G.R. No. 94554 February 19, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANACLETO COLCOL, JR.

Facts: The information against Anacleto Colcol, Jr. was for rape allegedly committed on Nora Escalona. After arraignment, trial was conducted. It appear on the facts that the two were neighbours. The complainant testified that while she was walking along the barangay road leading to her school when the accused confronted her. Without much ado, he dragged her into the bushes nearby and raped her. The same thing happened again as the complainant was on her way to school many times. She never speaks any of these things to her parents because of the threat made to her by the accused. She became pregnant as a result of the rapes but she conceals about it until only the day she starts labouring and deliver the baby. The baby died after 5 weeks where he was named after the accused. There was no medical evidence of her rapes because the doctor presented by the prosecution testified only to the fact of her delivery and estimated that it must have been conceived sometime in March 1986. The trial court, expressing the general suspicion of the alibi, dismissed this defense of the accused-appellant, noting that he had been positively identified by Nora. Issue: WON the prosecutions evidence is weak as to convict the accused-appellant. Ruling: Quite simply, the Court cannot accept Nora's testimony that she was raped three times in weekly succession under the unseemly circumstances she narrates, including the curious happenstance that the road where Anacleto met her, although usually busy, was exceptionally deserted each of the three times he dragged her into the bushes and ravished her; the almost magical way her red panty dropped when he kicked her in the thigh to denude her; the time of the alleged rapes, which were supposedly committed not under cover of darkness or solitude but in broad daylight in the early morning when people were already up and about; and the incredible blindness of Nora's parents, who were living with her at the same house but did not notice her pregnancy until the very day she delivered. These improbabilities, together with the minor oddities, like her being enrolled in two schools and not attending her classes in either, have injected the reasonable doubt that Anacleto raped her and caused her to be pregnant. So it must be in the case at bar. As the Court sees it, the evidence for the prosecution is not credible enough to sustain the accused-appellant's conviction and must therefore be rejected. Even if it be assumed that his alibi is indeed weak, he must just the some be absolved and released at once. The reason is that the evidence of the prosecution, as the record plainly shows, is even weaker. WHEREFORE, the challenged decision is reversed and the accused-appellant Anacleto Colcol, Jr. ACQUITTED. It is so ordered.

ROSENDO HERRERA vs. ROSENDO ALBA, minor, represented by his mother ARMI A. ALBA The Facts: Rosendo Alba as represented by his mother Armi Alba, filed before the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition, support and damages against petitioner. Petitioner filed his answer with counterclaim where he denied that he is the biological father of respondent. Petitioner also denied physical contact with respondents mother. Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings. Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability. Petitioner further argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination. The trial court granted respondents motion to conduct DNA paternity testing on petitioner, respondent and Armi Alba. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and subsequently denied.

Issues: Petitioner raises the issue of whether a DNA test is a valid probative tool in this jurisdiction to determine filiation. Ruling: By 2002, the court gives official recognition to DNA analysis as evidence to the issue of observance of procedures in conducting DNA analysis. Here, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Section 49 of Rule 130, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, provides as follows: The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess may be received in evidence. Issue: Petitioner maintains that the proposed DNA paternity testing violates his right against selfincrimination.[12] Ruling: Again, we quote relevant portions of the trial courts 3 February 2000 Order with approval: The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity and filiation of children, especially of illegitimate children, is without prejudice to the right of the putative parent to claim his or her own defenses. Where the evidence to aid this investigation is obtainable through the facilities of modern science and technology, such evidence should be considered subject to the limits established by the law, rules, and jurisprudence.

Antero Sison Jr. vs Acting BIR Commissioner Ruben Ancheta et al FACTS: Sison assails the validity of BP 135 w/c further amended Sec 21 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977. The law provides that thered be a higher tax impost against income derived from professional income as opposed to regular income earners. Sison, as a professional businessman, and as taxpayer alleges that by virtue thereof, he would be unduly discriminated against by the imposition of higher rates of tax upon his income arising from the exercise of his profession vis-a-vis those which are imposed upon fixed income or salaried individual taxpayers. He characterizes the above section as arbitrary amounting to class legislation, oppressive and capricious in character. There is a transgression of both the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution as well as of the rule requiring uniformity in taxation. ISSUE: Whether the imposition of a higher tax rate on taxable net income derived from business or profession than on compensation is constitutionally infirm. HELD: The SC ruled against Sison. The power to tax, an inherent prerogative, has to be availed of to assure the performance of vital state functions. Taxes, being the lifeblood of the government, their prompt and certain availability is of the essence. According to the Constitution: The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. Equality and uniformity in taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to make reasonable and natural classifications for purposes of taxation. Where the differentiation complained of conforms to the practical dictates of justice and equity it is not discriminatory within the meaning of this clause and is therefore uniform.