PEOPLE VS MAGBANUA

FACTS:
On June 12, 1992, in Davao City, Generoso Magbanua was charged with murder for the death
of Remegio Diaz. Two eyewitnesses, Balucos and Rellin, positively identified Magbanua as the
one who killed Diaz by shooting him twice in the cheeks and one in the forehead. Government
Doctor Dela Pena, four years after the shooting, submitted that the victim was shot at the back
and at least 2ft away, contrary to the narrative of Balucos and Rellin who said that appellant
shoot at the victim straight in the face at only inches away.
On appeal, appellant-accused questions the credibility of the narratives of the two
eyewitnesses, alleging that they are inconsistent. He further contended that this is supported by
the report on the contrary by Dr Dela Pena. Basing on these grounds, Magbanua alleges that
there is insufficient proof as to his guilt beyond reasonable doubt to the crime charged and that
the RTC erroneously charged him of the crime of murder instead of acquitting him from the
charge.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC erred in finding that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses are
contradictory and must not prevail over the findings and testimony of Dr Dela Pena.
DECISION:
NO.
1. The RTC convicted the accused-appellant of murder and held that he was guilty beyond
reasonable crime of the crime charged, depending the charge on the clear and positive
identification of the two eyewitnesses of the accused.

2. The Court held that while the government doctor’s post-mortem examination is
presumed by law to have been regularly performed, it cannot be successfully invoked it
appearing that the doctor was remiss in the performance of his duties as medico-legal
officer. While the Court recognized slight inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
eyewitnesses, it held that it only enhanced the veracity of their narrative as it proves that
it was neither contrived nor fabricated.
Moreover, the peculiarity in the circumstances surrounding the accuracy of the doctor’s
findings such as undated necropsy report, unexplained alterations in his notebook where
he jotted the report, not mentioning a forehead wound and the non-showing of the
presence of powder burns in the report which would have been material in establishing
the distance of the gun from the victim, cannot prevail over the clear, positive and
categorical declarations of the eyewitnesses.
However, in the absence of substantial proof of treachery, the Court modified the charge
to homicide with damages, instead of murder.

LEGAL MEDICINE:
Necropsy Reports and the expert testimony of the government doctor were not helpful in
proving the innocence of the accused in this case because of the irregularity in the veracity of
the findings of the medical report compared to the clear and corroborated narration of the
eyewitnesses albeit minor inconsistencies in their testimonies.
PEOPLE vs GRATELA
FACTS:
On July 14, 2009, appellant was charged with the statutory rape of AAA, a seven-year-old girl.
Events preceding the conviction happened two years prior. AAA narrated that she went to the
accused’s house to look for her friend, which was Gratela’s sister. Unable to find her, AAA went
to the accused’s room and sat on the sofa. Therein, the accused pulled down AAA’s clothes and
rubbed his penis against her vagina. She did not look at what is happening due to fear. She
went home but kept the incident to herself out of fear of her mother.
On April 15, 2009, while AAA and BBB were watching TV, memory of the rape was triggered by
a rape scene. That was when she told BBB of what Gratela did to her. Thereafter, they went to
report the incident in the Women’s and Child’s Protection Desk and was submitted for physical
and genital examination. The medico-legal officer found healed lacerations and red clots,
establishing clear evidence of penetrating trauma.
The RTC convicted accused of statutory rape on account of AAA’s age. The CA affirmed the
decision. Accused now challenges the CA’s decision on these grounds: a.) it was impossible for
him to commit the crime because he had companions in the house; b.) the lapse of time before
the incident was reported makes AAA’s testimony questionable; c.) BBB and AAA’s testimonies
were inconsistent; d.) the medico-legal officer did not testify in court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in affirming Gratela’s conviction.
DECISION: NO.
1. The RTC found Gratela guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape through sexual
intercourse on October 25, 2012. The court ruled that all of the elements of statutory
rape are evident in the case and the expert testimony plus medical findings of the
medico-legal officer established clear evidence of penetrating trauma to the vagina.
2. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. They anchored their decision that rape can occur
anytime at any place, contrary to the accused’s defense that the place where the alleged
raped happened was always crowded. As to the length of time it took to report the crime,
the court held that there was sufficient explanation in the delay. Other than that, they
held the medico-legal report’s consistency with AAA’s testimony were sufficient to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The Court denied the accused-appellant’s appeal with modification on the monetary
rewards. This decision was grounded on: a.) the elements of statutory rape enshrined in
Art 266-A of the RPC, as amended, are all present in the case; b.) the fact of carnal
knowledge was proven through the consistency in AAA’s testimony and the medico-legal
officer’s testimony; c.) the accused never questioned the victim’s age; d.) AAA clearly
and positively identified the accused-appellant.
LEGAL MEDICINE:
In this case, the Court ruled against accused-appellant because the testimonial evidence of the
victim and the findings of the medico-legal officer of healed vaginal lacerations and red clots
establishing forced penetration suffice for a conviction of rape. Citing People vs XXX, when a
rape victim’s straightforward and truthful testimony conforms with the medical findings of the
examining doctor, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape.
YADAO vs PEOPLE
FACTS:
In the morning of October 1, 1989, Yadao, along with the defense’s witnesses, were preparing
for the former’s birthday. The accused saw Gundran, the victim and his wife’s nephew, milling
around the vicinity, already drunk with gin. At around 3pm, Yadao and Gundran were sitting on
the two rear ends of a bench, when the latter suddenly stood up, tilting the bench, causing
Yadao to fall.
As Yadao was on the ground, Gundran started boxing him in the stomach. Yadao’s wife came
to pacify the latter but he grabbed a can opener and motioned to stab Yadao. Accused deflected
the stab and slapped him to knock some sense into him. Gundran, because he was too drunk,
lost his balance due to the slap and hit his head on the table’s edge, landing on the ground.
Thereafter, Gundran left Yadao’s house and proceeded to Limon’s house who noticed the lump
on his forehead. While treating the lump, Gundran claimed to have been hit by Yadao and that
he had difficulty breathing. Two days later, Gundran’s father was called to the victim’s house
because of trouble in breathing. He died thereafter.
Upon autopsy by the doctor from the RHU, the cause of death was ruled as cardiorespiratory
arrest due to pulmonary tuberculosis. Uncontented, the victim’s father moved for re-autopsy
seven days later, by the NBI’s medico-legal officer who ruled that the cause of death cerebral
edema secondary to traumatic injuries. Giving weight to the later autopsy, the RTC convicted
Yadao of homicide.
ISSUE: Whether or not the existence of two conflicting autopsy reports as to the cause of
victim’s death is tantamount to reasonable doubt with respect to his legal culpability.
DECISION: YES.
1. The RTC convicted Yadao of homicide. The lower court gave more weight to Dr
Llavore’s medico-legal findings and testimony. Grounding from Dr Alambra’s testimony
that a person could still live with one lung and citing Dr Llavore’s findings that the blow
inflicted if untreated, the court ruled that Yadao was still liable for the consequences of
slapping Gundran which caused his fall, hitting his head hard. Article 4 of the RPC was
invoked in substantiating their decision.
2. The CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC, contending that there is no reason,
either by law or evidence, for them to reverse the decision of the RTC. Yadao filed a
motion for reconsideration but the CA denied this too.
3. The Court ruled in favor of Yadao because the prosecution failed to establish guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. This Court grounded their decision on the contention that the
facts of the case as well as Dr Llavore’s autopsy report do not definitely establish that
the assault was the proximate cause of the victim’s death, given the circumstances
surrounding the second autopsy and the thorough examination of the first autopsy.
LEGAL MEDICINE:
In the case, the court ruled that the medical examination of a wound should lead to the
determination as to the degree of the danger of the wound and the danger to the life of the
victim when such wound was inflicted.
In the face of two contradicting autopsy reports, the Court gave credence to the first autopsy as
it was immediate, unquestionable vis-à-vis the second autopsy’s gaps, it was thorough and did
not only rely upon previous notions of the probable nature and effects of the wounds and that
the actual findings on the brain of the victim, immediately postmortem did not establish that
there was a direct connection between the slapping and Gundran’s death.
MARITIME FACTORS INC vs HINDANG
FACTS:
Petitioner is a domestic manning agency for sea vessel engaged the services of Danilo to work
as GP/Deckhand effective for 12 months contract. However, while on board the vessel
somewhere in Saudi Arabia, his body was found inside the locker of his cabin. Upon autopsy
immediately after the death, the medical examiner of the Saudi police concluded that Danilo
committed suicide by hanging himself. The body was repatriated to the Philippines.
Thereafter, Danilo’s brother filed for death compensation benefits against petitioner. Petitioner
denied, contending they are not liable since the cause of Danilo’s death was suicide, hence, not
compensable.
Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Danilo’s heirs. NLRC affirmed, CA sustained.
ISSUE: Whether or not the employer is exempt from paying death compensation when an
employee commits suicide.
DECISION:
1. The LA ruled in favor of Hindang, giving credence to the findings of the NBI’s medico-
legal officer ruling that Danilo died by asphyxia, over the faxed medical findings by Dr.
Hameed, whose genuineness and due execution could not be verified. Hence, pursuant
to POEA Standard Contract for Services, appellant must pay Danilo’s heirs of $50,000.
2. The NLRC affirmed in toto the decision of the LA. The appellant filed an instant motion
for reconsideration but it was denied.
3. The CA sustained the NLRC’s decision and denied the petition, contending that the
appellant is charged with the burden of proof to establish that Danilo indeed committed
suicide. Like the RTC, they stood by the fact that a mere photocopied, faxed autopsy
report by a foreign doctor had less weight compared to the findings of Dr Reyes of the
NBI.
4. The Court reversed and set aside the decision of the CA and ruled in favor of the
appellants. The Court held that just because Dr Hameed’s report was merely
photocopied and faxed, it is more detailed as a result of the immediate examination of
the body. The Court also held that the NLRC is not covered by the technical rules of
evidence in the face of sufficient evidences. Further, Dr Hameed’s findings of the
absence of resistance or violence in the body, corroborates the testimonies of the three
crew member who found Danilo’s body.
LEGAL MEDICINE:
In this case, legal medicine was used in establishing the responsibility of a company in paying
for death compensation. The detailed manner, comprehensiveness, and immediate, thorough
examination of a body post-mortem was given more credence even if the report was a mere
photocopy and was faxed overseas. Like in the case of Gratela, if the testimonies corroborate
the medico-legal findings in a case, it is sufficient to establish strong proof of guilt or innocence.