. 16, 30-31).

The foregoing considerations, taken together with the other circumstantial evidence pointed out at pages 14 to 16 of the decision in this case, especially the DNA profile found in the vaginal swabs taken from the victim which matched the DNA profile of accused-appellant, prove beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant’s guilt.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration of accused-appellant Gerrico S. Vallejo is DENIED with FINALITY for lack of merit.

The Court further Resolved to (a) NOTE the Letter dated 20 May 2002 of Dr. Maria Corazon A. De Ungria, Head, DNA Analysis Laboratory, Natural Sciences Research Institute, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, and (b) GRANT her request that her research staff, Mr. Chrisgel Ryan A. Cruz, be allowed access to the records of this case to be able to read and photocopy its records and transcript of stenographic notes, considering the importance and relevance of the decision of this case to the role of the DNA Laboratory in the administration of justice. (Davide, Jr., C.J., on leave.)

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court