FINAL Legal Opinion

October 19, 2019

To: Mr. John
From: The Lawgical Firm
RE: Polygraph Test Result as Evidence in Court

Dear Mr. John:

We thank you for meeting with us last week. Provided in this letter is our legal
opinion and our analysis to aid you with regards to the queries you made. We will have
to summarize the facts according to our understanding to make certain of its accuracy.
Next, we will state the issue raised regarding the subject matter discussed and lastly, we
will provide you with an explanation of the applicable laws and jurisprudence to the
given facts of your case and give you our legal opinion on the admissability of a lie
detector test as substantial evidence in court.

Facts
You own a manufacturing company for cellular phones and have experienced
several incidents of theft. In order to arrest and determine the culprit, you have
proposed the idea of implementing a company policy subjecting your employees to a lie
detector test in which the results would be introduced as evidence in a corresponding
suits for the persons responsible for the theft.

Issue
(1) You wanted to know whether a result of a polygraph test would be considered a
substantial evidence to prove the guilt of the person(s) responsible for the theft.

Legal Opinion

We are of the opinion that the findings of a polygraph test is not considered a
substantial evidence to prove the guilt of the employee(s) responsible for the theft.

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.1 A polygraph test, more commonly known as the
lie detector test, has been attempted to be introduced as evidence numerous times in
our jurisdiction. However, our courts have repeatedly ruled that the results thereof are
not conclusive.

In the Philippines, the admissability of a polygraph test was first discussed in the
case of People v. Daniel. The Supreme Court ruled that the result of a polygraph test is
not given much weight by the Court since it is inconclusive.2 The accuracy of the result
1
See People v. Adoviso. 309 SCRA 1 (1999)
2
See People v. Daniel. G.R. No. L-40330 (1978)
thereof relies on the time, place and circumstances of when such test was administered
and the nature of the subject. 3

In the case of People v. Adoviso, similarly ruled that the results of a lie detector
test inconclusive. The Supreme Court explained that even in American courts, results of
a polygraph test is disregarded when presented as evidence for the purpose of
establishing the guilt of the accused due to the fact that it has neither the scientific
acknowledgement of its accuracy.4

The ruling on People v. Adoviso was then later reiterated in People v. Reanzares
and People v. Carpo ruling that the procedure of ascertaining the truth through a lie
detector test has not been recognized in our jurisdiction a conclusive and substantial
evidence.5

The foregoing cases are sound enough to prove that the result of a lie detector
test will not stand as a substantial evidence in court. The Supreme Court has ruled time
and time again that a lie detector test is inconclusive due to the fact of its unrealibility in
establishing the guilt or lack thereof of the accused. As of now, a more plausible option
for us, is to explore other sources of admissible evidence that is considered substantial
enough to prove the guilt of the responsible parties to the theft, such as CCTV footage
and/or possible eyewitness accounts.

Insofar as we are concerned, with the given facts, this opinion stands firm along
with the legal basis confined with the facts provided. The basis provided may be
updated should there be any developments in the case at hand.

Should you have any concerns regarding the matter, please do not hesitate to call
or email us. Also, if there are any misstatements of the facts in this letter, please contact
us as soon as possible Again, it was a pleasure meeting you and we look forward to
hearing from you.

Most sincerely,
The Lawgical Firm

Atty. Jarod Estrera Atty. Nicole Evangelista Atty. Ailyn Panerio

3
Ibid.
4
People v. Adoviso. 309 SCRA 1 (1999)
5
People v. Reanzares. G.R. No. 130656 (2000) & People v. Carpo. G.R. No. 132676 (2001)

FINAL Legal Opinion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL Legal Opinion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL Legal Opinion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

October 19, 2019

You might also like