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 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

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.509 U.S. 579 (1993)

Daubert and Schuller were born with birth defects.  They claimed that the problems were caused by their mothers' use of a drug called Bendectin, made by Dow.

At trial, Dow made a motion for summary judgment, claiming that Daubert was unable to come up with any admissible evidence that Bendectin causes birth defects.

Dow offered an affidavit by an epidemiologist named Lamm that claimed that there was no link between Bendectin and birth defects.

Epidemiology is the study of statistics related to disease.

In response, Daubert offered affidavits from eight experts, all claiming that there was a link.

Daubert's experts based their findings on pharmacological studies of the chemical structure of Bendectin, not on epidemiological data.

Basically, they said that the chemical structure of Bendectin was similar to the structure of other chemicals known to cause birth defects, so there was a good chance Bendectin caused birth defects too.

The Trial Court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.  Daubert appealed.

The Trial Court found that scientific evidence is only admissible if the principle upon which it is based is "sufficiently established to have general acceptance in the field to which it belongs."

Basically, the Court felt that epidemiological data, which was based on decades of data, was stronger than the chemical structure argument, which was based on really recent discoveries.

The Appellate Court affirmed.  Daubert appealed.

The Appellate Court agreed that expert testimony must come from a "generally accepted technique."

The US Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back for trial.

The US Supreme Court noted that the standard for expert testimony has been the Frye Test.

The Frye Test, (from Frye vs. United States (293 F. 1013 (DC Cir 1923)), basically says that a scientific method must have "gained such standing and scientific recognition among authorities as would justify the courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery, development, and experiments thus far made."

The US Supreme Court found that the common law application of the Frye Test had been superceded the adoption of FRE 702.

FRE 702 says that expert testimony shall be admitted if it will assist the trier of fact to understand evidence or to determine a fact at issue.

Nothing in FRE 702 establishes a "general acceptance" criteria.

The Court noted that under FRE 702, the Trial Judge still had an obligation to ensure that all scientific evidence was not only relevant, but also reliable.  So not every crackpot idea was going to be admissible.  The Court suggests several factors that a Trial Judge can look at to determine if the science should be admitted:

Whether the theory is generally accepted,

Whether the theory or technique has been tested,

Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication,

The scientific technique’s known potential error rate,

The existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation.

Also, see the Advisory Notes from FRE 702.