Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RUFINO
UMANITO, appellant.
home the whole day, helping his family complete rush work
on picture frames ordered from Baguio. He did not step out of
their house on the evening in question, he added. Concerning
his relationship with AAA, appellant admitted that he had
courted her but she spurned him. He conjectured, though, that
AAA had a crush on him since she frequently visited him at
his house.
Finding that the prosecution had proven appellant's guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, the RTC rendered judgment against
him and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify AAA in the sum of P50,000.00.
On 15 February 2006, the appellate court affirmed the
challenged decision. Finding AAA to be a credible witness, the
Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the
inconsistencies in her statements were too trivial and
inconsequential to impair the credibility of her testimony.
In this appeal, appellant seeks his acquittal on reasonable
doubt by reason of the belated filing of the case against him
and the questionable credibility of AAA with respect to her
varying allegations.
Once again, this Court is called upon to determine whether the
prosecution has successfully met the level of proof needed to
find appellant guilty of the crime of rape.
Among the many incongruent assertions of the prosecution
and the defense, the disharmony on a certain point stands out.
Appellant, on one hand, testified that although he had courted
AAA, they were not sweethearts. Therefore, this testimony
largely discounts the possibility of consensual coitus between
him and AAA. On the other, AAA made contradictory
allegations at the preliminary investigation and on the witness
stand with respect to the nature of her relationship with
appellant. First, she claimed that she met appellant only on the
day of the purported rape; later, she stated that they were
actually friends; and still later, she admitted that they were
close. 20
Amidst the slew of assertions and counter-assertions, a
happenstance may provide the definitive key to the absolution
of the appellant. This is the fact that AAA bore a child as a
result of the purported rape. With the advance in genetics and
the availability of new technology, it can now be determined
with reasonable certainty whether appellant is the father of
AAA's child. If he is not, his acquittal may be ordained. We
have pronounced that if it can be conclusively determined that
the accused did not sire the alleged victim's child, this may
cast the shadow of reasonable doubt and allow his acquittal on
this basis. If he is found not to be the father, the finding will at
least weigh heavily in the ultimate decision in this case. Thus,
we are directing appellant, AAA and AAA's child to submit
for the individual from whom the sample is taken. This DNA
profile is unique for each person, except for identical twins.
We quote relevant portions of the trial court's 3 February 2000
Order with approval:
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
and the DNA profile of the victim's child does not preclude the
convict-petitioner's commission of rape. 30
The 2004 case of Tecson v. Commission on Elections 31
likewise reiterated the acceptance of DNA testing in our
jurisdiction in this wise: "[i]n case proof of filiation or
paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would
be difficult to obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic
codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child and
any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted
to." 32
It is obvious to the Court that the determination of whether
appellant is the father of AAA's child, which may be
accomplished through DNA testing, is material to the fair and
correct adjudication of the instant appeal. Under Section 4 of
the Rules, the courts are authorized, after due hearing and
notice, motu proprio to order a DNA testing. However, while
this Court retains jurisdiction over the case at bar, capacitated
as it is to receive and act on the matter in controversy, the
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not, in the
course of daily routine, conduct hearings. 33 Hence, it would
be more appropriate that the case be remanded to the RTC for
reception of evidence in appropriate hearings, with due notice
to the parties.
What should be the proper scope of such hearings? Section 4
of the Rules spells out the matters which the trial court must
determine, thus:
SEC. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. - The
appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or
on application of any person who has a legal interest in the
matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall
issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a
showing of the following:
(a)
case;
(b)
The biological sample: (i) was not previously
subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii)
was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results
may require confirmation for good reasons;
(c)
The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid
technique;
(d)
The DNA testing has the scientific potential to
produce new information that is relevant to the proper
resolution of the case; and
(e)
The existence of other factors, if any, which the
court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or
integrity of the DNA testing.
The Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a
prior court order, at the behest of any party, including law
enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is
commenced.
Given our earlier pronouncements on the relevance of the
DNA testing, it would be unbecoming of the RTC to conclude
otherwise, Section 4 (d) notwithstanding. The hearing should
be confined to ascertaining the feasibility of DNA testing with
due regard to the standards set in Section 4 (a), (b), (c) and (e)
of the Rules. ESAHca
Should the RTC find the DNA testing feasible in the case at
bar, it shall order the same, in conformity with Section 5 of the
Rules. It is also the RTC which shall determine the institution
36 to undertake the DNA testing and the parties are free to
manifest their comments on the choice of DNA testing center.
After the DNA analysis is obtained, it shall be incumbent upon
the parties who wish to avail of the same to offer the results in
accordance with the rules of evidence. The RTC, in evaluating
the DNA results upon presentation, shall assess the same as
evidence in keeping with Sections 7 and 8 of the Rules, to wit:
SEC. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence. In assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence
presented, the court shall consider the following:
(a)
The chain of custody, including how the biological
samples were collected, how they were handled, and the
possibility of contamination of the samples;
(b)
The DNA testing methodology, including the
procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the
advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and
compliance with the scientifically valid standards in
conducting the tests;
(c)
The forensic DNA laboratory, including
accreditation by any reputable standards-setting
institution and the qualification of the analyst who
conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the
relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic casework
and credibility shall be properly established; and
IACDaS
(d)
The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter
provided.
an
appropriate
reference
(f)
The general degree of confidence attributed to
mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles
and the significance and limitation of statistical
calculations used in comparing DNA profiles.
The trial court is further enjoined to observe the requirements
of confidentiality and preservation of the DNA evidence in
accordance with Sections 11 and 12 of the Rules.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, the RTC
shall consider, among other things, the following data: how
the samples were collected, how they were handled, the
possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure
followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper
standards and procedures were followed in conducting the
tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted
the tests.
Moreover, the court a quo must ensure that the proper
chain of custody in the handling of the samples submitted
by the parties is adequately borne in the records, i.e.: that
the samples are collected by a neutral third party; that the
tested parties are appropriately identified at their sample
collection appointments; that the samples are protected
with tamper tape at the collection site; that all persons in
possession thereof at each stage of testing thoroughly
inspected the samples for tampering and explained his role
in the custody of the samples and the acts he performed in
relation thereto.
In light of the fact that this case constitutes the first known
application of the Rules, the Court is especially interested in
monitoring the implementation thereof in this case, for its
guidance and continuing evaluation of the Rules as
implemented. For purposes of supervising the implementation
the instant resolution, the Court designates Deputy Court
Administrator Reuben Dela Cruz (DCA Dela Cruz) to: (a)
monitor the manner in which the court a quo carries out the
Rules; and (b) assess and submit periodic reports on said
implementation to the Court. Towards the fulfillment of such
end, the RTC is directed to cooperate and coordinate with
DCA Dela Cruz.
A final note. In order to facilitate the execution of this
Resolution, though the parties are primarily bound to bear the
expenses for DNA testing, such costs may be advanced by this
Court if needed.
WHEREFORE, the instant case is remanded to the RTC for
reception of DNA evidence in accordance with the terms of
this Resolution. The RTC is further directed to report to the
Court the results of the proceedings below within sixty (60)
days from receipt hereof.
Article 167.
The children shall be considered legitimate
although the mother may have declared against its legitimacy
or may have been sentenced as an adulteress.
Article 255.
Children born after one hundred and eighty
days following the celebration of the marriage, and before
three hundred days following its dissolution or the separation
of the spouses shall be presumed to be legitimate. AEDCHc
2)
By the fact that husband and wife were living
separately in such a way that access was not possible;
3)
By the serious illness of the husband. 24 The relevant
provisions of the Family Code provide as follows:
ART. 172.
The filiation of legitimate children is
established by any of the following:
(1)
The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a
final judgment; or
(2)
An admission of legitimate filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by
the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate
filiation shall be proved by: ACHEaI
(1)
The open and continuous possession of the status of a
legitimate child; or
(2)
Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
special laws.
ART. 175.
Illegitimate children may establish their
illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same
evidence as legitimate children.
There had been divergent and incongruent statements and
assertions bandied about by the parties to the present petition.
But with the advancement in the field of genetics, and the
availability of new technology, it can now be determined with
reasonable certainty whether Rogelio is the biological father
of the minor, through DNA testing.
xxx
xxx
(c)
"DNA evidence" constitutes the totality of the DNA
profiles, results and other genetic information directly
generated from DNA testing of biological samples;
HADTEC
(d)
"DNA profile" means genetic information derived
from DNA testing of a biological sample obtained from a
person, which biological sample is clearly identifiable as
originating from that person;
(e)
"DNA testing" means verified and credible scientific
methods which include the extraction of DNA from biological
samples, the generation of DNA profiles and the comparison
of the information obtained from the DNA testing of
biological samples for the purpose of determining, with
reasonable certainty, whether or not the DNA obtained from
two or more distinct biological samples originates from the
same person (direct identification) or if the biological samples
originate from related persons (kinship analysis); and
(f)
"Probability of Parentage" means the numerical
estimate for the likelihood of parentage of a putative parent
compared with the probability of a random match of two
unrelated individuals in a given population.
(b)
The biological sample: (i) was not previously
subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii)
was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may
require confirmation for good reasons;
(c)
And even the death of Rogelio cannot bar the conduct of DNA
testing. In People v. Umanito, 30 citing Tecson v. Commission
on Elections, 31 this Court held:
The 2004 case of Tecson v. Commission on Elections [G.R.
No. 161434, 3 March 2004, 424 SCRA 277] likewise
reiterated the acceptance of DNA testing in our jurisdiction in
this wise: "[i]n case proof of filiation or paternity would be
unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to
obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained
from body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical
residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to."
HaIESC
It is obvious to the Court that the determination of whether
appellant is the father of AAA's child, which may be
accomplished through DNA testing, is material to the fair and
correct adjudication of the instant appeal. Under Section 4 of
the Rules, the courts are authorized, after due hearing and
notice, motu proprio to order a DNA testing. However, while
this Court retains jurisdiction over the case at bar, capacitated
as it is to receive and act on the matter in controversy, the
Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not, in the
course of daily routine, conduct hearings. Hence, it would be
more appropriate that the case be remanded to the RTC for
reception of evidence in appropriate hearings, with due notice
to the parties. (Emphasis supplied.)
(d)
The DNA testing has the scientific potential to
produce new information that is relevant to the proper
resolution of the case; and
(e)
The existence of other factors, if any, which the court
may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity
of the DNA testing.
From the foregoing, it can be said that the death of the
petitioner does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA