Case Digest: People vs Adoviso 309 SCRA 1
Pablo Adoviso,
and four John Does, were tried for the MURDER of Rufino Agunos and Emeterio
Vazquez. Pablo Adoviso was positively identified by Bonifacio Agunos, the son
of one of the victims, because the former did not wear a mask in the
perpetration of the crime.
Aside from
denial and alibi, the defense also offered in evidence the testimony of Ernesto
A. Lucena, Polygraph Examiner II of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
in Manila, who conducted a polygraph test on Adoviso. In Polygraph Report
No. 900175, Lucena opined that Adoviso’s “polygrams
revealed that there were no specific reactions indicative of deception to
pertinent questions relevant” to the investigation of the crimes.
The trial court
found Adoviso guilty.
On the premise that the trial court rendered
the judgment of conviction on the basis of “mere conjectures and speculations,” appellant argues that the negative result of the
polygraph test should be given weight to tilt the scales of justice 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
examinee’s conscious attempt to deceive the questioner.
The theory behind a polygraph or lie detector test is that a person who lies
deliberately will have a rising blood pressure and a subconscious block in
breathing, which will be recorded on the graph.
However, American courts almost uniformly reject the results of polygraph tests
when offered in evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence
of one accused of a crime, whether the accused or the prosecution seeks its
introduction, for the reason that polygraph has not as yet attained scientific
acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception. The rule is no different in this jurisdiction.
Thus, in People v. Daniel, stating that much
faith and credit should not be vested upon a lie detector test as it is not
conclusive. Appellant, in this case, has not advanced any reason why this
rule should not apply to him.
Appellant was therefore correctly adjudged
guilty of two counts of Murder. Treachery qualified the killings to
murder. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In other words, there is treachery when the attack on an
unarmed victim who has not given the slightest provocation is sudden,
unexpected and without warning. The victims in this
case were totally unaware of an impending assault – Rufino was sleeping and
Emeterio was going down the stairs when they were shot.
The RTC Judgment
is affirmed.
