Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

1. Herrera vs Alba (G.R. No. 148220.

June 15, 2005)


FACTS:
On 14 May 1998, then thirteen year old Rosendo Alba (respondent), represented by
his mother Armi Alba, filed before the trial court a petition for compulsory
recognition, support and damages against petitioner. On 7 August 1998, petitioner
filed his answer with counterclaim where he denied that he is the biological father of
respondent. Petitioner also denied physical contact with respondents mother.
Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to
abbreviate the proceedings and presented the testimony of Saturnina C. Halos,
Ph.D. Dr. Halos was an Associate Professor at De La Salle University where she
taught Cell Biology and head of the University of the Philippines Natural Sciences
Research Institute (UPNSRI), a DNA analysis laboratory. In her testimony, Dr. Halos
described the process for DNA paternity testing and asserted that the test had an
accuracy rate of 99.9999% in establishing paternity. Petitioner opposed DNA
paternity testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability. Petitioner
further argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right against selfincrimination.
The Regional Trial Court granted the respondents motion to conduct DNA paternity
testing on petitioner, respondent and Armi Alba.
The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals and thereby affirmed the decision of
the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a DNA test is a valid probative tool to determine filiation.
RULING:
It is true that in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in Pe Lim vs CA that DNA testing is
not yet recognized in the Philippines and at the time when he questioned the order
of the trial court, the prevailing doctrine was the Pe Lim case; however, in 2002
there is already no question as to the acceptability of DNA test results as admissible
object evidence in Philippine courts. This was the decisive ruling in the case of
People vs Vallejo (2002).
In the Vallejo Case, the Supreme Court recognized DNA analysis as admissible
evidence. On the other hand, as to determining the weight and probative value of
DNA test results, the Supreme Court provides, which is now known as the Vallejo
Guidelines:
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider,
among other things, the following data: (1) how the samples were collected, (2) how

they were handled, (3) the possibility of contamination of the samples, (4) the
procedure followed in analyzing the samples, (5) whether the proper standards and
procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and (6) the qualification of the
analyst who conducted the tests.
In this case, the Supreme Court declared that in filiation cases, before paternity
inclusion can be had, the DNA test result must state that the there is at least a
99.9% probability that the person is the biological father. However, a 99.9%
probability of paternity (or higher but never possibly a 100% ) does not immediately
result in the DNA test result being admitted as an overwhelming evidence. It does
not automatically become a conclusive proof that the alleged father, in this case
Herrera, is the biological father of the child (Alba). Such result is still a disputable or
a refutable evidence which can be brought down if the Vallejo Guidelines are not
complied with.

2. Ong vs Diaz (G.R. No. 171713. December 17, 2007)


FACTS:
Minor Joanne Rodjin Diaz filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court for
compulsory recognition with prayer for support against Rogelio Ong, she was
represented by her mother Jinky C. Diaz. Before the case, Jinky married a certain
Hasegawa Katsuo, a Japanese. That same year, Jinky met Rogelio, the fell in love.
The next year, Rogelio and Jinky cohabited. After four years, Joanna was born,
Rogelio recognized Joanna as his, however, that same year, Rogelio abandoned
them and stopped giving support to Joanna, he alleged that he is not the father of
Joanna, hence this petition. RTC rendered a decision and declared the minor to be
the illegitimate child of Ong with Jinky Diaz, and ordering him to support the child
until she reaches the age of majority. Ong opposed the CAs order to directing the
Estate and Joanne Rodjin Diaz for DNA analysis for determining the paternity of the
minor Joanne. During the pendency of the case, Rogelion Died. The Estate filed a
motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals. They contended that a dead
person cannot be subject to testing. CA justified that "DNA paternity testing, as
current jurisprudence affirms, would be the most reliable and effective method of
settling the present paternity dispute.
ISSUE:
Whether or not DNA analysis can still be done even if the person is whose DNA is
the subject is dead.
RULING:

Petitioners argument is without basis especially as the New Rules on DNA Evidence
allows the conduct of DNA testing, either motu proprio or upon application of any
person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, 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) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the 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.
From the foregoing, it can be said that the death of the petitioner does not ipso
facto negate the application of DNA testing for as long as there exist appropriate
biological samples of his DNA.
As defined above, the term biological sample means any organic material
originating from a persons body, even if found in inanimate objects, that is
susceptible to DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva, and other body fluids,
tissues, hairs and bones.
Thus, even if Rogelio already died, any of the biological samples as enumerated
above as may be available, may be used for DNA testing. In this case, petitioner has
not shown the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate biological sample that can
be utilized for the conduct of DNA testing. And even the death of Rogelio cannot bar
the conduct of DNA testing.
3. People vs Umanito (G.R. No. 172607. October 26, 2007)
FACTS:
Around 9:00 in the evening July 15, 1989, while on her way to her grandmothers
home, private complainant AAA was accosted by a young male whom she later
knew as Umanito. He waited for her by the creek, and he pointed as knife at her
abdomen. He dragged her into the Home Economics Building of Daramuangan
Elementary School. He undressed her while still holding the knife. He set her down
on a bench, put down the knife, and had sex with her. He dressed up and

threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. In January 1990, 6 months later,
AAA s mother noticed the prominence on her stomach, and it was then that she
divulged to her mother the alleged rape. Her mother brought her to the police
station.
It was only five (5) years later, or sometime in 1995, that appellant was
arrested. It took place when he went to the Municipal Hall of Naguilian to secure a
police clearance. Umanitos alibi was that he was at home all day. He admitted that
he courted her but she spurned him. He conjectured that she had a crush on him
since she frequently visited him.
RTC rendered judgment against Umanito and sentenced him to suffer
reclusion perpetua. Umanito s appeal was transferred to the CA for intermediate
review and CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. Umanito seeks acquittal on reasonable
doubt, with the belated filing of the case and AAA s questionable credibility as
grounds. He also said that AAA filed the complaint only upon her mother s
insistence; this supports his claim that AAA had sex with another who was a married
man. Also, he claimed that there were several inconsistencies in her assertions.
ISSUE: Whether or not inconsistencies on the assertions of the victim can be proven
correct by DNA testing.
RATIO
Yes. The fact that AAA bore a child because of the purported rape may provide the
definitive key to Umanitos absolution, since it can now be determined with
reasonable certainty WON he is the father of her child. AAA and her child are
directed to submit themselves to DNA testing under the aegis of the New Rule on
DNA Evidence which took effect on 15 Oct 2007.
DNA print / identification technology is now recognized as a uniquely
effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to absolve one erroneously accused,
where biological evidence is available. The groundwork for acknowledging the
strong weight of DNA testing was first laid out in Tijing v. CA . Herrera v. Alba
discussed DNA analysis as evidence and traced the development of its admissibility
in our jurisdiction. Tecson v. COMELEC said that in case proof of filiation or paternity
would be unlikely to establish, DNA testing could be resorted to.
The determination of whether or not Umanito is the father (through DNA
testing) is material to the fair and correct adjudication of his appeal. Under Sec. 4 of
AM No. 06-11-5-SC, the courts are authorized, after due hearing and notice, motu
proprio to order a DNA testing. However, since SC is not a trier of facts, it would be
more appropriate that the case be remanded to RTC for reception of evidence.
The hearing should be confined to ascertaining the feasibility of DNA testing
with due regard to the standards set. RTC should order the DNA testing if it finds it

to be feasible in this case. RTC shall determine the institution to undertake the
testing, and the parties are free to manifest their comments on the choice. 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, which shall
be assessed by RTC in keeping with Sections 7 (Assessment of probative value of
DNA evidence) and 8 (Reliability of DNA testing methodology). RTC is also enjoined
to observe confidentiality and preservation of DNA evidence.
To facilitate the execution of this resolution, although the parties are
primarily bound to bear the expenses for DNA testing, such costs may be advanced
by SC if needed.

4. People vs Vallejo (G.R. No. 144656. May 9, 2002)


FACTS:
On July 10, 1999 (Rosario, Cavite), at about 1pm, 9-year old Daisy Diolola went to
her neighbors house to seek help in an assignment. It was a Saturday. Gerrico
Vallejo, the neighbor, helped Daisy in her assignment. At 5pm of the same day,
Daisys mom noticed that her child wasnt home yet. She went to Vallejos house
and Daisy wasnt there. 7pm, still no word of Daisys whereabouts. The next
morning, Daisys body was found tied to a tree near a river bank. Apparently, she
was raped and thereafter strangled to death.
In the afternoon of July 11, the police went to Vallejos house to question the latter
as he was one of the last persons with the victim. But prior to that, some neighbors
have already told the police that Vallejo was acting strangely during the afternoon
of July 10. The police requested for the clothes that Vallejo wore the day Daisy
disappeared. Vallejo complied and the clothes were submitted for processing.
The person who processed the clothing was Pet Byron Buan, a Forensic Biologist of
the NBI. At the instance of the local fiscal, he also took buccal swabs (mouth/cheek
swabs) from Vallejo and a vaginal swab from Daisys body for DNA testing. Dr. Buan
found that there were bloodstains in Vallejos clothing Blood Type A, similar to that
of the victim, while Vallejos Blood Type is O.
Buan also found that the vaginal swab from Daisy contained Vallejos DNA profile.
Meanwhile, Vallejo already executed a sworn statement admitting the crime. But
when trial came, Vallejo insisted that the sworn statement was coerced; that he was

threatened by the cops; that the DNA samples should be inadmissible because the
body and the clothing of Daisy (including his clothing which in effect is an
admission placing him in the crime scene though not discussed in the case) were
already soaked in smirchy waters, hence contaminated. Vallejo was convicted and
was sentenced to death by the trial court.
ISSUE: Whether or not the DNA samples gathered are admissible as evidence.
RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the findings of Dr. Buan are conclusive.
The court reiterated that even though DNA evidence is merely circumstantial, it can
still convict the accused considering that it corroborates all other circumstantial
evidence gathered in this rape-slay case.
The Supreme Court also elucidated on the admissibility of DNA evidence in this case
and for the first time recognized its evidentiary value in the Philippines, thus:
DNA is an organic substance found in a persons cells which contains his or her
genetic code. Except for identical twins, each persons DNA profile is distinct and
unique.
When a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene of the crime or
from the victims body for the suspects DNA. This is the evidence sample. The
evidence sample is then matched with the reference sample taken from the suspect
and the victim.
The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an association exists between
the evidence sample and the reference sample. The samples collected are
subjected to various chemical processes to establish their profile. The test may yield
three possible results:
1) The samples are different and therefore must have originated from different
sources (exclusion). This conclusion is absolute and requires no further analysis or
discussion;
2) It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the test, whether the samples
have similar DNA types (inconclusive). This might occur for a variety of reasons
including degradation, contamination, or failure of some aspect of the protocol.
Various parts of the analysis might then be repeated with the same or a different
sample, to obtain a more conclusive result; or
3) The samples are similar, and could have originated from the same source
(inclusion). In such a case, the samples are found to be similar, the analyst proceeds
to determine the statistical significance of the Similarity.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider,
among others 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.

5. People vs Lucero (G.R. No. 188705. March 2, 2011)


FACTS: Before the RTC, the accused was charged with the crime of Rape with
Homicide in an Information dated July 31, 1997. In his appeal, Lucero questions the
positive identification made by witnesses Jao and Langgoy. He insists that the
witnesses were unable to see the face of the perpetrator, and identification was
made solely on the basis of the green short pants worn by the suspect. He also
claims that Jao did not immediately report the identity of the perpetrator to the
police, and that this casts doubt on the witness credibility. In his defense, he also
claims that a DNA test should have been done to match the spermatozoa found in
the victims body to a sample taken from him, and that since no DNA test was done,
he cannot be linked to the crime.
In support of his argument, accused-appellant would debunk the identification by
witnesses by citing People v. Faustino, which stated:
The identification of an accused by an eyewitness is a vital piece of evidence
and most decisive of the success or failure of the case for the prosecution. But even
while significant, an eyewitness identification, which authors not infrequently would
describe to be inherently suspect, is not as accurate and authoritative as the
scientific forms of identification evidence like by fingerprint or by DNA testing.
ISSUE: Whether or not he cannot be linked to the crime due to the absence of DNA
testing.
RULING:
It is not for accused-appellant to determine which evidence or testimony the
prosecution should present. In Loguinsa, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (5th Division), the
Court stated, Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
expressly provides that all criminal action shall be prosecuted under the direction
and control of the fiscal and what prosecution evidence should be presented during
the trial depends solely upon the discretion of the prosecutor. The DNA test is not
essential, while there exists other evidence pinning down accused-appellant as the
perpetrator. Indeed, if he honestly thought that the DNA test could have proved his
innocence, he could have asked for the conduct of said test during his trial, instead
of belatedly raising it on appeal, and attempting to dictate upon the prosecution
what course of actions it should have undertaken.
While a DNA test might have been more conclusive, the cited case did not
mandate DNA testing in place of eyewitness testimony. In that particular case,

scientific forms of identification were held to be preferable over eyewitness


testimony, as pictures of the accused were what were presented for identification,
so the testimony of the witness was tainted. The holding of a DNA test was never in
issue.