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 – Herrera’s MR was denied.
 July 18, 2000 – Herrera filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the CA, advancing the following
arguments:
Page 1 of 3
 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.

ISSUE: Whether or not Herrera is correct.

HELD: No. 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,
6. and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.

The above test is derived from the Daubert Test which is a doctrine adopted from US jurisprudence (Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) The Daubert Test is a test to be employed by courts before admitting
scientific test results in evidence. More specifically, the Daubert Test inquires:
1. Whether the theory or technique can be tested,
2. Whether the proffered work has been subjected to peer review,
3. Whether the rate of error is acceptable,
4. Whether the method at issue enjoys widespread acceptance

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
Page 2 of 3
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.

What if the result provides that there is less than 99.9% probability that the alleged father is the biological
father?

Then the evidence is merely corroborative.

Anent the issue of self-incrimination, submitting to DNA testing is not violative of the right against self-
incrimination. The right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition on the use of physical or moral
compulsion to extort communication (testimonial evidence) from a defendant, not an exclusion of evidence
taken from his body when it may be material. There is no “testimonial compulsion” in the getting of DNA
sample from Herrera, hence, he cannot properly invoke self-incrimination.

Page 3 of 3