June 15, 2005

ROSENDO HERRERA, petitioner,

vs.
ROSENDO ALBA, minor, represented by his mother ARMI A. ALBA, and HON. NIMFA
CUESTA-VILCHES, Presiding Judge, Branch 48, Regional Trial Court, Manila, respondents.
Carpio, J.:
SUMMARY: Herrera, the putative father of Rosendo, did not want to undergo a DNA paternity
test ordered by the RTC in a paternity proceeding against him; so he questioned the order
before the CA and the SC. Upholding the lower courts, SC ordered him to undergo the test,
brushing aside his arguments that: DNA testing is not legally accepted; DNA testing is
unreliable; and DNA testing is self-incriminatory. SC also laid down standards for the
consideration of DNA evidence with respect to its weight and probative value, which later
formed part of the basis for the DNA evidence rule.
DOCTRINE: DNA evidence has already been accepted in the Philippine jurisdiction, subject to
the basic principle that in the assessment of its probative value, courts should 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.
In the establishment of paternity through DNA evidence, the probability of paternity W must at
least be 99.9%. If the value of W is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA analysis should be
considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of W is 99.9% or higher, then there is
refutable presumption of paternity. This refutable presumption of paternity should be subjected
to the Vallejo standards.
NATURE: Appeal from a CA decision affirming an RTC order. Original action for compulsory
recognition, support, and damages.
FACTS
May 14, 1998 Then only 13 y/o, ROSENDO Alba, represented by his mother ARMI
Alba, filed a petition for compulsory recognition, support, and damages against his
alleged father, Rosendo HERRERA, before the RTC of Manila.
Aug. 7, 1998 In his answer with counterclaim, Herrera denied paternity of Rosendo. He
also denied having any physical contact with Armi.
Rosendo moved for the taking of DNA paternity testing.
o Rosendo presented as expert witness Dr. Saturnina Halos, a molecular biologist
and professor at DLSU and UP, who had experience heading a DNA analysis
laboratory in UP.
o Dr. Halos testified to the process of DNA paternity testing and asserted that it
was 99.9999% accurate in establishing paternity.
o Herrera opposed the motion, arguing that DNA paternity testing has not gained
acceptability, and that it violates his right against self-incrimination.
Feb. 3, 2000 The RTC granted the motion. Herrera was ordered to undergo DNA
paternity testing.
June 8, 2000 Herreras MR was denied.

July 18, 2000 Herrera filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the CA, advancing the
following arguments:
o RTC misapplied the ruling in Lim v. CA
o DNA testing was accepted without considering the limitations and conditions for
its admissibility and regardless of the constraints affecting the reliability of the
test as admitted by Dr. Halos herself
o The scientific findings relied upon by the RTC are unfit for judicial notice and are
not supported by experts
o DNA testing, under the circumstances, is inconclusive, irrelevant, coercive, and
unconstitutional
Nov. 29, 2000 CA DECISION
o RTC affirmed.
o Since the thrust of the petition is to seek a reevaluation of the evidence, the
remedy of appeal is available.
o DNA paternity testing does not violate the right against self-incrimination, which
refers only to testimonial compulsion.
o An adverse DNA paternity test result may still be refuted anyway.
May 23, 2001 CA denied MR. Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45.

ISSUES (HELD)
1) W/N DNA testing should be allowed despite lack of official recognition and presence of
technical and legal constraints to its implementation (YES, DNA analysis has been accepted
as evidence)
2) W/N DNA testing is a valid probative tool to determine filiation under Philippine law (YES, but
subject to relevant standards)
3) W/N DNA testing violates the right against self-incrimination (NO)
RATIO
1) PRELIMINARY: OVERVIEW OF THE PATERNITY AND FILIATION SUIT
Filiation proceedings are instituted not only to adjudicate paternity but also to secure
legal rights associated with paternity, e.g., support or inheritance.
BURDEN OF PROOF is on the person who alleges that the putative father is the
biological father of the child
4 SIGNIFICANT PROCEDURAL ASPECTS
o PRIMA FACIE CASE
exists if a woman declares that she had sexual relations with the putative
father.
corroborative proof is required to shift the burden of proof to the putative
father
CASE AT BAR: Armi asserted that Herrera is the biological father of
Rosendo. She presented corroborative proof in the form of letters and
pictures.
o AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
two are available to the putative father: incapability to have sexual
relations (due either to physical absence or impotency) or proof that the
mother had sexual relations with other men around the time of
conception.
CASE AT BAR: Herrera raised both defenses, denying that he ever had
intercourse with Armi.

PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY
A child born within a valid marriage is presumed legitimate (FC 165, 167).
The presumption may be impugned only under the strict standards
provided by law.
o PHYSICAL RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN PUTATIVE FATHER AND CHILD
trial technique unique to paternity proceedings
may be offered as evidence of paternity
although likeness is a function of heredity, no quantitative formula or
standard can be used to measure likeness. This kind of evidence appeals
to the emotions/senses of the judge.
CASE AT BAR: Armi submitted pictures of Rosendo and Herrera side by
side, to show how much they resemble each other.
LAWS, RULES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON FILIATION
o FC 175: Illegitimate children may establish their filiation in the same way as
legitimate children.
o FC 172: Establishment of filiation by legitimate children can be made by:
record of birth in the civil registry or in a final judgment
admission made in a public document or in a private handwritten
instrument signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing, by open and continuous possession of
legitimate status or by any other means allowed by the RoC and
special laws.
o RoC 130, Secs. 39-40 relate to acts, declarations, family tradition and reputation
relating to pedigree. Pedigree includes relationship, family genealogy, birth,
marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and
the names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree.
o Lim v. CA: SC adopted a wary attitude towards DNA testing; held that paternity
still has to be resolved by conventional evidence.
o To be effective, the claim of filiation must be made by the putative father himself
and the writing must be the writing of the putative father.
o A notarial agreement to support a child whose filiation is admitted by the putative
father was considered acceptable evidence.
o Letters to the mother vowing to be a good father to the child and pictures of the
putative father cuddling the child on various occasions, together with the
certificate of live birth, proved filiation.
o However, a student permanent record, a written consent to a fathers operation,
or a marriage contract where the putative father gave consent, cannot be taken
as authentic writing.
o Standing alone, neither a certificate of baptism nor family pictures are sufficient
to establish filiation.
Scientific advances have widened the range of evidence available to establish paternity;
it is now no longer limited to evidence of incriminating acts. Blood grouping tests have
been upheld as conclusive of non-paternity and have been allowed by the SC in Co Tao
v. CA and in Jao v. CA.
2) DNA ANALYSIS AS EVIDENCE CONCEPT AND PROCESS
Deoxyribonucleic acid is the basic building block of the human genetic makeup. It is
found in all human cells and is the same in every cell of the same person. Since genetic
identity is unique, a persons DNA profile can determine his identity.
o

DNA analysis is a procedure where a biological sample from an individual is processed

to form a DNA profile and then examined.
Quoting from the trial court order (sorry for the copypasta, Carpio quoted it verbatim):
o Every gene has a certain number of the above base pairs distributed in a
particular sequence. This gives a person his or her genetic code. Somewhere in
the DNA framework, nonetheless, are sections that differ. They are known as
polymorphic loci, which are the areas analyzed in DNA typing (profiling, tests,
fingerprinting, or analysis/DNA fingerprinting/genetic tests or fingerprinting). In
other words, DNA typing simply means determining the polymorphic loci.
o PROCEDURE FOR DNA TYPING
From a DNA sample obtained or extracted, a molecular biologist may
proceed to analyze it in several ways. There are five (5) techniques to
conduct DNA typing. They are: the RFLP (restriction fragment length
polymorphism); reverse dot blot or HLA DQ a/Pm loci which was used in
287 cases that were admitted as evidence by 37 courts in the U.S. as of
November 1994; mtDNA process; VNTR (variable number tandem
repeats); and the most recent which is known as the PCR-([polymerase]
chain reaction) based STR (short tandem repeats) method which, as of
1996, was availed of by most forensic laboratories in the world. PCR is
the process of replicating or copying DNA in an evidence sample a million
times through repeated cycling of a reaction involving the so-called DNA
polymerize enzyme. STR, on the other hand, takes measurements in 13
separate places and can match two (2) samples with a reported
theoretical error rate of less than one (1) in a trillion.
o Just like in fingerprint analysis, in DNA typing, matches are determined.
To illustrate, when DNA or fingerprint tests are done to identify a suspect in a
criminal case, the evidence collected from the crime scene is compared with the
known print. If a substantial amount of the identifying features are the same, the
DNA or fingerprint is deemed to be a match. But then, even if only one feature of
the DNA or fingerprint is different, it is deemed not to have come from the
suspect.
o As earlier stated, certain regions of human DNA show variations between people.
In each of these regions, a person possesses two genetic types called allele,
one inherited from each parent. In [a] paternity test, the forensic scientist
looks at a number of these variable regions in an individual to produce a
DNA profile.
o Comparing next the DNA profiles of the mother and child, it is possible to
determine which half of the childs DNA was inherited from the mother. The other
half must have been inherited from the biological father. The alleged fathers
profile is then examined to ascertain whether he has the DNA types in his profile,
which match the paternal types in the child. If the mans DNA types do not match
that of the child, the man is excluded as the father. If the DNA types match, then
he is not excluded as the father.
3) AS OF 2002, THERE WAS NO LONGER ANY QUESTION ON THE VALIDITY OF THE USE
OF DNA ANALYSIS AS EVIDENCE
Prior to 2002, SC was of skeptical stance with respect to DNA analysis as evidence, as
reflected in Lim v. CA (1997) and People v. Tijing (2001), although in the latter case, the
SC recognized that UP had already set up a laboratory capable of performing STR
analysis and DNA analysis will prove useful in the future.

The Vallejo case, decided in 2002, represented the change in the SCs stance. Vallejo
was meted the death penalty, partly because of the match between the DNA profile of
the sample taken from the victim and the DNA profile of Vallejo.
Said the Court in that case: In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence,
therefore, courts should 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.
Thus the SC was no longer talking about admissibility, but has moved on to analyzing
the probative value of DNA evidence. It was no longer about the official recognition of
DNA evidence, as the issue is now the observance of the procedures in conducting DNA
analysis.
In 2004, the Yatar and de Villa cases followed the Vallejo trend. In both cases the Court
gave credence to DNA evidence in disposing of the issues.
NO NEED TO REFER TO AMERICAN JURISPRUDENTIAL STANDARDS
REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF DNA EVIDENCE
o Both Herrera and Rosendo cite US cases in support of their positions regarding
the admissibility of DNA evidence.
o Frye v. US: Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line
between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define.
Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be
recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony
deduced from a well recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from
which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained
general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.
o Frye-Schwartz standard: While [the US Circuit Court agrees] that forensic DNA
typing has gained general acceptance in the scientific community, we hold that
admissibility of specific test results in a particular case hinges on the laboratorys
compliance with appropriate standards and controls, and the availability of their
testing data and results.
o Failure to meet Frye standards with respect to expert testimonies in product
liability cases led to the development of the Daubert-Kumho standard, which in
turn led to the amendment of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Procedure.
o Expert witness may testify as to specialized knowledge if:
(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data
(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the
facts of the case.
o However, in the Philippines, the Frye-Schwartz and Daubert-Kumho standards
go into the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence. American
jurisprudence is merely persuasive.
o The Philippine Rules of Court are more liberal evidence is admissible when it
has such relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief or non-belief in its
existence and is not excluded by law or the rules. Neither does Rule 130, Sec. 49
on expert testimony preclude the admissibility of DNA evidence.
o SC: Rule 130, Sec. 49 does not pose any legal obstacle to the admissibility of
DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed, even evidence on collateral matters is

allowed when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or

improbability of the fact in issue.
4) GUIDELINES ON THE PROBATIVE VALUE OF DNA EVIDENCE
Basic principle has been enunciated in Vallejo: see No.3, 3rd bullet.
With respect to paternity:
o In [a] paternity test, the forensic scientist looks at a number of these variable
regions in an individual to produce a DNA profile. Comparing next the DNA
profiles of the mother and child, it is possible to determine which half of the
childs DNA was inherited from the mother. The other half must have been
inherited from the biological father. The alleged fathers profile is then examined
to ascertain whether he has the DNA types in his profile, which match the
paternal types in the child. If the mans DNA types do not match that of the
child, the man is excluded as the father. If the DNA types match, then he is
not excluded as the father.
o It is not enough to state that the DNA profiles of the putative father and the child
match. A complete match of DNA profiles does not necessarily establish
paternity.
o PROBABILITY OF PATERNITY MEASURE
Following the Louisiana standard, courts should require a minimum of
99.9% W prior to a paternity inclusion
W stands for Probability of Paternity. It is a numerical estimate for the
likelihood of paternity of a putative father compared to the probability of a
random match of two unrelated individuals. An appropriate population
database is required to compute for W.
Due to the probabilistic nature of paternity inclusions, W will never equal
100% (hence it is a limit :])
Accuracy of W estimates is higher when the mother, child, and putative
father are all subjected to DNA testing.
SC: DNA analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity should
be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of W is less than
99.9%, the results of the DNA analysis should be considered as
corroborative evidence. If the value of W is 99.9% or higher, then there
is refutable presumption of paternity. This refutable presumption of
paternity should be subjected to the Vallejo standards.
5) NO VIOLATION OF RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
It has been repeatedly stated in jurisprudence that the protection of the
constitution against self-incrimination extends only to testimonial compulsion.
The protection relates to forced extraction of communicative evidence. Bodily or
object evidence is not covered. Thus the SC has allowed forcible spitting of
morphine, compulsory pregnancy tests, and trying on of pants for size as
admissible evidence over self-incrimination objections.
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.
DISPOSITION: Petition dismissed; judgment affirmed.