No other news has captured the wild imaginings of every Palaweño – and now a good number of people in the country especially bloggers – than the missing persons case and now what appears to the murder of Ms. Jovelyn Galleno whose tale has somehow conjure suspicions, speculations and intrigues.

It was in the evening of August 5, 2022 when Ms. Jovelyn Galleno who worked in one of the boutique shops at Robinsons Mall, Palawan, and supposedly on her way home went missing and had everybody got clueless as to her whereabouts.

The case got national attention and got a speed bump due to the intervention of Sen. Rafael Tulfo who dedicated many an episode of his TV program/Youtube Channel in interrogating persons who were part of the investigation or people who got their names linked or intertwined in the case for some reason or another.

A lot of names have been dragged unto the issue including people with political positions as the absence of clear communications strategy from the authorities give way to netizens and the public engaging in their own detective work with at times somewhat reasonable assumptions but other times border on the outlandish.

COUSINS

Until one day, a breakthrough or a turning point happen when Leobert Dasmariñas, who is a cousin of Ms. Jovelyn Galleno confess to the authorities his involvement on the alleged crime and at the same time point to his other cousin, Jovert Valdestamon as the alleged mastermind of the crime.

But in a dramatic turn a few days later, Leobert Dasmariñas suddenly retracted his statement saying that he was allegedly coerced in making his initial confession. Jovert Valdestamon on the other hand denied his cousins’ accusation and said that he had an alibi as he was somewhere else during the time when the crime supposedly happen.

DILEMMA

It was at this point that Sen. Raffy Tulfo challenged Leobert Dasmariñas to undergo a lie detector test to ascertain whether he was telling the truth about the alleged coercion or not and that protecting him would be worth it as Leobert Dasmariñas alleged there are people who are after him. Jovert Valdestamon also voluntarily submit himself to the lie detector test.

The results has since been announced by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) who is now conducting the investigation. The results according to the NBI as per the lie detector test, Leobert Dasmariñas FAIL while Jovert Valdestamon PASS. They have yet to clearly outline the details and will submit the findings to the State Prosecutor.

JURISPRUDENCE

So does a lie detector test establish guilt or innocence? Let’s look back to history.

It was in June 23, 1999 when a lie detector test was introduced as evidence in court in the case of People vs Adoviso (GR 116196-97, Ponente: Associate Justice Santiago Kapunan) which explain that:

“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 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 once 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 of 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. xxx”

This was restated by the Supreme Court in the case of People vs Carpo (GR 132676, April 4, 2001, per curium decision):

“A lie detector test is based on the theory that an individual will undergo physiological changes, capable of being monitored by sensor attached to his body, when he is not telling the truth. The Court does not put credit and faith on the result of a lie detector test in as much as it has not been accepted by the scientific community as an accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception.”

From the above explanation, it is clear that a polygraph test, when introduced as evidence, cannot sustain the acquittal or conviction of an individual indicted of a crime, because the result of a polygraph test is not conclusive proof whether a person is stating the truth or not.

Building the case for the accused therefore is still a long way to go and despite pronouncements that case is closed, may not be as easy as it looks.

Research with excerpts from an article by Persida Acosta at the Manila Times dated June 30, 2018.