You are on page 1of 2

Polygraph Test | People of the Philippines versus Pablo Adoviso Case Digest: People vs Adoviso 309 SCRA 1

Pablo Adoviso, and four John Does, were tried for the MURDER of Rufino Agunos and Emeterio Va !ue " Pablo Adoviso was #ositivel$ identified b$ %onifa&io Agunos, the son of one of the vi&tims, be&ause the former did not wear a mas' in the #er#etration of the &rime" Aside from denial and alibi, the defense also offered in eviden&e the testimon$ of Ernesto A" (u&ena, Pol$gra#h E)aminer ** of the +ational %ureau of *nvestigation ,+%*- in Manila, who &ondu&ted a #ol$gra#h test on Adoviso" *n Pol$gra#h Re#ort +o" .//012, (u&ena o#ined that Adoviso3s 4#ol$grams revealed that there were no s#e&ifi& rea&tions indi&ative of de&e#tion to #ertinent !uestions relevant5 to the investigation of the &rimes"

6he trial &ourt found Adoviso guilt$"

7n the #remise that the trial &ourt rendered the 8udgment of &onvi&tion on the basis of 4mere &on8e&tures and s#e&ulations,5 a##ellant argues that the negative result of the #ol$gra#h test should be given weight to tilt the s&ales of 8usti&e in his favor"

A polygraph is an electromechanical instrument that simultaneously measures and records certain physiological changes in the human body that are believed to be involuntarily caused by an examinees conscious attempt to deceive the uestioner " 6he theor$ behind a #ol$gra#h or lie dete&tor test is that a #erson who lies deliberatel$ will have a rising blood #ressure and a sub&ons&ious blo&' in breathing, whi&h will be re&orded on the gra#h" 9owever, American courts almost uni!ormly re"ect the results o! polygraph tests #hen o!!ered in evidence !or the purpose o! establishing the guilt or innocence o! one accused o! a crime , whether the a&&used or the #rose&ution see's its introdu&tion, for the reason that #ol$gra#h has not as $et attained s&ientifi& a&&e#tan&e as a reliable and a&&urate means of as&ertaining truth or de&e#tion" 6he rule is no different in this 8urisdi&tion" 6hus, in People v. Daniel, stating that mu&h faith and &redit should not be vested u#on a lie dete&tor test as it is not &on&lusive" A##ellant, in this &ase, has not advan&ed an$ reason wh$ this rule should not a##l$ to him"

A##ellant was therefore &orre&tl$ ad8udged guilt$ of two &ounts of Murder" 6rea&her$ !ualified the 'illings to murder" 6here is trea&her$ when the offender &ommits an$ of the &rimes against the #erson, em#lo$ing means, methods or forms in the e)e&ution thereof whi&h tend dire&tl$ and s#e&iall$ to insure its e)e&ution, without ris' to himself arising from the defense whi&h the offended #art$ might ma'e" *n other words, there is trea&her$ when the atta&' on an unarmed vi&tim who has not given the slightest #rovo&ation is sudden, une)#e&ted and without warning" 6he vi&tims in this &ase were totall$ unaware of an im#ending assault : Rufino was slee#ing and Emeterio was going down the stairs when the$ were shot"

6he R6C Judgment is affirmed

$aubert v% &errell $o# Pharmaceuticals' (nc% )09 *%S% )+9 ,1993Daubert and ;&huller were born with birth defe&ts" 6he$ &laimed that the #roblems were &aused b$ their mothers< use of a drug &alled %ende&tin, made b$ Dow"

At trial, Dow made a motion for summar$ 8udgment, &laiming that Daubert was unable to &ome u# with an$ admissible eviden&e that %ende&tin &auses birth defe&ts" Dow offered an affidavit b$ an e#idemiologist named (amm that &laimed that there was no lin' between %ende&tin and birth defe&ts" E#idemiolog$ is the stud$ of statisti&s related to disease" *n res#onse, Daubert offered affidavits from eight e)#erts, all &laiming that there was a lin'" Daubert<s e)#erts based their findings on #harma&ologi&al studies of the &hemi&al stru&ture of %ende&tin, not on e#idemiologi&al data" %asi&all$, the$ said that the &hemi&al stru&ture of %ende&tin was similar to the stru&ture of other &hemi&als 'nown to &ause birth defe&ts, so there was a good &han&e %ende&tin &aused birth defe&ts too" 6he 6rial Court granted the motion for summar$ 8udgment and dismissed the &ase" Daubert a##ealed" 6he 6rial Court found that s&ientifi& eviden&e is onl$ admissible if the #rin&i#le u#on whi&h it is based is =suffi&ientl$ established to have general a&&e#tan&e in the field to whi&h it belongs"= %asi&all$, the Court felt that e#idemiologi&al data, whi&h was based on de&ades of data, was stronger than the &hemi&al stru&ture argument, whi&h was based on reall$ re&ent dis&overies" 6he A##ellate Court affirmed" Daubert a##ealed" 6he A##ellate Court agreed that e)#ert testimon$ must &ome from a =generall$ a&&e#ted te&hni!ue"= 6he U; ;u#reme Court reversed and remanded the &ase ba&' for trial" 6he U; ;u#reme Court noted that the standard for e)#ert testimon$ has been the Frye Test" 6he Frye Test, ,from .rye vs% *nited States ,>.? @" 0/0? ,DC Cir 0.>?--, basi&all$ sa$s that a s&ientifi& method must have =gained su&h standing and s&ientifi& re&ognition among authorities as would 8ustif$ the &ourts in admitting e)#ert testimon$ dedu&ed from the dis&over$, develo#ment, and e)#eriments thus far made"= 6he U; ;u#reme Court found that the &ommon law a##li&ation of the Frye Test had been su#er&eded the ado#tion of .R/ +00" .R/ +00 sa$s that e)#ert testimon$ shall be admitted if it will assist the trier of fa&t to understand eviden&e or to determine a fa&t at issue" +othing in .R/ +00 establishes a =general a&&e#tan&e= &riteria" 6he Court noted that under .R/ +00, the 6rial Judge still had an obligation to ensure that all s&ientifi& eviden&e was not onl$ relevant, but also reliable" ;o not ever$ &ra&'#ot idea was going to be admissible" 6he Court suggests several fa&tors that a 6rial Judge &an loo' at to determine if the s&ien&e should be admitted: Ahether the theor$ is generall$ a&&e#ted, Ahether the theor$ or te&hni!ue has been tested, Ahether it has been sub8e&ted to #eer review and #ubli&ation, 6he s&ientifi& te&hni!ue3s 'nown #otential error rate, 6he e)isten&e and maintenan&e of standards &ontrolling its o#eration" Also, see the Advisor$ +otes from .R/ +00"

You might also like