PART SEVEN DNA AS EVIDENCE The focus is nor on DNA testing to prove the guilt or innocence of those accused

of crimes. I. hat is DNA test!

It is s"non"mous to DNA t"ping# DNA fingerprinting# DNA profiling# genetic tests and genetic fingerprinting. Its scientific $asis is $ased on the fact that our differences as individuals are due to differences in our genetic ma%e&up or genetic composition. The genes comprise a chemical su$stance# DNA or deo'"ri$onucleic acid. People vs. Valle(o# ).R. No. *++,-,# .a" /# 0110# 230 SCRA */0 Repu$lic SUPREME .anila EN 4ANC G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004 THE PHILIPPINES# appellee# of the Philippines COURT

PEOPLE OF vs. JOEL YATAR al a! "#A$IT", appellant. DECISI5N PER CURIAM%

5n automatic revie6 is a Decision of the Regional Trial Court of 4ulanao# Ta$u%# 7alinga# 4ranch 0-# sentencing appellant 8oel 9atar alias :7a6it: to Death for the special comple' crime of Rape 6ith ;omicide# and ordering him to pa" the heirs of the victim# 7ath"l"n D. <$a# civil indemnit" in the amount of P=-#111.11# moral damages in the amount of P011#111.11# e'emplar" damages in the amount of P-1#111.11# actual damages in the amount of P*3,#+*1.11# or total damages amounting to P-**#+*1.11# and costs of litigation. * Appellant 6as charged 6ith Rape 6ith ;omicide under the follo6ing Information> That on or a$out the afternoon of 8une 21# *//3 at ?i6an est# Ri@al# 7alinga# and 6ithin the (urisdiction of this ;onora$le Court# the accused# in order to have carnal %no6ledge of a certain 7AT;9?9N D. <4A# did then and there 6ilfull"# unla6full"# and feloniousl"# and 6ith use of a $laded 6eapon sta$ the latter inflicting upon her fatal in(uries resulting in the death of the victim# and on the occasion or $" reason thereof# accused# 6ilfull"# unla6full" and feloniousl"# and $" means of force and violence had carnal %no6ledge of said 7athl"n D. <$a against her 6ill. C5NTRAR9 T5 ?A .0 The facts are> 5n 8une 21# *//3# at 3>21 a.m.# 8udil"n Pas&a and her first cousin# seventeen "ear old 7ath"l"n <$a# 6ere on the ground floor of the house of their grandmother# Isa$el Da6ang# in ?i6an est# Ri@al# 7alinga. The" 6ere tal%ing a$out the letter sent $" their aunt# ?u@ 9atar# to her hus$and# appellant 8oel 9atar# through 7ath"l"nAs friend# Cecil Casingan. 7ath"l"n handed the letter to appellant earlier that morning. 2 At />11 a.m. of the same da"# 8udil"n and her hus$and# together 6ith Isa$el Da6ang# left for their farm in Nag$ita"an some t6o %ilometers a6a". 4efore 8udil"n and her hus$and departed# 7ath"l"n told 8udil"n that she intended to go to Tuguegarao# $ut in the event she 6ould not $e a$le to leave# she 6ould (ust sta" home and 6ash her clothes or go to the house of their aunt# Anita ania. 7ath"l"n 6as left alone in the house. + ?ater# at *1>11 a.m.# Anita ania and fifteen "ear old 4everl" Deneng stopped $" the house of Isa$el. The" sa6 appellant

at the $ac% of the house. The" 6ent inside the house through the $ac% door of the %itchen to have a drin% of 6ater. Anita as%ed appellant 6hat he 6as doing there# and he replied that he 6as getting lum$er to $ring to the house of his mother. At *0>21 p.m.# 6hile 8udil"n 6as on her 6a" home from Nag$ita"an# she sa6 appellant descend the ladder from the second floor of the house of Isa$el Da6ang and run to6ards the $ac% of the house. , She later noticed appellant# 6ho 6as 6earing a 6hite shirt 6ith collar and $lac% pants# pacing $ac% and forth at the $ac% of the house. She did not find this unusual as appellant and his 6ife used to live in the house of Isa$el Da6ang. = At *>21 p.m.# 8udil"n again sa6 appellant 6hen he called her near her house. This time# he 6as 6earing a $lac% shirt 6ithout collar and $lue pants. Appellant told her that he 6ould not $e getting the lum$er he had stac%ed# and that Isa$el could use it. She noticed that appellantAs e"es 6ere :reddish and sharp.: Appellant as%ed her 6here her hus$and 6as as he had something important to tell him. 8udil"nAs hus$and then arrived and appellant immediatel" left and 6ent to6ards the $ac% of the house of Isa$el.3 In the evening of the same da"# Isa$el Da6ang arrived home and found that the lights in her house 6ere off. She called out for her granddaughter# 7ath"l"n <$a. The door to the ground floor 6as open. She noticed that the 6ater container she as%ed 7ath"l"n to fill up earlier that da" 6as still empt". She 6ent up the ladder to the second floor of the house to see if 7ath"l"n 6as upstairs. She found that the door 6as tied 6ith a rope# so she 6ent do6n to get a %nife. hile she groped in the dar%# she felt a lifeless $od" that 6as cold and rigid. / Isa$el moved her hand throughout the entire $od". She found out that it 6as the na%ed $od" of her granddaughter# 7ath"l"n. She called for help. 8udil"n and her hus$and arrived. Isa$el 6as given a flashlight $" 8udil"n. She focused the $eam and sa6 7ath"l"n spra6led on the floor na%ed# 6ith her intestines protruding out of her stomach. .ean6hile# neigh$ors had arrived to offer assistance. A daughter of Isa$el# Cion# called the police. *1 At />11 that evening# SP1+ .elchor Banis6a received a report that a dead 6oman 6as found in Isa$el Da6angAs house. Together 6ith fello6 police officers# Banis6a 6ent to the house and found the na%ed $od" of 7ath"l"n <$a 6ith multiple sta$ 6ounds. The people in the vicinit" informed the police officers that appellant 6as seen going do6n the ladder of the house of Isa$el Da6ang at appro'imatel" *0>21 p.m. The police discovered the victimAs panties# $rassiere# denim pants# $ag and sandals $eside her na%ed cadaver at the scene of the crime# and the" found a dirt" 6hite shirt splattered 6ith $lood 6ithin -1 meters from the house of Isa$el. hen Cuestioned $" the police authorities# appellant denied an" %no6ledge of 7ath"l"nsAs death# ** ho6ever# he 6as placed under police custod". 5n 8ul" 2# *//3# appellant as%ed the police officers if he could relieve himself. Police 5fficer Cesar A$agan accompanied him to the toilet around seven to ten meters a6a" from the police station. The" suddenl" heard someone shout in the Ilocano dialect# :Nagtara"D: E;eAs running a6a"DF. Police 5fficer 5rlando .anuel e'ited through the gate of the Police Station and sa6 appellant running a6a". Appellant 6as appro'imatel" =1 meters a6a" from the station 6hen Police 5fficer A$agan recaptured him. *0 ;e 6as charged 6ith Rape 6ith ;omicide. hen he 6as arraigned on 8ul" 0*# *//3# appellant pleaded :not guilt".: After trial# appellant 6as convicted of the crime of Rape with Homicide# defined and penali@ed under Article 0,,&A of the Revised Penal Code# as amended $" R.A. 32-2# other6ise %no6n as the Anti&Rape ?a6 of *//=# and 6as accordingl"# sentenced to Death. ;ence# this automatic revie6 pursuant to Article += of the Revised Penal Code# as amended. In his 4rief# appellant assigns the follo6ing errors> I T;E TRIA? C5<RT )RAVE?9 ERRED IN )IVIN) .<C; EI);T T5 T;E EVIDENCE PRESENTED 49 T;E PR5SEC<TI5N N5T IT;STANDIN) T;EIR D5<4TB<?NESS. II

T;E TRIA? C5<RT SERI5<S?9 ERRED IN N5T ACG<ITTIN) T;E ACC<SED&APPE??ANT 5B T;E SERI5<S CRI.E C;AR)ED D<E T5 REAS5NA4?E D5<4T. AppellantAs contentions are unmeritorious. The issue regarding the credi$ilit" of the prosecution 6itnesses should $e resolved against appellant. This Court 6ill not interfere 6ith the (udgment of the trial court in determining the credi$ilit" of 6itnesses unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of 6eight and influence 6hich has $een overloo%ed or the significance of 6hich has $een misinterpreted.*2 ell&entrenched is the rule that the findings of the trial court on credi$ilit" of 6itnesses are entitled to great 6eight on appeal unless cogent reasons are presented necessitating a ree'amination if not the distur$ance of the sameH the reason $eing that the former is in a $etter and uniCue position of hearing first hand the 6itnesses and o$serving their deportment# conduct and attitude.*+ A$sent an" sho6ing that the trial (udge overloo%ed# misunderstood# or misapplied some facts or circumstances of 6eight 6hich 6ould affect the result of the case# the trial (udgeAs assessment of credi$ilit" deserves the appellate courtAs highest respect.*- here there is nothing to sho6 that the 6itnesses for the prosecution 6ere actuated $" improper motive# their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. *, The 6eight of the prosecutionAs evidence must $e appreciated in light of the 6ell&settled rule 6hich provides that an accused can $e convicted even if no e"e6itness is availa$le# as long as sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented $" the prosecution to prove $e"ond dou$t that the accused committed the crime. *= Reference to the records 6ill sho6 that a total of eleven E**F 6ounds# si' E,F sta$ and five E-F incised# 6ere found on the victimAs a$domen and $ac%# causing a portion of her small intestines to spill out of her $od". *3 Rigor mortisof the vicitmAs $od" 6as complete 6hen Dr. 4artolo e'amined the victim at />11 a.m. on 8ul" *# *//3. According to him# the time of death ma" $e appro'imated from $et6een nine E/F to t6elve E*0F hours prior to the completion of rigor mortis.*/ In other 6ords# the estimated time of death 6as sometime $et6een />11 a.m. to *0>11 p.m. on 8une 21# *//3. This 6as 6ithin the timeframe 6ithin 6hich the lone presence of appellant lur%ing in the house of Isa$el Da6ang 6as testified to $" 6itnesses. It should also $e noted that# although the Postmortem Report $" the attending ph"sician# Dr. Pe( Evan C. 4artolo# indicates that no h"menal lacerations# contusions or hematoma 6ere noted on the victim# 01 Dr. 4artolo discovered the presence of semen in the vaginal canal of the victim. During his testimon"# Dr. 4artolo stated that the introduction of semen into the vaginal canal could onl" $e done through se'ual intercourse 6ith the victim. 0* In addition# it is apparent from the pictures su$mitted $" the prosecution that the se'ual violation of the victim 6as manifested $" a $ruise and some s6elling in her right forearm indicating resistance to the appellantAs assault on her virtue. 00 Significantl"# su$seCuent testing sho6ed that the Deo'"ri$onucleic acid EDNAF of the sperm specimen from the vagina of the victim 6as identical the semen to $e that of appellantAs gene t"pe. DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. 02 A personAs DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a personAs lifetimeH the DNA in a personAs $lood is the same as the DNA found in his saliva# s6eat# $one# the root and shaft of hair# ear6a'# mucus# urine# s%in tissue# and vaginal and rectal cells. 0+ .ost importantl"# $ecause of pol"morphisms in human genetic structure# no t6o individuals have the same DNA# 6ith the nota$le e'ception of identical t6ins. 0DNA print or identification technolog" has $een advanced as a uniCuel" effective means to lin% a suspect to a crime# or to e'onerate a 6rongl" accused suspect# 6here $iological evidence has $een left. Bor purposes of criminal investigation# DNA identification is a fertile source of $oth inculpator" and e'culpator" evidence. It can assist immensel" in effecting a more accurate account of the crime committed# efficientl" facilitating the conviction of the guilt"# securing the acCuittal of the innocent# and ensuring the proper administration of (ustice in ever" case. DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can lin% a suspect to a crime or eliminate one from suspicion in the same principle as fingerprints are used.0, Incidents involving se'ual assault 6ould leave $iological evidence such as hair# s%in tissue# semen# $lood# or saliva 6hich can $e left on the victimAs $od" or at the crime scene. ;air and fi$er from clothing# carpets# $edding# or furniture could also $e transferred to the victimAs $od" during the assault. 0= Borensic DNA evidence is helpful in proving that there 6as ph"sical contact $et6een an assailant and a victim. If properl" collected from the victim# crime scene or assailant# DNA can $e compared 6ith %no6n samples to place the suspect at the scene of the crime. 03 The <.P. National Science Research Institute ENSRIF# 6hich conducted the DNA tests in this case# used the Pol"merase chain reaction EPCRF amplification method $" Short Tandem Repeat ESTRF anal"sis. ith PCR testing# tin" amounts of a specific DNA seCuence can $e copied e'ponentiall" 6ithin hours. Thus# getting sufficient DNA for anal"sis has $ecome much easier since it $ecame possi$le to relia$l" amplif" small samples using the PCR method.

In assessing the pro$ative value of DNA evidence# courts should consider# inter alia# the follo6ing factors> ho6 the samples 6ere collected# ho6 the" 6ere handled# the possi$ilit" of contamination of the samples# the procedure follo6ed in anal"@ing the samples# 6hether the proper standards and procedures 6ere follo6ed in conducting the tests# and the Cualification of the anal"st 6ho conducted the tests.0/ In the case at $ar# Dr. .aria Cora@on A$ogado de <ngria 6as dul" Cualified $" the prosecution as an e'pert 6itness on DNA print or identification techniCues. 21 4ased on Dr. de <ngriaAs testimon"# it 6as determined that the gene t"pe and DNA profile of appellant are identical to that of the e'tracts su$(ect of e'amination. 2* The $lood sample ta%en from the appellant sho6ed that he 6as of the follo6ing gene t"pes> v A *-I*/# T;1* =I3# D;BRP0 /I*1 and CSB*P5 *1I**# 6hich are identical 6ith semen ta%en from the victimAs vaginal canal. 20 Veril"# a DNA match e'ists $et6een the semen found in the victim and the $lood sample given $" the appellant in open court during the course of the trial. Admittedl"# 6e are (ust $eginning to integrate these advances in science and technolog" in the Philippine criminal (ustice s"stem# so 6e must $e cautious as 6e traverse these relativel" uncharted 6aters. Bortunatel"# 6e can $enefit from the 6ealth of persuasive (urisprudence that has developed in other (urisdictions. Specificall"# the prevailing doctrine in the <.S. has proven instructive. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow#22 it 6as ruled that pertinent evidence $ased on scientificall" valid principles could $e used as long as it 6as relevant and relia$le. 8udges# under Daubert# 6ere allo6ed greater discretion over 6hich testimon" the" 6ould allo6 at trial# including the introduction of ne6 %inds of scientific techniCues. DNA t"ping is one such novel procedure. <nder Philippine la6# evidence is relevant 6hen it relates directl" to a fact in issue as to induce $elief in its e'istence or non&e'istence.2+ Appl"ing the Daubert test to the case at $ar# the DNA evidence o$tained through PCR testing and utili@ing STR anal"sis# and 6hich 6as appreciated $" the court a quo is relevant and relia$le since it is reasona$l" $ased on scientificall" valid principles of human genetics and molecular $iolog". Independentl" of the ph"sical evidence of appellantAs semen found in the victimAs vaginal canal# the trial court appreciated the follo6ing circumstantial evidence as $eing sufficient to sustain a conviction $e"ond reasona$le dou$t> E*F Appellant and his 6ife 6ere living in the house of Isa$el Da6ang together 6ith the victim# 7ath"l"n <$aH E0F In 8une *//3# appellantAs 6ife left the house $ecause of their freCuent CuarrelsH E2F Appellant received from the victim# 7ath"l"n <$a# a letter from his estranged 6ife in the earl" morning on 8une 21# *//3H E+F Appellant 6as seen $" Apolonia ania and 4everl" Denneng at *>11 p.m. of 8une 21# *//3 near the %itchen of the house of Isa$el Da6ang# acting strangel" and 6earing a dirt" 6hite shirt 6ith collarH E-F 8udil"n Pas&a sa6 appellant going do6n the ladder of the house of Isa$el at *0>21 p.m.# 6earing a dirt" 6hite shirt# and again at *>21 p.m.# this time 6earing a $lac% shirtH E,F Appellant hurriedl" left 6hen the hus$and of 8udil"n Pas&a 6as approachingH E=F Salmalina Tandagan sa6 appellant in a dirt" 6hite shirt coming do6n the ladder of the house of Isa$el on the da" 7ath"l"n <$a 6as found deadH E3F The door leading to the second floor of the house of Isa$el Da6ang 6as tied $" a ropeH E/F The victim# 7ath"l"n <$a# la" na%ed in a pool of $lood 6ith her intestines protruding from her $od" on the second floor of the house of Isa$el Da6ang# 6ith her stained pants# $ra# under6ear and shoes scattered along the peripher"H E*1F ?a$orator" e'amination revealed sperm in the victimAs vagina EE'hi$it :;: and :8:FH E**F The stained or dirt" 6hite shirt found in the crime scene 6as found to $e positive 6ith $loodH E*0F DNA of slide# E'hi$it :8: and :;:# compared 6ith the DNA profile of the appellant are identicalH and E*2F Appellant escaped t6o da"s after he 6as detained $ut 6as su$seCuentl" apprehended# such flight $eing indicative of guilt. 2Circumstantial evidence# to $e sufficient to 6arrant a conviction# must form an un$ro%en chain 6hich leads to a fair and reasona$le conclusion that the accused# to the e'clusion of others# is the perpetrator of the crime. To determine 6hether there is sufficient circumstantial evidence# three reCuisites must concur> E*F there is more than one circumstanceH E0F facts on 6hich the inferences are derived are provenH and E2F the com$ination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction $e"ond reasona$le dou$t.2, In an attempt to e'clude the DNA evidence# the appellant contends that the $lood sample ta%en from him as 6ell as the DNA tests 6ere conducted in violation of his right to remain silent as 6ell as his right against self&incrimination under Secs. *0 and *= of Art. III of the Constitution. This contention is untena$le. The %ernel of the right is not against all compulsion# $ut against testimonial compulsion.2= The right against self& incrimination is simpl" against the legal process of e'tracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does not appl" 6here the evidence sought to $e e'cluded is not an incrimination $ut as part of o$(ect evidence. e ruled in People v. Rondero23 that although accused&appellant insisted that hair samples 6ere forci$l" ta%en from him

and su$mitted to the National 4ureau of Investigation for forensic e'amination# the hair samples ma" $e admitted in evidence against him# for 6hat is proscri$ed is the use of testimonial compulsion or an" evidence communicative in nature acCuired from the accused under duress. ;ence# a person ma" $e compelled to su$mit to fingerprinting# photographing# paraffin# $lood and DNA# as there is no testimonial compulsion involved. <nder People v. Gallarde#2/ 6here immediatel" after the incident# the police authorities too% pictures of the accused 6ithout the presence of counsel# 6e ruled that there 6as no violation of the right against self& incrimination. The accused ma" $e compelled to su$mit to a ph"sical e'amination to determine his involvement in an offense of 6hich he is accused. It must also $e noted that appellant in this case su$mitted himself for $lood sampling 6hich 6as conducted in open court on .arch 21# 0111# in the presence of counsel. Appellant further argues that the DNA tests conducted $" the prosecution against him are unconstitutional on the ground that resort thereto is tantamount to the application of an ex-post facto la6. This argument is specious. No ex-post facto la6 is involved in the case at $ar. The science of DNA t"ping involves the admissi$ilit"# relevance and relia$ilit" of the evidence o$tained under the Rules of Court. hereas an ex-post facto la6 refers primaril" to a Cuestion of la6# DNA profiling reCuires a factual determination of the pro$ative 6eight of the evidence presented. AppellantAs t6in defense of denial and ali$i cannot $e sustained. The forensic DNA evidence and $loodied shirt# not6ithstanding the e"e6itness accounts of his presence at Isa$el Da6angAs house during the time 6hen the crime 6as committed# undenia$l" lin% him to the 8une 21# *//3 incident. Appellant did not demonstrate 6ith clear and convincing evidence an impossi$ilit" to $e in t6o places at the same time# especiall" in this case 6here the t6o places are located in the same $aranga".+1 ;e lives 6ithin a one hundred E*11F meter radius from the scene of the crime# and reCuires a mere five minute 6al% to reach one house from the other. This fact severel" 6ea%ens his alibi. As to the second assignment of error# appellant asserts that the court a quo committed reversi$le error in convicting him of the crime charged. ;e alleges that he should $e acCuitted on reasona$le dou$t. AppellantAs assertion cannot $e sustained. )enerall"# courts should onl" consider and rel" upon dul" esta$lished evidence and never on mere con(ectures or suppositions. The legal relevanc" of evidence denotes :something more than a minimum of pro$ative value#: suggesting that such evidentiar" relevance must contain a :plus value.: +* This ma" $e necessar" to preclude the trial court from $eing satisfied $" matters of slight value# capa$le of $eing e'aggerated $" pre(udice and hast" conclusions. Evidence 6ithout :plus value: ma" $e logicall" relevant $ut not legall" sufficient to convict. It is incum$ent upon the trial court to $alance the pro$ative value of such evidence against the li%el" harm that 6ould result from its admission. The (udgment in a criminal case can $e upheld onl" 6hen there is relevant evidence from 6hich the court can properl" find or infer that the accused is guilt" $e"ond reasona$le dou$t. Proof $e"ond reasona$le dou$t reCuires moral certaint" of guilt in order to sustain a conviction. .oral certaint" is that degree of certaint" that convinces and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and (udgment of those 6ho are $ound to act conscientiousl" upon it. It is certaint" $e"ond reasona$le dou$t.+0 This reCuires that the circumstances# ta%en together# should $e of a conclusive nature and tendenc"H leading# on the 6hole# to a satisfactor" conclusion that the accused# and no one else# committed the offense charged.+2 In vie6 of the totalit" of evidence appreciated thus far# 6e rule that the present case passes the test of moral certaint". ;o6ever# as a matter of procedure# and for the purpose of meeting the reCuirement of proof $e"ond reasona$le dou$t# motive is essential for conviction 6hen there is dou$t as to the identit" of the culprit. ++ Pertinentl"# it must $e noted that 8udil"n Pas&a# first cousin of the victim# testified that she last sa6 the victim alive in the morning of 8une 21# *//3 at the house of Isa$el Da6ang. +- She 6itnessed the appellant running do6n the stairs of Isa$elAs house and proceeding to the $ac% of the same house. +, She also testified that a fe6 da"s $efore the victim 6as raped and %illed# the latter revealed to her that :8oel 9atar attempted to rape her after she came from the school.: += The victim told 8udil"n a$out the incident or attempt of the appellant to rape her five da"s $efore her na%ed and violated $od" 6as found dead in her grandmotherAs house on 8une 0-# *//3. +3 In addition# 8udil"n also testified that 6hen her auntie ?u@ Da6ang 9atar# 6ife of appellant# separated from her hus$and# :this 8oel 9atar threatened to %ill our famil".:+/ According to 8udil"n# 6ho 6as personall" present during an argument $et6een her aunt and the appellant# the

e'act 6ords uttered $" appellant to his 6ife in the Ilocano dialect 6as# :If "ou leave me# I 6ill %ill all "our famil" and "our relatives ' ' '.:-1 These statements 6ere not contradicted $" appellant. Thus# appellantAs motive to se'uall" assault and %ill the victim 6as evident in the instant case. It is a rule in criminal la6 that motive# $eing a state of mind# is esta$lished $" the testimon" of 6itnesses on the acts or statements of the accused $efore or immediatel" after the commission of the offense# deeds or 6ords that ma" e'press it or from 6hich his motive or reason for committing it ma" $e inferred.-* Accordingl"# 6e are convinced that the appellant is guilt" $e"ond reasona$le dou$t of the special comple' crime of rape 6ith homicide. Appellant se'uall" assaulted 7ath"l"n <$a# and $" reason or on the occasion thereof# in order to conceal his lustful deed# permanentl" sealed the victimAs lips $" sta$$ing her repeatedl"# there$" causing her untimel" demise. The follo6ing are the elements constitutive of rape 6ith homicide> E*F the appellant had carnal %no6ledge of a 6omanH E0F carnal %no6ledge of a 6oman 6as achieved $" means of force# threat or intimidationH and E2F $" reason or on the occasion of such carnal %no6ledge $" means of force# threat or intimidation# appellant %illed the 6oman. -0 ;o6ever# in rape committed $" close %in# such as the victimAs father# step&father# uncle# or the common&la6 spouse of her mother# it is not necessar" that actual force or intimidation $e emplo"ed. -2 .oral influence or ascendanc" ta%es the place of violence and intimidation.-+ The fact that the victimAs h"men is intact does not negate a finding that rape 6as committed as mere entr" $" the penis into the lips of the female genital organ# even 6ithout rupture or laceration of the h"men# suffices for conviction of rape.-- The strength and dilata$ilit" of the h"men are invaria$leH it ma" $e so elastic as to stretch 6ithout laceration during intercourse. A$sence of h"menal lacerations does not disprove se'ual a$use especiall" 6hen the victim is of tender age.-, In the case at $ar# appellant is the hus$and of the victimAs aunt. ;e is seven "ears older than the victim 7ath"l"n <$a. 4efore he and his 6ife separated# appellant lived in the house of his mother&in&la6# together 6ith the victim and his 6ife. After the separation# appellant moved to the house of his parents# appro'imatel" one hundred E*11F meters from his mother&in&la6As house. 4eing a relative $" affinit" 6ithin the third civil degree# he is deemed in legal contemplation to have moral ascendanc" over the victim. <nder Article 0,,&4 of the Revised Penal Code# the penalt" of death is imposed 6hen $" reason or on the occasion of the rape# homicide is committed. Although three E2F 8ustices of this Court maintain their position that R.A. =,-/ is unconstitutional insofar as it prescri$es the death penalt"# the" nevertheless su$mit to the ruling of the ma(orit" that the la6 is not unconstitutional# and that the death penalt" can $e la6full" imposed in the case at $ar. As to damages# civil indemnit" e' delicto of P*11#111.11# -= actual damages incurred $" the famil" of the victim that have $een proved at the trial amounting to P/2#*/1.11# -3 and moral damages of P=-#111.11 -/ should $e a6arded in the light of prevailing la6 and (urisprudence. E'emplar" damages cannot $e a6arded as part of the civil lia$ilit" since the crime 6as not committed 6ith one or more aggravating circumstances. ,1 $HEREFORE, in vie6 of the foregoing# the Decision of the RTC of 4ulanao# Ta$u%# 7alinga# 4ranch 0- in Criminal Case No. 2-&/3# sentencing appellant 8oel 9atar alias :7a6it: to Death for the special comple' crime of Rape 6ith ;omicide is AFFIRME& 6ith the MO&IFICATION that he $e OR&ERE& to pa" the famil" of the victim 7ath"l"n <$a civil indemnit" ex delicto in the amount of P*11#111.11# P/2#*/1.11 in actual damages and P=-#111.11 in moral damages. The a6ard of e'emplar" damages is &ELETE&. <pon the finalit" of this Decision and in accordance 6ith Art. 32 of the Revised Penal Code# as amended $" Sec. 0- of Rep. Act No. =,-/# let the records of this case $e forth6ith for6arded to the President of the Philippines for the possi$le e'ercise of the pardoning po6er. Costs de oficio. SO OR&ERE&.

People vs. 9atar# ).R. No. *-100+# .a" */# 011+# +03 SCRA -1+ Repu$lic SUPREME .anila of the Philippines COURT

EN 4ANC G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004 THE PHILIPPINES# appellee#

PEOPLE OF vs. JOEL YATAR al a! "#A$IT", appellant. DECISI5N PER CURIAM%

5n automatic revie6 is a Decision of the Regional Trial Court of 4ulanao# Ta$u%# 7alinga# 4ranch 0-# sentencing appellant 8oel 9atar alias :7a6it: to Death for the special comple' crime of Rape 6ith ;omicide# and ordering him to pa" the heirs of the victim# 7ath"l"n D. <$a# civil indemnit" in the amount of P=-#111.11# moral damages in the amount of P011#111.11# e'emplar" damages in the amount of P-1#111.11# actual damages in the amount of P*3,#+*1.11# or total damages amounting to P-**#+*1.11# and costs of litigation. * Appellant 6as charged 6ith Rape 6ith ;omicide under the follo6ing Information> That on or a$out the afternoon of 8une 21# *//3 at ?i6an est# Ri@al# 7alinga# and 6ithin the (urisdiction of this ;onora$le Court# the accused# in order to have carnal %no6ledge of a certain 7AT;9?9N D. <4A# did then and there 6ilfull"# unla6full"# and feloniousl"# and 6ith use of a $laded 6eapon sta$ the latter inflicting upon her fatal in(uries resulting in the death of the victim# and on the occasion or $" reason thereof# accused# 6ilfull"# unla6full" and feloniousl"# and $" means of force and violence had carnal %no6ledge of said 7athl"n D. <$a against her 6ill. C5NTRAR9 T5 ?A .0 The facts are> 5n 8une 21# *//3# at 3>21 a.m.# 8udil"n Pas&a and her first cousin# seventeen "ear old 7ath"l"n <$a# 6ere on the ground floor of the house of their grandmother# Isa$el Da6ang# in ?i6an est# Ri@al# 7alinga. The" 6ere tal%ing a$out the letter sent $" their aunt# ?u@ 9atar# to her hus$and# appellant 8oel 9atar# through 7ath"l"nAs friend# Cecil Casingan. 7ath"l"n handed the letter to appellant earlier that morning. 2 At />11 a.m. of the same da"# 8udil"n and her hus$and# together 6ith Isa$el Da6ang# left for their farm in Nag$ita"an some t6o %ilometers a6a". 4efore 8udil"n and her hus$and departed# 7ath"l"n told 8udil"n that she intended to go to Tuguegarao# $ut in the event she 6ould not $e a$le to leave# she 6ould (ust sta" home and 6ash her clothes or go to the house of their aunt# Anita ania. 7ath"l"n 6as left alone in the house. + ?ater# at *1>11 a.m.# Anita ania and fifteen "ear old 4everl" Deneng stopped $" the house of Isa$el. The" sa6 appellant at the $ac% of the house. The" 6ent inside the house through the $ac% door of the %itchen to have a drin% of 6ater. Anita as%ed appellant 6hat he 6as doing there# and he replied that he 6as getting lum$er to $ring to the house of his mother. At *0>21 p.m.# 6hile 8udil"n 6as on her 6a" home from Nag$ita"an# she sa6 appellant descend the ladder from the second floor of the house of Isa$el Da6ang and run to6ards the $ac% of the house. , She later noticed appellant# 6ho 6as 6earing a 6hite shirt 6ith collar and $lac% pants# pacing $ac% and forth at the $ac% of the house. She did not find this unusual as appellant and his 6ife used to live in the house of Isa$el Da6ang. = At *>21 p.m.# 8udil"n again sa6 appellant 6hen he called her near her house. This time# he 6as 6earing a $lac% shirt 6ithout collar and $lue pants. Appellant told her that he 6ould not $e getting the lum$er he had stac%ed# and that Isa$el could use it. She noticed that appellantAs e"es 6ere :reddish and sharp.: Appellant as%ed her 6here her hus$and 6as as he had something important to tell him. 8udil"nAs hus$and then arrived and appellant immediatel" left and 6ent to6ards the $ac% of the house of Isa$el.3 In the evening of the same da"# Isa$el Da6ang arrived home and found that the lights in her house 6ere off. She called out for her granddaughter# 7ath"l"n <$a. The door to the ground floor 6as open. She noticed that the 6ater container she as%ed 7ath"l"n to fill up earlier that da" 6as still empt". She 6ent up the ladder to the second floor of the house to see if

7ath"l"n 6as upstairs. She found that the door 6as tied 6ith a rope# so she 6ent do6n to get a %nife. the dar%# she felt a lifeless $od" that 6as cold and rigid. /

hile she groped in

Isa$el moved her hand throughout the entire $od". She found out that it 6as the na%ed $od" of her granddaughter# 7ath"l"n. She called for help. 8udil"n and her hus$and arrived. Isa$el 6as given a flashlight $" 8udil"n. She focused the $eam and sa6 7ath"l"n spra6led on the floor na%ed# 6ith her intestines protruding out of her stomach. .ean6hile# neigh$ors had arrived to offer assistance. A daughter of Isa$el# Cion# called the police. *1 At />11 that evening# SP1+ .elchor Banis6a received a report that a dead 6oman 6as found in Isa$el Da6angAs house. Together 6ith fello6 police officers# Banis6a 6ent to the house and found the na%ed $od" of 7ath"l"n <$a 6ith multiple sta$ 6ounds. The people in the vicinit" informed the police officers that appellant 6as seen going do6n the ladder of the house of Isa$el Da6ang at appro'imatel" *0>21 p.m. The police discovered the victimAs panties# $rassiere# denim pants# $ag and sandals $eside her na%ed cadaver at the scene of the crime# and the" found a dirt" 6hite shirt splattered 6ith $lood 6ithin -1 meters from the house of Isa$el. hen Cuestioned $" the police authorities# appellant denied an" %no6ledge of 7ath"l"nsAs death# ** ho6ever# he 6as placed under police custod". 5n 8ul" 2# *//3# appellant as%ed the police officers if he could relieve himself. Police 5fficer Cesar A$agan accompanied him to the toilet around seven to ten meters a6a" from the police station. The" suddenl" heard someone shout in the Ilocano dialect# :Nagtara"D: E;eAs running a6a"DF. Police 5fficer 5rlando .anuel e'ited through the gate of the Police Station and sa6 appellant running a6a". Appellant 6as appro'imatel" =1 meters a6a" from the station 6hen Police 5fficer A$agan recaptured him. *0 ;e 6as charged 6ith Rape 6ith ;omicide. hen he 6as arraigned on 8ul" 0*# *//3# appellant pleaded :not guilt".: After trial# appellant 6as convicted of the crime of Rape with Homicide# defined and penali@ed under Article 0,,&A of the Revised Penal Code# as amended $" R.A. 32-2# other6ise %no6n as the Anti&Rape ?a6 of *//=# and 6as accordingl"# sentenced to Death. ;ence# this automatic revie6 pursuant to Article += of the Revised Penal Code# as amended. In his 4rief# appellant assigns the follo6ing errors> I T;E TRIA? C5<RT )RAVE?9 ERRED IN )IVIN) .<C; EI);T T5 T;E EVIDENCE PRESENTED 49 T;E PR5SEC<TI5N N5T IT;STANDIN) T;EIR D5<4TB<?NESS. II T;E TRIA? C5<RT SERI5<S?9 ERRED IN N5T ACG<ITTIN) T;E ACC<SED&APPE??ANT 5B T;E SERI5<S CRI.E C;AR)ED D<E T5 REAS5NA4?E D5<4T. AppellantAs contentions are unmeritorious. The issue regarding the credi$ilit" of the prosecution 6itnesses should $e resolved against appellant. This Court 6ill not interfere 6ith the (udgment of the trial court in determining the credi$ilit" of 6itnesses unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of 6eight and influence 6hich has $een overloo%ed or the significance of 6hich has $een misinterpreted.*2 ell&entrenched is the rule that the findings of the trial court on credi$ilit" of 6itnesses are entitled to great 6eight on appeal unless cogent reasons are presented necessitating a ree'amination if not the distur$ance of the sameH the reason $eing that the former is in a $etter and uniCue position of hearing first hand the 6itnesses and o$serving their deportment# conduct and attitude.*+ A$sent an" sho6ing that the trial (udge overloo%ed# misunderstood# or misapplied some facts or circumstances of 6eight 6hich 6ould affect the result of the case# the trial (udgeAs assessment of credi$ilit" deserves the appellate courtAs highest respect.*- here there is nothing to sho6 that the 6itnesses for the prosecution 6ere actuated $" improper motive# their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. *, The 6eight of the prosecutionAs evidence must $e appreciated in light of the 6ell&settled rule 6hich provides that an

accused can $e convicted even if no e"e6itness is availa$le# as long as sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented $" the prosecution to prove $e"ond dou$t that the accused committed the crime. *= Reference to the records 6ill sho6 that a total of eleven E**F 6ounds# si' E,F sta$ and five E-F incised# 6ere found on the victimAs a$domen and $ac%# causing a portion of her small intestines to spill out of her $od". *3 Rigor mortisof the vicitmAs $od" 6as complete 6hen Dr. 4artolo e'amined the victim at />11 a.m. on 8ul" *# *//3. According to him# the time of death ma" $e appro'imated from $et6een nine E/F to t6elve E*0F hours prior to the completion of rigor mortis.*/ In other 6ords# the estimated time of death 6as sometime $et6een />11 a.m. to *0>11 p.m. on 8une 21# *//3. This 6as 6ithin the timeframe 6ithin 6hich the lone presence of appellant lur%ing in the house of Isa$el Da6ang 6as testified to $" 6itnesses. It should also $e noted that# although the Postmortem Report $" the attending ph"sician# Dr. Pe( Evan C. 4artolo# indicates that no h"menal lacerations# contusions or hematoma 6ere noted on the victim# 01 Dr. 4artolo discovered the presence of semen in the vaginal canal of the victim. During his testimon"# Dr. 4artolo stated that the introduction of semen into the vaginal canal could onl" $e done through se'ual intercourse 6ith the victim. 0* In addition# it is apparent from the pictures su$mitted $" the prosecution that the se'ual violation of the victim 6as manifested $" a $ruise and some s6elling in her right forearm indicating resistance to the appellantAs assault on her virtue. 00 Significantl"# su$seCuent testing sho6ed that the Deo'"ri$onucleic acid EDNAF of the sperm specimen from the vagina of the victim 6as identical the semen to $e that of appellantAs gene t"pe. DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. 02 A personAs DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a personAs lifetimeH the DNA in a personAs $lood is the same as the DNA found in his saliva# s6eat# $one# the root and shaft of hair# ear6a'# mucus# urine# s%in tissue# and vaginal and rectal cells. 0+ .ost importantl"# $ecause of pol"morphisms in human genetic structure# no t6o individuals have the same DNA# 6ith the nota$le e'ception of identical t6ins. 0DNA print or identification technolog" has $een advanced as a uniCuel" effective means to lin% a suspect to a crime# or to e'onerate a 6rongl" accused suspect# 6here $iological evidence has $een left. Bor purposes of criminal investigation# DNA identification is a fertile source of $oth inculpator" and e'culpator" evidence. It can assist immensel" in effecting a more accurate account of the crime committed# efficientl" facilitating the conviction of the guilt"# securing the acCuittal of the innocent# and ensuring the proper administration of (ustice in ever" case. DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can lin% a suspect to a crime or eliminate one from suspicion in the same principle as fingerprints are used.0, Incidents involving se'ual assault 6ould leave $iological evidence such as hair# s%in tissue# semen# $lood# or saliva 6hich can $e left on the victimAs $od" or at the crime scene. ;air and fi$er from clothing# carpets# $edding# or furniture could also $e transferred to the victimAs $od" during the assault. 0= Borensic DNA evidence is helpful in proving that there 6as ph"sical contact $et6een an assailant and a victim. If properl" collected from the victim# crime scene or assailant# DNA can $e compared 6ith %no6n samples to place the suspect at the scene of the crime. 03 The <.P. National Science Research Institute ENSRIF# 6hich conducted the DNA tests in this case# used the Pol"merase chain reaction EPCRF amplification method $" Short Tandem Repeat ESTRF anal"sis. ith PCR testing# tin" amounts of a specific DNA seCuence can $e copied e'ponentiall" 6ithin hours. Thus# getting sufficient DNA for anal"sis has $ecome much easier since it $ecame possi$le to relia$l" amplif" small samples using the PCR method. In assessing the pro$ative value of DNA evidence# courts should consider# inter alia# the follo6ing factors> ho6 the samples 6ere collected# ho6 the" 6ere handled# the possi$ilit" of contamination of the samples# the procedure follo6ed in anal"@ing the samples# 6hether the proper standards and procedures 6ere follo6ed in conducting the tests# and the Cualification of the anal"st 6ho conducted the tests.0/ In the case at $ar# Dr. .aria Cora@on A$ogado de <ngria 6as dul" Cualified $" the prosecution as an e'pert 6itness on DNA print or identification techniCues. 21 4ased on Dr. de <ngriaAs testimon"# it 6as determined that the gene t"pe and DNA profile of appellant are identical to that of the e'tracts su$(ect of e'amination. 2* The $lood sample ta%en from the appellant sho6ed that he 6as of the follo6ing gene t"pes> v A *-I*/# T;1* =I3# D;BRP0 /I*1 and CSB*P5 *1I**# 6hich are identical 6ith semen ta%en from the victimAs vaginal canal. 20 Veril"# a DNA match e'ists $et6een the semen found in the victim and the $lood sample given $" the appellant in open court during the course of the trial. Admittedl"# 6e are (ust $eginning to integrate these advances in science and technolog" in the Philippine criminal (ustice s"stem# so 6e must $e cautious as 6e traverse these relativel" uncharted 6aters. Bortunatel"# 6e can $enefit from the 6ealth of persuasive (urisprudence that has developed in other (urisdictions. Specificall"# the prevailing doctrine in the <.S. has proven instructive.

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow#22 it 6as ruled that pertinent evidence $ased on scientificall" valid principles could $e used as long as it 6as relevant and relia$le. 8udges# under Daubert# 6ere allo6ed greater discretion over 6hich testimon" the" 6ould allo6 at trial# including the introduction of ne6 %inds of scientific techniCues. DNA t"ping is one such novel procedure. <nder Philippine la6# evidence is relevant 6hen it relates directl" to a fact in issue as to induce $elief in its e'istence or non&e'istence.2+ Appl"ing the Daubert test to the case at $ar# the DNA evidence o$tained through PCR testing and utili@ing STR anal"sis# and 6hich 6as appreciated $" the court a quo is relevant and relia$le since it is reasona$l" $ased on scientificall" valid principles of human genetics and molecular $iolog". Independentl" of the ph"sical evidence of appellantAs semen found in the victimAs vaginal canal# the trial court appreciated the follo6ing circumstantial evidence as $eing sufficient to sustain a conviction $e"ond reasona$le dou$t> E*F Appellant and his 6ife 6ere living in the house of Isa$el Da6ang together 6ith the victim# 7ath"l"n <$aH E0F In 8une *//3# appellantAs 6ife left the house $ecause of their freCuent CuarrelsH E2F Appellant received from the victim# 7ath"l"n <$a# a letter from his estranged 6ife in the earl" morning on 8une 21# *//3H E+F Appellant 6as seen $" Apolonia ania and 4everl" Denneng at *>11 p.m. of 8une 21# *//3 near the %itchen of the house of Isa$el Da6ang# acting strangel" and 6earing a dirt" 6hite shirt 6ith collarH E-F 8udil"n Pas&a sa6 appellant going do6n the ladder of the house of Isa$el at *0>21 p.m.# 6earing a dirt" 6hite shirt# and again at *>21 p.m.# this time 6earing a $lac% shirtH E,F Appellant hurriedl" left 6hen the hus$and of 8udil"n Pas&a 6as approachingH E=F Salmalina Tandagan sa6 appellant in a dirt" 6hite shirt coming do6n the ladder of the house of Isa$el on the da" 7ath"l"n <$a 6as found deadH E3F The door leading to the second floor of the house of Isa$el Da6ang 6as tied $" a ropeH E/F The victim# 7ath"l"n <$a# la" na%ed in a pool of $lood 6ith her intestines protruding from her $od" on the second floor of the house of Isa$el Da6ang# 6ith her stained pants# $ra# under6ear and shoes scattered along the peripher"H E*1F ?a$orator" e'amination revealed sperm in the victimAs vagina EE'hi$it :;: and :8:FH E**F The stained or dirt" 6hite shirt found in the crime scene 6as found to $e positive 6ith $loodH E*0F DNA of slide# E'hi$it :8: and :;:# compared 6ith the DNA profile of the appellant are identicalH and E*2F Appellant escaped t6o da"s after he 6as detained $ut 6as su$seCuentl" apprehended# such flight $eing indicative of guilt. 2Circumstantial evidence# to $e sufficient to 6arrant a conviction# must form an un$ro%en chain 6hich leads to a fair and reasona$le conclusion that the accused# to the e'clusion of others# is the perpetrator of the crime. To determine 6hether there is sufficient circumstantial evidence# three reCuisites must concur> E*F there is more than one circumstanceH E0F facts on 6hich the inferences are derived are provenH and E2F the com$ination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction $e"ond reasona$le dou$t.2, In an attempt to e'clude the DNA evidence# the appellant contends that the $lood sample ta%en from him as 6ell as the DNA tests 6ere conducted in violation of his right to remain silent as 6ell as his right against self&incrimination under Secs. *0 and *= of Art. III of the Constitution. This contention is untena$le. The %ernel of the right is not against all compulsion# $ut against testimonial compulsion.2= The right against self& incrimination is simpl" against the legal process of e'tracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does not appl" 6here the evidence sought to $e e'cluded is not an incrimination $ut as part of o$(ect evidence. e ruled in People v. Rondero23 that although accused&appellant insisted that hair samples 6ere forci$l" ta%en from him and su$mitted to the National 4ureau of Investigation for forensic e'amination# the hair samples ma" $e admitted in evidence against him# for 6hat is proscri$ed is the use of testimonial compulsion or an" evidence communicative in nature acCuired from the accused under duress. ;ence# a person ma" $e compelled to su$mit to fingerprinting# photographing# paraffin# $lood and DNA# as there is no testimonial compulsion involved. <nder People v. Gallarde#2/ 6here immediatel" after the incident# the police authorities too% pictures of the accused 6ithout the presence of counsel# 6e ruled that there 6as no violation of the right against self& incrimination. The accused ma" $e compelled to su$mit to a ph"sical e'amination to determine his involvement in an offense of 6hich he is accused. It must also $e noted that appellant in this case su$mitted himself for $lood sampling 6hich 6as conducted in open court on .arch 21# 0111# in the presence of counsel. Appellant further argues that the DNA tests conducted $" the prosecution against him are unconstitutional on the ground that resort thereto is tantamount to the application of an ex-post facto la6. This argument is specious. No ex-post facto la6 is involved in the case at $ar. The science of DNA t"ping involves the

admissi$ilit"# relevance and relia$ilit" of the evidence o$tained under the Rules of Court. hereas an ex-post facto la6 refers primaril" to a Cuestion of la6# DNA profiling reCuires a factual determination of the pro$ative 6eight of the evidence presented. AppellantAs t6in defense of denial and ali$i cannot $e sustained. The forensic DNA evidence and $loodied shirt# not6ithstanding the e"e6itness accounts of his presence at Isa$el Da6angAs house during the time 6hen the crime 6as committed# undenia$l" lin% him to the 8une 21# *//3 incident. Appellant did not demonstrate 6ith clear and convincing evidence an impossi$ilit" to $e in t6o places at the same time# especiall" in this case 6here the t6o places are located in the same $aranga".+1 ;e lives 6ithin a one hundred E*11F meter radius from the scene of the crime# and reCuires a mere five minute 6al% to reach one house from the other. This fact severel" 6ea%ens his alibi. As to the second assignment of error# appellant asserts that the court a quo committed reversi$le error in convicting him of the crime charged. ;e alleges that he should $e acCuitted on reasona$le dou$t. AppellantAs assertion cannot $e sustained. )enerall"# courts should onl" consider and rel" upon dul" esta$lished evidence and never on mere con(ectures or suppositions. The legal relevanc" of evidence denotes :something more than a minimum of pro$ative value#: suggesting that such evidentiar" relevance must contain a :plus value.: +* This ma" $e necessar" to preclude the trial court from $eing satisfied $" matters of slight value# capa$le of $eing e'aggerated $" pre(udice and hast" conclusions. Evidence 6ithout :plus value: ma" $e logicall" relevant $ut not legall" sufficient to convict. It is incum$ent upon the trial court to $alance the pro$ative value of such evidence against the li%el" harm that 6ould result from its admission. The (udgment in a criminal case can $e upheld onl" 6hen there is relevant evidence from 6hich the court can properl" find or infer that the accused is guilt" $e"ond reasona$le dou$t. Proof $e"ond reasona$le dou$t reCuires moral certaint" of guilt in order to sustain a conviction. .oral certaint" is that degree of certaint" that convinces and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and (udgment of those 6ho are $ound to act conscientiousl" upon it. It is certaint" $e"ond reasona$le dou$t.+0 This reCuires that the circumstances# ta%en together# should $e of a conclusive nature and tendenc"H leading# on the 6hole# to a satisfactor" conclusion that the accused# and no one else# committed the offense charged.+2 In vie6 of the totalit" of evidence appreciated thus far# 6e rule that the present case passes the test of moral certaint". ;o6ever# as a matter of procedure# and for the purpose of meeting the reCuirement of proof $e"ond reasona$le dou$t# motive is essential for conviction 6hen there is dou$t as to the identit" of the culprit. ++ Pertinentl"# it must $e noted that 8udil"n Pas&a# first cousin of the victim# testified that she last sa6 the victim alive in the morning of 8une 21# *//3 at the house of Isa$el Da6ang. +- She 6itnessed the appellant running do6n the stairs of Isa$elAs house and proceeding to the $ac% of the same house. +, She also testified that a fe6 da"s $efore the victim 6as raped and %illed# the latter revealed to her that :8oel 9atar attempted to rape her after she came from the school.: += The victim told 8udil"n a$out the incident or attempt of the appellant to rape her five da"s $efore her na%ed and violated $od" 6as found dead in her grandmotherAs house on 8une 0-# *//3. +3 In addition# 8udil"n also testified that 6hen her auntie ?u@ Da6ang 9atar# 6ife of appellant# separated from her hus$and# :this 8oel 9atar threatened to %ill our famil".:+/ According to 8udil"n# 6ho 6as personall" present during an argument $et6een her aunt and the appellant# the e'act 6ords uttered $" appellant to his 6ife in the Ilocano dialect 6as# :If "ou leave me# I 6ill %ill all "our famil" and "our relatives ' ' '.:-1 These statements 6ere not contradicted $" appellant. Thus# appellantAs motive to se'uall" assault and %ill the victim 6as evident in the instant case. It is a rule in criminal la6 that motive# $eing a state of mind# is esta$lished $" the testimon" of 6itnesses on the acts or statements of the accused $efore or immediatel" after the commission of the offense# deeds or 6ords that ma" e'press it or from 6hich his motive or reason for committing it ma" $e inferred.-* Accordingl"# 6e are convinced that the appellant is guilt" $e"ond reasona$le dou$t of the special comple' crime of rape 6ith homicide. Appellant se'uall" assaulted 7ath"l"n <$a# and $" reason or on the occasion thereof# in order to conceal his lustful deed# permanentl" sealed the victimAs lips $" sta$$ing her repeatedl"# there$" causing her untimel" demise. The follo6ing are the elements constitutive of rape 6ith homicide> E*F the appellant had carnal %no6ledge of a 6omanH E0F carnal %no6ledge of a 6oman 6as achieved $" means of force# threat or intimidationH and E2F $" reason or on the occasion of such carnal %no6ledge $" means of force# threat or intimidation# appellant %illed the 6oman. -0 ;o6ever# in rape committed $" close %in# such as the victimAs father# step&father# uncle# or the common&la6 spouse of her mother# it is not necessar" that actual force or intimidation $e emplo"ed. -2 .oral influence or ascendanc" ta%es the place of violence

and intimidation.-+ The fact that the victimAs h"men is intact does not negate a finding that rape 6as committed as mere entr" $" the penis into the lips of the female genital organ# even 6ithout rupture or laceration of the h"men# suffices for conviction of rape.-- The strength and dilata$ilit" of the h"men are invaria$leH it ma" $e so elastic as to stretch 6ithout laceration during intercourse. A$sence of h"menal lacerations does not disprove se'ual a$use especiall" 6hen the victim is of tender age.-, In the case at $ar# appellant is the hus$and of the victimAs aunt. ;e is seven "ears older than the victim 7ath"l"n <$a. 4efore he and his 6ife separated# appellant lived in the house of his mother&in&la6# together 6ith the victim and his 6ife. After the separation# appellant moved to the house of his parents# appro'imatel" one hundred E*11F meters from his mother&in&la6As house. 4eing a relative $" affinit" 6ithin the third civil degree# he is deemed in legal contemplation to have moral ascendanc" over the victim. <nder Article 0,,&4 of the Revised Penal Code# the penalt" of death is imposed 6hen $" reason or on the occasion of the rape# homicide is committed. Although three E2F 8ustices of this Court maintain their position that R.A. =,-/ is unconstitutional insofar as it prescri$es the death penalt"# the" nevertheless su$mit to the ruling of the ma(orit" that the la6 is not unconstitutional# and that the death penalt" can $e la6full" imposed in the case at $ar. As to damages# civil indemnit" e' delicto of P*11#111.11# -= actual damages incurred $" the famil" of the victim that have $een proved at the trial amounting to P/2#*/1.11# -3 and moral damages of P=-#111.11 -/ should $e a6arded in the light of prevailing la6 and (urisprudence. E'emplar" damages cannot $e a6arded as part of the civil lia$ilit" since the crime 6as not committed 6ith one or more aggravating circumstances. ,1 $HEREFORE, in vie6 of the foregoing# the Decision of the RTC of 4ulanao# Ta$u%# 7alinga# 4ranch 0- in Criminal Case No. 2-&/3# sentencing appellant 8oel 9atar alias :7a6it: to Death for the special comple' crime of Rape 6ith ;omicide is AFFIRME& 6ith the MO&IFICATION that he $e OR&ERE& to pa" the famil" of the victim 7ath"l"n <$a civil indemnit" ex delicto in the amount of P*11#111.11# P/2#*/1.11 in actual damages and P=-#111.11 in moral damages. The a6ard of e'emplar" damages is &ELETE&. <pon the finalit" of this Decision and in accordance 6ith Art. 32 of the Revised Penal Code# as amended $" Sec. 0- of Rep. Act No. =,-/# let the records of this case $e forth6ith for6arded to the President of the Philippines for the possi$le e'ercise of the pardoning po6er. Costs de oficio. SO OR&ERE&. Davide !r." Puno" #itug Panganiban $uisumbing %nares-&antiago &andoval-Gutierre' (arpio )ustria-Martine' (orona (arpio-Morales (alle*o &r. )'cuna and +inga !!. concur.

;errera vs. Al$a# ).R. No. *+3001# 8une *-# 011BIRST DIVISI5N

'G.R. No. 14(220. J)*+ 15, 2005,

ROSEN&O HERRERA, petitioner, vs. ROSEN&O AL-A, . *o/, /+0/+!+*1+2 3y 4 ! .o14+/ ARMI A. AL-A, a*2 HON. NIMFA CUESTA56ILCHES, P/+! 2 *7 J)27+, -/a*84 4(, R+7 o*al T/ al Co)/1, Ma* la, respondents. &ECISION CARPIO, J.%

T4+ Ca!+ This is a petition for revie6J*K to set aside the DecisionJ0K dated 0/ Novem$er 0111 of the Court of Appeals ELappellate courtMF in CA&).R. SP No. -/=,,. The appellate court affirmed t6o 5rders J2K issued $" 4ranch +3 of the Regional Trial Court of .anila ELtrial courtMF in SP No. /3&33=-/. The 5rder dated 2 Be$ruar" 0111 directed Rosendo ;errera ELpetitionerMF to su$mit to deo'"ri$onucleic acid ELDNAMF paternit" testing# 6hile the 5rder dated 3 8une 0111 denied petitionerAs motion for reconsideration.

T4+ Fa81! 5n *+ .a" *//3# then thirteen&"ear&old Rosendo Al$a ELrespondentMF# represented $" his mother Armi Al$a# filed $efore the trial court a petition for compulsor" recognition# support and damages against petitioner. 5n = August *//3# petitioner filed his ans6er 6ith counterclaim 6here he denied that he is the $iological father of respondent. Petitioner also denied ph"sical contact 6ith respondentAs mother. Respondent filed a motion to direct the ta%ing of DNA paternit" testing to a$$reviate the proceedings. To support the motion# respondent presented the testimon" of Saturnina C. ;alos# Ph.D. hen she testified# Dr. ;alos 6as an Associate Professor at De ?a Salle <niversit" 6here she taught Cell 4iolog". She 6as also head of the <niversit" of the Philippines Natural Sciences Research Institute EL<P&NSRIMF# a DNA anal"sis la$orator". She 6as a former professor at the <niversit" of the Philippines in Diliman# Gue@on Cit"# 6here she developed the .olecular 4iolog" Program and taught .olecular 4iolog". In her testimon"# Dr. ;alos descri$ed the process for DNA paternit" testing and asserted that the test had an accurac" rate of //.////N in esta$lishing paternit". J+K Petitioner opposed DNA paternit" testing and contended that it has not gained accepta$ilit". Petitioner further argued that DNA paternit" testing violates his right against self&incrimination.

T4+ R)l *7 o9 14+ T/ al Co)/1 In an 5rder dated 2 Be$ruar" 0111# the trial court granted respondentAs motion to conduct DNA paternit" testing on petitioner# respondent and Armi Al$a. Thus> I* : +; o9 14+ 9o/+7o *7, 14+ .o1 o* o9 14+ 0+1 1 o*+/ ! GRANTE& a*2 14+ /+l+:a*1 *2 : 2)al!, *a.+ly% 14+ 0+1 1 o*+/, 14+ . *o/ 84 l2, a*2 /+!0o*2+*1 a/+ 2 /+81+2 1o )*2+/7o &NA 0a1+/* 1y 1+!1 *7 * a la3o/a1o/y o9 14+ / 8o..o* 84o 8+ ; 14 * a 0+/ o2 o9 14 /1y <=0> 2ay! 9/o. /+8+ 01 o9 14+ O/2+/, a*2 1o !)3. 1 14+ /+!)l1! 14+/+o9 ; 14 * a 0+/ o2 o9 * *+1y <90> 2ay! 9/o. 8o.0l+1 o*. T4+ 0a/1 +! a/+ 9)/14+/ /+. *2+2 o9 14+ 4+a/ *7 !+1 o* 24 F+3/)a/y 2000 9o/ 14+ /+8+01 o* o9 o14+/ +: 2+*8+ * !)00o/1 o9 14+ 0+1 1 o*. IT IS SO OR&ERE&.'5, <E.04a! ! * 14+ o/ 7 *al> Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the 2 Be$ruar" 0111 5rder. ;e asserted that Lunder the present circumstances# the DNA test JheK is compelled to ta%e 6ould $e inconclusive# irrelevant and the coercive process to o$tain the reCuisite specimenO# unconstitutional.M In an 5rder dated 3 8une 0111# the trial court denied petitionerAs motion for reconsideration. J,K 5n *3 8ul" 0111# petitioner filed $efore the appellate court a petition for certiorari under Rule ,- of the *//= Rules of Civil Procedure. ;e asserted that the trial court rendered the 5rders dated 2 Be$ruar" 0111 and 3 8une 0111 Lin e'cess of# or 6ithout (urisdiction andIor 6ith grave a$use of discretion amounting to lac% or e'cess of (urisdiction.M Petitioner further contended that there is Lno appeal nor an" JotherK plain# adeCuate and speed" remed" in the ordinar" course of la6.M Petitioner maintained his previous o$(ections to the ta%ing of DNA paternit" testing. ;e su$mitted the follo6ing grounds to support his o$(ection> 1. 2. P)3l 8 /+!0o*2+*1 . !/+a2 a*2 . !a00l +2 14+ /)l *7 * L . :!. Co)/1 o9 A00+al! <2?0 SCRA 2>. P)3l 8 /+!0o*2+*1 /)l+2 1o a88+01 &NA 1+!1 ; 14o)1 8o*! 2+/ *7 14+ l . 1a1 o*! o*, a*2 8o*2 1 o*! 0/+8+2+*1 9o/ 14+ a2. !! 3 l 1y o9 &NA 1+!1 *7 a*2 7*o/ *7 14+ !+/ o)! 8o*!1/a *1! a99+81 *7 14+ /+l a3 l 1y o9 14+ 1+!1 a! a2. 11+2 3y 0/ :a1+ /+!0o*2+*1@! A+B0+/1C ; 1*+!!. S)3D+81 O/2+/! la8E l+7al a*2 9a81)al !)00o/1, ; 14 0)3l 8 /+!0o*2+*1 /+ly *7 o* !8 +*1 9 8 9 *2 *7! a*2 8o*8l)! o*! )*9 1 9o/ D)2 8 al *o1 8+ a*2 )*!)00o/1+2 3y +B0+/1! * 14+ 9 +l2 a*2 !8 +*1 9 8 1/+a1 !+!.

=.

4.

U*2+/ 14+ 0/+!+*1 8 /8).!1a*8+! 14+ &NA 1+!1 *7 0+1 1 o*+/ ' !, 8o.0+ll+2 1o 1aE+ ; ll 3+ *8o*8l)! :+, //+l+:a*1 a*2 14+ 8o+/8 :+ 0/o8+!! 1o o31a * 14+ /+F) ! 1+ !0+8 .+* 9/o. 14+ 0+1 1 o*+/, )*8o*!1 1)1 o*al.'?,

T4+ R)l *7 o9 14+ Co)/1 o9 A00+al! 5n 0/ Novem$er 0111# the appellate court issued a decision den"ing the petition and affirming the Cuestioned 5rders of the trial court. The appellate court stated that petitioner merel" desires to correct the trial courtAs evaluation of evidence. Thus# appeal is an availa$le remed" for an error of (udgment that the court ma" commit in the e'ercise of its (urisdiction. The appellate court also stated that the proposed DNA paternit" testing does not violate his right against self& incrimination $ecause the right applies onl" to testimonial compulsion. Binall"# the appellate court pointed out that petitioner can still refute a possi$le adverse result of the DNA paternit" testing. The dispositive portion of the appellate courtAs decision reads> $HEREFORE, 9o/+7o *7 0/+. !+! 8o*! 2+/+2, 14+ P+1 1 o* ! 4+/+3y &ENIE& &UE COURSE, a*2 o/2+/+2 2 !. !!+2, a*2 14+ 84all+*7+2 o/2+/! o9 14+ T/ al Co)/1 AFFIRME&, ; 14 8o!1! 1o P+1 1 o*+/. SO OR&ERE&.'(, Petitioner moved for reconsideration# 6hich the appellate court denied in its Resolution dated 02 .a" 011*. J/K

I!!)+! Petitioner raises the issue of 6hether a DNA test is a valid pro$ative tool in this (urisdiction to determine filiation. Petitioner as%s for the conditions under 6hich DNA technolog" ma" $e integrated into our (udicial s"stem and the prereCuisites for the admissi$ilit" of DNA test results in a paternit" suit. J*1K Petitioner further su$mits that the appellate court gravel" a$used its discretion 6hen it authori@ed the trial court Lto em$ar% in JsicK a ne6 procedure ''' to determine filiation despite the a$sence of legislation to ensure its relia$ilit" and integrit"# 6ant of official recognition as made clear in ,im vs. (ourt of )ppeals and the presence of technical and legal constraints in respect of JsicK its implementation.M J**K Petitioner maintains that the proposed DNA paternit" testing violates his right against self&incrimination.J*0K

T4+ R)l *7 o9 14+ Co)/1 The petition has no merit. 4efore discussing the issues on DNA paternit" testing# 6e deem it appropriate to give an overvie6 of a paternit" suit and appl" it to the facts of this case. e shall consider the reCuirements of the Bamil" Code and of the Rules of Evidence to esta$lish paternit" and filiation.

An Overview of the Paternity and Filiation Suit Biliation proceedings are usuall" filed not (ust to ad(udicate paternit" $ut also to secure a legal right associated 6ith paternit"# such as citi@enship#J*2K support Eas in the present caseF# or inheritance. The $urden of proving paternit" is on the person 6ho alleges that the putative father is the $iological father of the child. There are four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternit" action 6hich parties have to face> a prima facie case# affirmative defenses# presumption of legitimac"# and ph"sical resem$lance $et6een the putative father and child. J*+K A prima facie case e'ists if a 6oman declares that she had se'ual relations 6ith the putative father. In our (urisdiction# corro$orative proof is reCuired to carr" the $urden for6ard and shift it to the putative father. J*-K There are t6o affirmative defenses availa$le to the putative father. The putative father ma" sho6 incapa$ilit" of se'ual relations 6ith the mother# $ecause of either ph"sical a$sence or impotenc". J*,K The putative father ma" also sho6 that the mother had se'ual relations 6ith other men at the time of conception.

A child $orn to a hus$and and 6ife during a valid marriage is presumed legitimate. J*=K The childAs legitimac" ma" $e impugned onl" under the strict standards provided $" la6. J*3K Binall"# ph"sical resem$lance $et6een the putative father and child ma" $e offered as part of evidence of paternit". Resem$lance is a trial techniCue uniCue to a paternit" proceeding. ;o6ever# although li%eness is a function of heredit"# there is no mathematical formula that could Cuantif" ho6 much a child must or must not loo% li%e his $iological father. J*/K This %ind of evidence appeals to the emotions of the trier of fact. In the present case# the trial court encountered three of the four aspects. Armi Al$a# respondentAs mother# put for6ard a prima facie case 6hen she asserted that petitioner is respondentAs $iological father. A6are that her assertion is not enough to convince the trial court# she offered corro$orative proof in the form of letters and pictures. Petitioner# on the other hand# denied Armi Al$aAs assertion. ;e denied ever having se'ual relations 6ith Armi Al$a and stated that respondent is Armi Al$aAs child 6ith another man. Armi Al$a countered petitionerAs denial $" su$mitting pictures of respondent and petitioner side $" side# to sho6 ho6 much the" resem$le each other. Paternit" and filiation disputes can easil" $ecome credi$ilit" contests. e no6 loo% to the la6# rules# and governing (urisprudence to help us determine 6hat evidence of incriminating acts on paternit" and filiation are allo6ed in this (urisdiction.

Laws, Rules, and Jurisprudence Establishing Filiation The relevant provisions of the Bamil" Code provide as follo6s> ART. 1?5. Ill+7 1 .a1+ 84 l2/+* .ay +!1a3l !4 14+ / ll+7 1 .a1+ 9 l a1 o* * 14+ !a.+ ;ay a*2 o* 14+ !a.+ +: 2+*8+ a! l+7 1 .a1+ 84 l2/+*. BBB ART. 1?2. T4+ 9 l a1 o* o9 l+7 1 .a1+ 84 l2/+* ! +!1a3l !4+2 3y a*y o9 14+ 9ollo; *7% <1> <2> T4+ /+8o/2 o9 3 /14 a00+a/ *7 * 14+ 8 : l /+7 !1+/ o/ a 9 *al D)27.+*1G o/ A* a2. !! o* o9 l+7 1 .a1+ 9 l a1 o* * a 0)3l 8 2o8).+*1 o/ a 0/ :a1+ 4a*2;/ 11+* *!1/).+*1 a*2 ! 7*+2 3y 14+ 0a/+*1 8o*8+/*+2. T4+ o0+* a*2 8o*1 *)o)! 0o!!+!! o* o9 14+ !1a1)! o9 a l+7 1 .a1+ 84 l2G o/ A*y o14+/ .+a*! allo;+2 3y 14+ R)l+! o9 Co)/1 a*2 !0+8 al la;!.

I* 14+ a3!+*8+ o9 14+ 9o/+7o *7 +: 2+*8+, 14+ l+7 1 .a1+ 9 l a1 o* !4all 3+ 0/o:+2 3y% <1> <2>

The Rules on Evidence include provisions on pedigree. The relevant sections of Rule *21 provide> SEC. =9. Act or declaration about pedigree ! T4+ a81 o/ 2+8la/a1 o* o9 a 0+/!o* 2+8+a!+2, o/ )*a3l+ 1o 1+!1 9y, * /+!0+81 1o 14+ 0+2 7/++ o9 a*o14+/ 0+/!o* /+la1+2 1o 4 . 3y 3 /14 o/ .a// a7+, .ay 3+ /+8+ :+2 * +: 2+*8+ ;4+/+ 1 o88)//+2 3+9o/+ 14+ 8o*1/o:+/!y, a*2 14+ /+la1 o*!4 0 3+1;++* 14+ 1;o 0+/!o*! ! !4o;* 3y +: 2+*8+ o14+/ 14a* !)84 a81 o/ 2+8la/a1 o*. T4+ ;o/2 A0+2 7/++C *8l)2+! /+la1 o*!4 0, 9a. ly 7+*+alo7y, 3 /14, .a// a7+, 2+a14, 14+ 2a1+! ;4+* a*2 14+ 0la8+! ;4+/+ 14+!+ 9a81! o88)//+2, a*2 14+ *a.+! o9 14+ /+la1 :+!. I1 +.3/a8+! al!o 9a81! o9 9a. ly 4 !1o/y *1 .a1+ly 8o**+81+2 ; 14 0+2 7/++. SEC. 40. Fa"ily reputation or tradition regarding pedigree ! T4+ /+0)1a1 o* o/ 1/a2 1 o* +B !1 *7 * a 9a. ly 0/+: o)! 1o 14+ 8o*1/o:+/!y, * /+!0+81 1o 14+ 0+2 7/++ o9 a*y o*+ o9 1! .+.3+/!, .ay 3+ /+8+ :+2 * +: 2+*8+ 9 14+ ; 1*+!! 1+!1 9y *7 14+/+o* 3+ al!o a .+.3+/ o9 14+ 9a. ly, + 14+/ 3y 8o*!a*7) * 1y o/ a99 * 1y. E*1/ +! * 9a. ly 3 3l+! o/ o14+/ 9a. ly 3ooE! o/ 84a/1!, +*7/a: *7 o* / *7!, 9a. ly 0o/1/a 1! a*2 14+ l E+, .ay 3+ /+8+ :+2 a! +: 2+*8+ o9 0+2 7/++. This CourtAs rulings further specif" 6hat incriminating acts are accepta$le as evidence to esta$lish filiation. In Pe Li" v #A#J01K a case petitioner often cites# 6e stated that the issue of paternit" still has to $e resolved $" such conventional evidence as the relevant *8/ . *a1 *7 ver$al and 6ritten acts $" the putative father. <nder Article 0=3 of the Ne6 Civil Code# voluntar" recognition $" a parent shall $e made in the record of $irth# a 6ill# a statement $efore a court of record# or in an" authentic 6riting. To $e effective# the claim of filiation must $e made $" the putative father himself and the 6riting must $e the 6riting of the putative father. J0*K A notarial agreement to support a child 6hose filiation is admitted $" the putative father 6as considered accepta$le evidence. J00K ?etters to the mother vo6ing to $e a good father to the child and pictures of the putative father cuddling the child on various occasions# together 6ith the certificate of live $irth# proved filiation.J02K ;o6ever# a student permanent record# a 6ritten consent to a fatherAs operation# or a marriage contract 6here the putative father gave consent# cannot $e ta%en as authentic 6riting. J0+K Standing alone# neither a

certificate of $aptismJ0-K nor famil" picturesJ0,K are sufficient to esta$lish filiation. So far# the la6s# rules# and (urisprudence seemingl" limit evidence of paternit" and filiation to incriminating acts alone. ;o6ever# advances in science sho6 that sources of evidence of paternit" and filiation need not $e limited to incriminating acts. There is no6 almost universal scientific agreement that $lood grouping tests are conclusive on non& paternit"# although inconclusive on paternit". J0=K In #o $ao v #ourt of Appeals#J03K the result of the $lood grouping test sho6ed that the putative father 6as a Lpossi$le fatherM of the child. Paternit" 6as imputed to the putative father after the possi$ilit" of paternit" 6as proven on presentation during trial of facts and circumstances other than the results of the $lood grouping test. In Jao v #ourt of Appeals#J0/K the child# the mother# and the putative father agreed to su$mit themselves to a $lood grouping test. The National 4ureau of Investigation ELN4IMF conducted the test# 6hich indicated that the child could not have $een the possi$le offspring of the mother and the putative father. e held that the result of the $lood grouping test 6as conclusive on the non&paternit" of the putative father. The present case as%s us to go one step further. evidence to prove paternit". e are no6 as%ed 6hether DNA anal"sis ma" $e admitted as

%&A Analysis as Evidence DNA is the fundamental $uilding $loc% of a personAs entire genetic ma%e&up. DNA is found in all human cells and is the same in ever" cell of the same person. )enetic identit" is uniCue. ;ence# a personAs DNA profile can determine his identit".J21K DNA anal"sis is a procedure in 6hich DNA e'tracted from a $iological sample o$tained from an individual is e'amined. The DNA is processed to generate a pattern# or a DNA profile# for the individual from 6hom the sample is ta%en. This DNA profile is uniCue for each person# e'cept for identical t6ins. J2*K e Cuote relevant portions of the trial courtAs 2 Be$ruar" 0111 5rder 6ith approval> E:+/yo*+ ! 3o/* ; 14 a 2 !1 *81 7+*+1 8 3l)+0/ *1 8all+2 &NA <2+oBy/ 3o*)8l+ 8 a8 2>. I1 ! +B8l)! :+ 1o a* *2 : 2)al <+B8+01 * 14+ /a/+ o88)//+*8+ o9 2+*1 8al 1; *! 14a1 !4a/+ a ! *7l+, 9+/1 l H+2 +77>, a*2 &NA ! )*84a*7 *7 14/o)74o)1 l 9+. -+ *7 a 8o.0o*+*1 o9 +:+/y 8+ll * 14+ 4).a* 3o2y, 14+ &NA o9 a* *2 : 2)al@! 3loo2 ! 14+ :+/y &NA * 4 ! o/ 4+/ !E * 8+ll!, 4a / 9oll 8l+!, .)!8l+!, !+.+*, !a.0l+! 9/o. 3)88al !;a3!, !al :a, o/ o14+/ 3o2y 0a/1!. T4+ 84+. 8al !1/)81)/+ o9 &NA 4a! 9o)/ 3a!+!. T4+y a/+ E*o;* a! A <a2+* *+>, G <7)a* *+>, C <8y!1o! *+> a*2 T <14y. *+>. T4+ o/2+/ * ;4 84 14+ 9o)/ 3a!+! a00+a/ * a* *2 : 2)al@! &NA 2+1+/. *+! 4 ! o/ 4+/ 04y! 8al .aE+)0. A*2 ! *8+ &NA ! a 2o)3l+5!1/a*2+2 .ol+8)l+, 1 ! 8o.0o!+2 o9 1;o !0+8 9 8 0a /+2 3a!+!, A5T o/ T5 A a*2 G5C o/ C5G. T4+!+ a/+ 8all+2 'genes ( E:+/y gene 4a! a 8+/1a * *).3+/ o9 14+ a3o:+ 3a!+ 0a /! 2 !1/ 3)1+2 * a 0a/1 8)la/ !+F)+*8+. T4 ! 7 :+! a 0+/!o* 4 ! o/ 4+/ 7+*+1 8 8o2+. So.+;4+/+ * 14+ &NA 9/a.+;o/E, *o*+14+l+!!, a/+ !+81 o*! 14a1 2 99+/. T4+y a/+ E*o;* a!'poly"orphic loci,( ;4 84 a/+ 14+ a/+a! a*alyH+2 * &NA 1y0 *7 <0/o9 l *7, 1+!1!, 9 *7+/0/ *1 *7, o/ a*aly! !I&NA 9 *7+/0/ *1 *7I7+*+1 8 1+!1! o/ 9 *7+/0/ *1 *7>. I* o14+/ ;o/2!, &NA 1y0 *7 ! .0ly .+a*! 2+1+/. * *7 14+ 'poly"orphic loci ( Ho; ! &NA 1y0 *7 0+/9o/.+2J F/o. a &NA !a.0l+ o31a *+2 o/ +B1/a81+2, a .ol+8)la/ 3 olo7 !1 .ay 0/o8++2 1o a*alyH+ 1 * !+:+/al ;ay!. T4+/+ a/+ 9 :+ <5> 1+84* F)+! 1o 8o*2)81 &NA 1y0 *7. T4+y a/+% 14+ RFLP )restriction frag"ent length poly"orphis"*+ 'reverse dot blot( o/ HLA &K aIP. lo8 ;4 84 ;a! )!+2 * 2(? 8a!+! 14a1 ;+/+ a2. 11+2 a! +: 2+*8+ 3y =? 8o)/1! * 14+ U.S. a! o9 No:+.3+/ 1994G .1&NA 0/o8+!!G 6NTR <:a/ a3l+ *).3+/ 1a*2+. /+0+a1!>G a*2 14+ .o!1 /+8+*1 ;4 84 ! E*o;* a! 14+ PCR5<'0oly.+/a!+, 84a * /+a81 o*> 3a!+2 STR <!4o/1 1a*2+. /+0+a1!> .+14o2 ;4 84, a! o9 199L, ;a! a:a l+2 o9 3y .o!1 9o/+*! 8 la3o/a1o/ +! * 14+ ;o/l2. PCR ! 14+ 0/o8+!! o9 /+0l 8a1 *7 o/ 8o0y *7 &NA * a* +: 2+*8+ !a.0l+ a . ll o* 1 .+! 14/o)74 /+0+a1+2 8y8l *7 o9 a /+a81 o* *:ol: *7 14+ !o58all+2 &NA 0oly.+/ H+ +*Hy.+. S$R, o* 14+ o14+/ 4a*2, 1aE+! .+a!)/+.+*1! * 1= !+0a/a1+ 0la8+! a*2 8a* .a184 1;o <2> !a.0l+! ; 14 a /+0o/1+2 14+o/+1 8al +//o/ /a1+ o9 l+!! 14a* o*+ <1> * a 1/ ll o*. J)!1 l E+ * 9 *7+/0/ *1 a*aly! !, * &NA 1y0 *7, '"atches( a/+ 2+1+/. *+2. To ll)!1/a1+, ;4+* &NA o/ 9 *7+/0/ *1 1+!1! a/+ 2o*+ 1o 2+*1 9y a !)!0+81 * a 8/ . *al 8a!+, 14+ +: 2+*8+ 8oll+81+2 9/o. 14+ 8/ .+ !8+*+ ! 8o.0a/+2 ; 14 14+',nown( 0/ *1. I9 a !)3!1a*1 al a.o)*1 o9 14+ 2+*1 9y *7 9+a1)/+! a/+ 14+ !a.+, 14+ &NA o/ 9 *7+/0/ *1 ! 2++.+2 1o 3+ a .a184. -)1 14+*, +:+* 9 o*ly o*+ 9+a1)/+ o9 14+ &NA o/ 9 *7+/0/ *1 ! 2 99+/+*1, 1 ! 2++.+2 *o1 1o 4a:+ 8o.+ 9/o. 14+ !)!0+81. A! +a/l +/ !1a1+2, 8+/1a * /+7 o*! o9 4).a* &NA !4o; :a/ a1 o*! 3+1;++* 0+o0l+. I* +a84 o9 14+!+ /+7 o*!, a

0+/!o* 0o!!+!!+! 1;o 7+*+1 8 1y0+! 8all+2 'allele(, o*+ *4+/ 1+2 9/o. +a84 0a/+*1. I* 'a, 0a1+/* 1y 1+!1, 14+ 9o/+*! 8 !8 +*1 !1 looE! a1 a *).3+/ o9 14+!+ :a/ a3l+ /+7 o*! * a* *2 : 2)al 1o 0/o2)8+ a &NA 0/o9 l+. Co.0a/ *7 *+B1 14+ &NA 0/o9 l+! o9 14+ .o14+/ a*2 84 l2, 1 ! 0o!! 3l+ 1o 2+1+/. *+ ;4 84 4al9 o9 14+ 84 l2@! &NA ;a! *4+/ 1+2 9/o. 14+ .o14+/. T4+ o14+/ 4al9 .)!1 4a:+ 3++* *4+/ 1+2 9/o. 14+ 3 olo7 8al 9a14+/. T4+ all+7+2 9a14+/@! 0/o9 l+ ! 14+* +Ba. *+2 1o a!8+/1a * ;4+14+/ 4+ 4a! 14+ &NA 1y0+! * 4 ! 0/o9 l+, ;4 84 .a184 14+ 0a1+/*al 1y0+! * 14+ 84 l2. I9 14+ .a*@! &NA 1y0+! 2o *o1 .a184 14a1 o9 14+ 84 l2, 14+ .a* ! +B8l)2+2 a! 14+ 9a14+/. I9 14+ &NA 1y0+! .a184, 14+* 4+ ! *o1 +B8l)2+2 a! 14+ 9a14+/.'=2, <E.04a! ! * 14+ o/ 7 *al> Although the term LDNA testingM 6as mentioned in the *//- case of People v $eehan,ee, Jr.#J22K it 6as onl" in the 011* case of $i-ing v #ourt of AppealsJ2+K that more than a passing mention 6as given to DNA anal"sis. In $i-ing 6e issued a 6rit of habeas corpus against respondent 6ho a$ducted petitionersA "oungest son. Testimonial and documentar" evidence and ph"sical resem$lance 6ere used to esta$lish parentage. ;o6ever# 6e o$served that> Pa/+*1a7+ ; ll !1 ll 3+ /+!ol:+2 )! *7 8o*:+*1 o*al .+14o2! )*l+!! ;+ a2o01 14+ .o2+/* a*2 !8 +*1 9 8 ;ay! a:a la3l+. Fo/1)*a1+ly, ;+ 4a:+ *o; 14+ 9a8 l 1y a*2 +B0+/1 !+ * )! *7 &NA 1+!1 9o/ 2+*1 9 8a1 o* a*2 0a/+*1a7+ 1+!1 *7. T4+ U* :+/! 1y o9 14+ P4 l 00 *+! Na1)/al S8 +*8+ R+!+a/84 I*!1 1)1+ <UP5NSRI> &NA A*aly! ! La3o/a1o/y 4a! *o; 14+ 8a0a3 l 1y 1o 8o*2)81 &NA 1y0 *7 )! *7 !4o/1 1a*2+. /+0+a1 <STR> a*aly! !. BBB Fo/ 1 ;a! !a 2, 14a1 8o)/1! !4o)l2 a00ly 14+ /+!)l1! o9 !8 +*8+ ;4+* 8o.0l+1+ly o31a *+2 * a 2 o9 ! 1)a1 o*! 0/+!+*1+2, ! *8+ 1o /+D+81 !a 2 /+!)l1 ! 1o 2+*y 0/o7/+!!. T4o)74 1 ! *o1 *+8+!!a/y * 14 ! 8a!+ 1o /+!o/1 1o &NA 1+!1 *7, * '14+, 9)1)/+ 1 ;o)l2 3+ )!+9)l 1o all 8o*8+/*+2 * 14+ 0/o.01 /+!ol)1 o* o9 0a/+*1a7+ a*2 2+*1 1y !!)+!.

Ad"issibility of %&A Analysis as Evidence The 0110 case of People v .alle-oJ2-K discussed DNA anal"sis as evidence. This ma" $e considered a *31 degree turn from the CourtAs 6ar" attitude to6ards DNA testing in the *//= PeLi" case#J2,K 6here 6e stated that LDNA# $eing a relativel" ne6 science# ''' has not "et $een accorded official recognition $" our courts.M In .alle-o# the DNA profile from the vaginal s6a$s ta%en from the rape victim matched the accusedAs DNA profile. e affirmed the accusedAs conviction of rape 6ith homicide and sentenced him to death. e declared> I* a!!+!! *7 14+ 0/o3a1 :+ :al)+ o9 &NA +: 2+*8+, 14+/+9o/+, 8o)/1! !4o)l2 8o*! 2+/, a.o*7 o14+/ 14 *7!, 14+ 9ollo; *7 2a1a% 4o; 14+ !a.0l+! ;+/+ 8oll+81+2, 4o; 14+y ;+/+ 4a*2l+2, 14+ 0o!! 3 l 1y o9 8o*1a. *a1 o* o9 14+ !a.0l+!, 14+ 0/o8+2)/+ 9ollo;+2 * a*alyH *7 14+ !a.0l+!, ;4+14+/ 14+ 0/o0+/ !1a*2a/2! a*2 0/o8+2)/+! ;+/+ 9ollo;+2 * 8o*2)81 *7 14+ 1+!1!, a*2 14+ F)al 9 8a1 o* o9 14+ a*aly!1 ;4o 8o*2)81+2 14+ 1+!1!. '=?, .alle-o discussed the pro$ative value# not admissi$ilit"# of DNA evidence. 4" 0110# there 6as no longer an" Cuestion on the validit" of the use of DNA anal"sis as evidence. The Court moved from the issue of according Lofficial recognitionM to DNA anal"sis as evidence to the issue of o$servance of procedures in conducting DNA anal"sis. In 011+# there 6ere t6o other cases that had a significant impact on (urisprudence on DNA testing> People v /atarJ23K and 0n re1 $he 2rit of 3abeas #orpus for Reynaldo de .illa .J2/K In/atar# a match e'isted $et6een the DNA profile of the semen found in the victim and the DNA profile of the $lood sample given $" appellant in open court. The Court# follo6ing .alle-o4sfootsteps# affirmed the conviction of appellant $ecause the ph"sical evidence# corro$orated $" circumstantial evidence# sho6ed appellant guilt" of rape 6ith homicide. In %e .illa# the convict&petitioner presented DNA test results to prove that he is not the father of the child conceived at the time of commission of the rape. The Court ruled that a difference $et6een the DNA profile of the convict&petitioner and the DNA profile of the victimAs child does not preclude the convict&petitionerAs commission of rape. In the present case# the various pleadings filed $" petitioner and respondent refer to t6o <nited States cases to support their respective positions on the admissi$ilit" of DNA anal"sis as evidence> Frye v 5 S.J+1K and %aubert v 6errell %ow Phar"aceuticals.J+*K In Frye v 5 S # the trial court convicted Br"e of murder. Br"e appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of the District of Colum$ia. During trial# Br"eAs counsel offered an e'pert 6itness to testif" on the result of a s"stolic $lood pressure deception test J+0K made on defendant. The state Supreme Court affirmed Br"eAs conviction and ruled that Lthe s"stolic $lood pressure deception test has not "et gained such standing and scientific recognition among ph"siological and ps"chological authorities as 6ould (ustif" the courts in admitting e'pert testimon" deduced from the discover"# development# and e'periments thus far made.M The Frye standard of general acceptance states as follo6s> J)!1 ;4+* a !8 +*1 9 8 0/ *8 0l+ o/ 2 !8o:+/y 8/o!!+! 14+ l *+ 3+1;++* 14+ +B0+/ .+*1al a*2 2+.o*!1/a3l+ !1a7+! ! 2 99 8)l1 1o 2+9 *+. So.+;4+/+ * 14 ! 1; l 741 Ho*+ 14+ +: 2+*1 al 9o/8+ o9 14+ 0/ *8 0l+ .)!1 3+ /+8o7* H+2, a*2 ;4 l+ 8o)/1! ; ll 7o a lo*7 ;ay * a2. 11 *7 +B0+/1 1+!1 .o*y 2+2)8+2 9/o. a ;+ll /+8o7* H+2 !8 +*1 9 8 0/ *8 0l+ o/ 2 !8o:+/y, 14+ 14 *7 9/o. ;4 84 14+ 2+2)81 o* ! .a2+ .)!1 3+ !)99 8 +*1ly +!1a3l !4+2 1o 4a:+ 7a *+2 7+*+/al

a88+01a*8+ * 14+ 0a/1 8)la/ 9 +l2 * ;4 84 1 3+lo*7!. In */3/# State v Schwart7J+2K modified the Frye standard. Sch6art@ 6as charged 6ith sta$$ing and murder. 4loodstained articles and $lood samples of the accused and the victim 6ere su$mitted for DNA testing to a government facilit" and a private facilit". The prosecution introduced the private testing facilit"As results over Sch6art@As o$(ection. 5ne of the issues $rought $efore the state Supreme Court included the admissi$ilit" of DNA test results in a criminal proceeding. The state Supreme Court concluded that> $4 l+ ;+ a7/++ ; 14 14+ 1/ al 8o)/1 14a1 9o/+*! 8 &NA 1y0 *7 4a! 7a *+2 7+*+/al a88+01a*8+ * 14+ !8 +*1 9 8 8o..)* 1y, ;+ 4ol2 14a1 a2. !! 3 l 1y o9 !0+8 9 8 1+!1 /+!)l1! * a 0a/1 8)la/ 8a!+ 4 *7+! o* 14+ la3o/a1o/y@! 8o.0l a*8+ ; 14 a00/o0/ a1+ !1a*2a/2! a*2 8o*1/ol!, a*2 14+ a:a la3 l 1y o9 14+ / 1+!1 *7 2a1a a*2 /+!)l1!. '44, In *//2# %aubert v 6errell %ow Phar"aceuticals, 0nc .J+-K further modified the Frye8 Schwart7 standard. %aubert 6as a product lia$ilit" case 6here $oth the trial and appellate courts denied the admissi$ilit" of an e'pertAs testimon" $ecause it failed to meet the Frye standard of Lgeneral acceptance.M The <nited States Supreme Court ruled that in federal trials# the Bederal Rules of Evidence have superseded the Frye standard. Rule +1* defines relevant evidence# 6hile Rule +10 provides the foundation for admissi$ilit" of evidence. Thus> R)l+ 401. AR+l+:a*1 +: 2+*8+C ! 2+9 *+2 a! 14a1 ;4 84 4a! a*y A1+*2+*8y 1o .aE+ 14+ +B !1+*8+ o9 a*y 9a81 14a1 ! o9 8o*!+F)+*8+ 1o 14+ 2+1+/. *a1 o* o9 14+ a81 o* .o/+ 0/o3a3l+ o/ l+!! 0/o3a3l+ 14a* 1 ;o)l2 3+ ; 14o)1 14+ +: 2+*8+. R)l+ 402. All /+l+:a*1 +: 2+*8+ ! a2. !! 3l+, +B8+01 a! o14+/; !+ 0/o: 2+2 3y 14+ Co*!1 1)1 o* o9 14+ U* 1+2 S1a1+!, 3y A81 o9 Co*7/+!!, 3y 14+!+ /)l+!, o/ 3y o14+/ /)l+! 0/+!8/ 3+2 3y 14+ S)0/+.+ Co)/1 0)/!)a*1 1o !1a1)1o/y a)14o/ 1y. E: 2+*8+ ;4 84 ! *o1 /+l+:a*1 ! *o1 a2. !! 3l+. Rule =10 of the Bederal Rules of Evidence governing e'pert testimon" provides> I9 !8 +*1 9 8, 1+84* 8al, o/ o14+/ !0+8 al H+2 E*o;l+27+ ; ll a!! !1 14+ 1/ +/ o9 9a81 1o )*2+/!1a*2 14+ +: 2+*8+ o/ 1o 2+1+/. *+ a 9a81 * !!)+, a ; 1*+!! F)al 9 +2 a! a* +B0+/1 3y E*o;l+27+, !E ll, +B0+/ +*8+, 1/a * *7, o/ +2)8a1 o*, .ay 1+!1 9y 14+/+1o * 14+ 9o/. o9 a* o0 * o* o/ o14+/; !+. %aubert cautions that departure from the Frye standard of general acceptance does not mean that the Bederal Rules do not place limits on the admissi$ilit" of scientific evidence. Rather# the (udge must ensure that the testimon"As reasoning or method is scientificall" valid and is relevant to the issue. Admissi$ilit" 6ould depend on factors such as E*F 6hether the theor" or techniCue can $e or has $een testedH E0F 6hether the theor" or techniCue has $een su$(ected to peer revie6 and pu$licationH E2F the %no6n or potential rate of errorH E+F the e'istence and maintenance of standards controlling the techniCueAs operationH and E-F 6hether the theor" or techniCue is generall" accepted in the scientific communit". Another product lia$ilit" case# 9u"ho $ires #o v #ar"ichael#J+,K further modified the %aubert standard. This led to the amendment of Rule =10 in 0111 and 6hich no6 reads as follo6s> I9 !8 +*1 9 8, 1+84* 8al o/ o14+/ !0+8 al H+2 E*o;l+27+ ; ll a!! !1 14+ 1/ +/ o9 9a81 1o )*2+/!1a*2 14+ +: 2+*8+ o/ 1o 2+1+/. *+ a 9a81 * !!)+, a ; 1*+!! F)al 9 +2 a! a* +B0+/1 3y E*o;l+27+, !E ll, +B0+/ +*8+, 1/a * *7, o/ +2)8a1 o*, .ay 1+!1 9y 14+/+1o * 14+ 9o/. o9 a* o0 * o* o/ o14+/; !+, 9 <1> 14+ 1+!1 .o*y ! 3a!+2 )0o* !)99 8 +*1 9a81! o/ 2a1a, <2> 14+ 1+!1 .o*y ! 14+ 0/o2)81 o9 /+l a3l+ 0/ *8 0l+! a*2 .+14o2!, a*2 <=> 14+ ; 1*+!! 4a! a00l +2 14+ 0/ *8 0l+! a*2 .+14o2! /+l a3ly 1o 14+ 9a81! o9 14+ 8a!+. e no6 determine the applica$ilit" in this (urisdiction of these American cases. 5$viousl"# neither the Frye8 Schwart7 standard nor the %aubert89u"ho standard is controlling in the Philippines. J+=K At $est# American (urisprudence merel" has a persuasive effect on our decisions. ;ere# evidence is admissi$le 6hen it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not other6ise e'cluded $" statute or the Rules of Court. J+3K Evidence is relevant 6hen it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce $elief in its e'istence or non&e'istence. J+/K Section +/ of Rule *21# 6hich governs the admissi$ilit" of e'pert testimon"# provides as follo6s> T4+ o0 * o* o9 a ; 1*+!! o* a .a11+/ /+F) / *7 !0+8 al E*o;l+27+, !E ll, +B0+/ +*8+ o/ 1/a * *7 ;4 84 4+ ! !4o;* 1o 0o!!+!! .ay 3+ /+8+ :+2 * +: 2+*8+. This Rule does not pose an" legal o$stacle to the admissi$ilit" of DNA anal"sis as evidence. Indeed# even evidence on collateral matters is allo6ed L6hen it tends in an" reasona$le degree to esta$lish the pro$a$ilit" or impro$a$ilit" of the fact in issue.MJ-1K Indeed# it 6ould have $een convenient to merel" refer petitioner to our decisions in $i-ing, .alle-o and /atar to illustrate that DNA anal"sis is admissi$le as evidence . In our (urisdiction# the restrictive tests for admissi$ilit" esta$lished $" Frye8Schwart7 and %aubert89u"ho go into the 6eight of the evidence.

Probative .alue of %&A Analysis as Evidence Despite our relativel" li$eral rules on admissi$ilit"# trial courts should $e cautious in giving credence to DNA anal"sis as evidence. e reiterate our statement in .alle-o> I* a!!+!! *7 14+ 0/o3a1 :+ :al)+ o9 &NA +: 2+*8+, 14+/+9o/+, 8o)/1! !4o)l2 8o*! 2+/, a.o*7 o14+/ 14 *7!, 14+ 9ollo; *7 2a1a% 4o; 14+ !a.0l+! ;+/+ 8oll+81+2, 4o; 14+y ;+/+ 4a*2l+2, 14+ 0o!! 3 l 1y o9 8o*1a. *a1 o* o9 14+ !a.0l+!, 14+ 0/o8+2)/+ 9ollo;+2 * a*alyH *7 14+ !a.0l+!, ;4+14+/ 14+ 0/o0+/ !1a*2a/2! a*2 0/o8+2)/+! ;+/+ 9ollo;+2 * 8o*2)81 *7 14+ 1+!1!, a*2 14+ F)al 9 8a1 o* o9 14+ a*aly!1 ;4o 8o*2)81+2 14+ 1+!1!. '51, e also repeat the trial courtAs e'planation of DNA anal"sis used in paternit" cases> I* 'a, 0a1+/* 1y 1+!1, 14+ 9o/+*! 8 !8 +*1 !1 looE! a1 a *).3+/ o9 14+!+ :a/ a3l+ /+7 o*! * a* *2 : 2)al 1o 0/o2)8+ a &NA 0/o9 l+. Co.0a/ *7 *+B1 14+ &NA 0/o9 l+! o9 14+ .o14+/ a*2 84 l2, 1 ! 0o!! 3l+ 1o 2+1+/. *+ ;4 84 4al9 o9 14+ 84 l2@! &NA ;a! *4+/ 1+2 9/o. 14+ .o14+/. T4+ o14+/ 4al9 .)!1 4a:+ 3++* *4+/ 1+2 9/o. 14+ 3 olo7 8al 9a14+/. T4+ all+7+2 9a14+/@! 0/o9 l+ ! 14+* +Ba. *+2 1o a!8+/1a * ;4+14+/ 4+ 4a! 14+ &NA 1y0+! * 4 ! 0/o9 l+, ;4 84 .a184 14+ 0a1+/*al 1y0+! * 14+ 84 l2. I9 14+ .a*@! &NA 1y0+! 2o *o1 .a184 14a1 o9 14+ 84 l2, 14+ .a* ! +B8l)2+2 a! 14+ 9a14+/. I9 14+ &NA 1y0+! .a184, 14+* 4+ ! *o1 +B8l)2+2 a! 14+ 9a14+/.'52, It is not enough to state that the childAs DNA profile matches that of the putative father. A complete match $et6een the DNA profile of the child and the DNA profile of the putative father does not necessaril" esta$lish paternit". Bor this reason# follo6ing the highest standard adopted in an American (urisdiction# J-2K trial courts should reCuire at least //./N as a minimum value of the Pro$a$ilit" of Paternit" EL MF prior to a paternit" inclusion. is a numerical estimate for the li%elihood of paternit" of a putative father compared to the pro$a$ilit" of a random match of t6o unrelated individuals. An appropriate reference population data$ase# such as the Philippine population data$ase# is reCuired to compute for . Due to the pro$a$ilistic nature of paternit" inclusions# 6ill never eCual to *11N. ;o6ever# the accurac" of estimates is higher 6hen the putative father# mother and child are su$(ected to DNA anal"sis compared to those conducted $et6een the putative father and child alone.J-+K DNA anal"sis that e'cludes the putative father from paternit" should $e conclusive proof of non&paternit". If the value of is less than //./N# the results of the DNA anal"sis should $e considered as corro$orative evidence. If the value of is //./N or higher# then there is /+9)1a3l+ presumption of paternit".J--K This refuta$le presumption of paternit" should $e su$(ected to the.alle-o standards.

Right Against Self80ncri"ination Section *=# Article 2 of the */3= Constitution provides that Lno person shall $e compelled to $e a 6itness against himself.M Petitioner asserts that o$taining samples from him for DNA testing violates his right against self&incrimination. Petitioner ignores our earlier pronouncements that the privilege is applica$le onl" to testimonial evidence. Again# 6e Cuote relevant portions of the trial courtAs 2 Be$ruar" 0111 5rder 6ith approval> O31a * *7 &NA !a.0l+! 9/o. a* a88)!+2 * a 8/ . *al 8a!+ o/ 9/o. 14+ /+!0o*2+*1 * a 0a1+/* 1y 8a!+, 8o*1/a/y 1o 14+ 3+l +9 o9 /+!0o*2+*1 * 14 ! a81 o*, ; ll *o1 : ola1+ 14+ / 741 a7a *!1 !+l95 *8/ . *a1 o*. T4 ! 0/ : l+7+ a00l +! o*ly 1o +: 2+*8+ 14a1 ! 'co""unicative( * +!!+*8+ 1aE+* )*2+/ 2)/+!! <P+o0l+ :!. Ol: !, 154 SCRA 51=, 19(?>. T4+ S)0/+.+ Co)/1 4a! /)l+2 14a1 14+ / 741 a7a *!1 !+l95 *8/ . *a1 o* ! D)!1 a 0/o4 3 1 o* o* 14+ )!+ o9 04y! 8al o/ .o/al 8o.0)l! o* 1o +B1o/1 8o..)* 8a1 o* <1+!1 .o* al +: 2+*8+> 9/o. a 2+9+*2a*1, *o1 a* +B8l)! o* o9 +: 2+*8+ 1aE+* 9/o. 4 ! 3o2y ;4+* 1 .ay 3+ .a1+/ al. A! !)84, a 2+9+*2a*1 8a* 3+ /+F) /+2 1o !)3. 1 1o a 1+!1 1o +B1/a81 : /)! 9/o. 4 ! 3o2y <a! 8 1+2 * P+o0l+ :!. Ol: !, S)0/a>G 14+ !)3!1a*8+ +. 11 *7 9/o. 14+ 3o2y o9 14+ a88)!+2 ;a! /+8+ :+2 a! +: 2+*8+ 9o/ a81! o9 la!8 : o)!*+!! <US :!. Ta* T+*7, 2= P4 l. 145>G .o/04 *+ 9o/8+2 o)1 o9 14+ .o)14 ;a! /+8+ :+2 a! 0/oo9 <US :!. O*7 S ) Ho*7, =L P4 l. ?=5>G a* o/2+/ 3y 14+ D)27+ 9o/ 14+ ; 1*+!! 1o 0)1 o* 0a / o9 0a*1! 9o/ ! H+ ;a! allo;+2 <P+o0l+ :!. O1a2o/a, (L P4 l. 244>G a*2 14+ 8o)/1 8a* 8o.0+l a ;o.a* a88)!+2 o9 a2)l1+/y 1o !)3. 1 9o/ 0/+7*a*8y 1+!1 <6 lla9lo/ :!. S)..+/!, 41 P4 l. L2>, ! *8+ 14+ 7 !1 o9 14+ 0/ : l+7+ ! 14+ /+!1/ 81 o* o* 'testi"onial co"pulsion ('5L, The polic" of the Bamil" Code to li$erali@e the rule on the investigation of the paternit" and filiation of children# especiall" of illegitimate children# is 6ithout pre(udice to the right of the putative parent to claim his or her o6n defenses. J-=K here the evidence to aid this investigation is o$taina$le through the facilities of modern science and technolog"# such evidence should $e considered su$(ect to the limits esta$lished $" the la6# rules# and (urisprudence. $HEREFORE# 6e DIS.ISS the petition. e ABBIR. the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 0/ Novem$er 0111

in CA&).R. SP No. -/=,,. e also ABBIR. the 5rders dated 2 Be$ruar" 0111 and 3 8une 0111 issued $" 4ranch +3 of the Regional Trial Court of .anila in Civil Case No. SP&/3&33=-/. SO OR&ERE&. Davide !r. (.!. -(hairman. $uisumbing %nares-&antiago and )'cuna !!. concur.

II.

Initial reaction of the Court to DNA Evidence Pe ?im vs. Court of Appeals# 22, Phil. =+* E*//=F

SEC5ND DIVISI5N

'G.R. No. 112229. Ma/84 1(, 199?,

RAYMON& PE LIM, petitioner, vs COURT OF APPEALS, JOANNA ROSE C. PE LIM, M *o/ /+0/+!+*1+2 3y 4+/ Na1)/al Mo14+/ a*2 G)a/2 a*, MARI-EL CRUM y TAYAG , respondents. &ECISION ROMERO, J.% All too often# immature men 6ho allo6 their emotions to hold s6a" over their rational minds come to grief 6hen their passions cool off# $ut not $efore inflicting irrepara$le ps"chic and spiritual damage on their victims and the fruits of their 6anton acts. As the" so6 the prover$ial :6ild oats#: the" are heedless of the dire conseCuences the" heap on their heads. hen the inevita$le confrontation e'plodes and the" are helpless to e'tricate themselves from the mess" situation arising from their 6rongdoing# eventuall" the" invo%e the help of the courts as their final ar$iter. 4efore us is one of those cases 6here a man 6oos a maid# succeeds in seducing and impregnating her# onl" to disclaim the paternit" of the child 6hen made to account for his misdeeds. DNA#J*K $eing a relativel" ne6 science# it has not as "et $een accorded official recognition $" our courts. Paternit" 6ill still have to $e resolved $" such conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating acts# ver$al and 6ritten# $" the putative father. This petition for revie6 on certiorari sprang from a complaint filed $" .ari$el Cru@ for child support on $ehalf of her daughter# private respondent 8oanna Rose C. Pe ?im# against petitioner Ra"mond Pe ?im 6ho# .ari$el claims# is 8oannaPs father. .ari$elPs stor" unfolds# thus> .ari$el 6as si'teen "ears old in */=3 and a part&time student. She also 6or%ed as a receptionist at TonightPs Clu$ and Resthouse along Ro'as 4lvd.# .anila. She met petitioner during her first night on the (o$. Petitioner 6ooed her and .ari$el reciprocated his love. The" soon lived together# 6ith petitioner pa"ing the rentals in a succession of apartments in Cu$ao# Gue@on Cit"# Tam$o# ParaQaCue and .a%ati# .etro .anila. .ari$el left for 8apan in 8ul" */3*# alread" pregnant# and returned to .anila in 5cto$er of the same "ear. The couple never married $ecause petitioner claimed that he 6as not financiall" sta$le. 5n 8anuar" *=# */30# .ari$el gave $irth to their daughter at the Cardinal Santos .emorial ;ospital. The $ills for .ari$elPs three&da" confinement at the hospital 6ere paid for $" Ra"mond and he also caused the registration of the name 8oanna Rose C. Pe ?im on the childPs $irth certificate. After 8oanna RosePs $irth# the love affair $et6een .ari$el and petitioner continued. To6ards the latter part of */32# .ari$el noted that petitionerPs feelings to6ard her started to 6ane. ;e su$seCuentl" a$andoned her and 8oanna Rose. .ari$el tried to support herself $" accepting various (o$s and 6ith occasional help from relatives# $ut it 6as never enough. She as%ed petitioner for support $ut# despite promises to do so# it 6as never given. .ari$el then filed a complaint against petitioner $efore the Regional Trial Court of .anila for support. Petitioner# on the other hand# has a different version> ;e claims that in */=3# he 6ent to TonightPs Clu$ and Resthouse

along Ro'as 4oulevard# .anila to rela' after a hard da"Ps 6or%. There he met .ari$el# a prett" and aggressive hospitalit" girl. Ra"mond o$served that 6hile she had a pleasing personalit"# she seemed to $e Cuite e'perienced $ecause she started to %iss him on the chee%s and nec%# 6hispering to him that the" could go an"6here and rest. Ra"mond declined to ta%e .ari$el up on her offer sa"ing that he onl" 6anted someone to tal% to. The" $ecame friends after that first meeting# and 6hile he often sa6 her# there 6as no intimac" $et6een them. ;e did admit giving .ari$el si@ea$le tips $ecause she confided in him that she needed mone". Ra"mond alleged that he 6as not .ari$elPs onl" customer at the clu$. In */31# she left for 8apan to 6or% as an entertainer. In */3*# she returned to .anila pregnant# and appealed to Ra"mond for help $ecause she claimed that she could not face her relatives in her condition. Ra"mond got her an apartment and paid its rentals until she gave $irth to a $a$" girl on 8anuar" *=# */30. Ra"mond admits pa"ing the hospital $ills $ut claims that .ari$el 6as supposed to pa" him $ac% for it. hen she failed to do so# Ra"mond stopped seeing her. Ra"mond denies $eing the father of .ari$elPs child# claiming that the" 6ere onl" friends and nothing more. The trial court rendered a decision on 8une *1# */=*# the dispositive portion of 6hich states> : ;EREB5RE# (udgment is here$" rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant ordering herein defendant# Ra"mond Pe ?im to give support to his natural daughter# minor 8oanna Rose Pe ?im in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos EP*1#111.11F. Philippine Currenc"# per month for the support# maintenance# education and 6ell&$eing of said child# the same to $e paid on or $efore the -th da" of each month and monthl" thereafter starting 8une# *//*# until the said minor 8oanna Rose Pe ?im# shall have reached the age of ma(orit". The defendant is further ordered to pa" the plaintiff the sum of Seven Thousand Bive ;undred EP=#-11.11F Pesos# Philippine Currenc"# for attorne"Ps fees and other litigation e'penses. No costs. S5 5RDERED.: Petitioner then elevated his case to the Court of Appeals 6hich affirmed the trial courtPs findings. Petitioner no6 argues $efore the Court that there is no clear and convincing evidence on record to sho6 that there 6as actual coha$itation $et6een him and .ari$el. In fact# petitioner infers that .ari$el $ecame pregnant onl" 6hen she 6ent to 8apan. In short# he denies that he is the father of 8oanna Rose. ;e further Cuestions the a6arded support of P*1#111.11 per month# sa"ing that the same is $e"ond his means# considering that he has a famil" to support. e find no merit in this petition. In Al$erto v. Court of Appeals#J0K 6e said> : hen a putative father manifests openl" through 6ords and deeds his recognition of a child# the courts can do no less than confirm said ac%no6ledgment. As the immortal $ard Sha%espeare perspicaciousl" said> P?et "our o6n discretion $e "our tutorH suit the action to the 6ord# the 6ord to the action.: The evidence in the instant case sho6s that petitioner considered himself to $e the father of 8oanna Rose as sho6n $" the hand&6ritten letter he 6rote to .ari$el> :;i ?ove# I 6rote "ou this letter $ecause I 6ould li%e to erase from "our mind the thought of 6h" I can not ever JsicK "ou marriage right no6 is $ecause I have no longer love or care for $oth 8oanna R "ou. ?ast night 6hen 6e tal%ed things over# I 6as in a stage 6herein ever"thing 6as happening so fast that I 6as running out of time R 6or%s EsicF to ma%e "ou understand me through this letter I 6ould li%e to e'plain m" side in a more detailed 6a" and I hope "ou could understand. 9ou %no6 love# the main root of the pro$lem of 6h" marriage is impossi$le for us right no6 is not 6hat m" parents or m" famil" circle 6ill sa" a$out "ou# $ut the financial side of it. 5%a"# let sa" I did marr" "ou right no6 disregarding m" financial sta$ilit". Sooner or later the" 6ill come to %no6 of it and I am sure that the" 6ill not consent it. I have no alternative $ut to leave them R to stic% it up 6ith "ou. This is 6here the financial side comes in. I canPt allo6 m"self 6al%ing a6a" from m"

famil" ma%ing them thin% that I can stand on m" o6n t6o feet $ut the truth of the matter is not and seeing $oth of "ou suffer for onl" one stupid mista%e 6hich is I 6as not "et financiall" read" to face the conseCuence. ." plan is that if "ou could onl" stic% it out 6ith me until I am read" to face 6hatever conseCuence that might occur during our life or relation as hus$and and 6ife. 9ou have alread" tried it $efore# 6h" canPt "ou stress it a little longer. In return# I promise to $e a loving R caring husband R father to $oth of "ou. ?ove# I reall" donPt 6ant "ou to $e ta%en a6a" from me $" an"one# 6hether he $e single or married. This is the reason 6h" I am still tr"ing to convince "ou. 4ut if "ou reall" have decided things up and reall" determined to push through 6ith it. I guess I (ust have to respect "our decision. 8ust remem$er I 6ish "ou the $est of luc% and ta%e e'tra&care of "ourself R 8oanna. Remem$er# if the time comes 6hen things get rough for "ou and "ou have no one to turn to# donPt hesitate to call on me. I am ver" much 6illing to $e at "our side to help "ou. I love "ou ver" muchD ?ove# Ra"mond: E<nderscoring supplied $" Ra"mond himselfF Brom the tenor of the letter and the statements petitioner made therein it is clear that# contrar" to his vehement assertion that he and .ari$el 6ere (ust friends# the" 6ere actuall" lovers. In an earlier letter# this time sent to .ari$el 6hile she 6as in 8apan# petitioner lovingl" told her to ta%e care of herself $ecause of her :situation#: o$viousl" referring to the state of pregnanc" of .ari$el> :Aug. **# */3* ;i ?ove# Do "ou %no6 ho6 glad I 6as to receive a letter from "ou "esterda"! At least no6 IPm a little $it at ease to %no6 that ever"thing is fine 6ith "ou. ?ove# in "our letter "ou seem so much concern E sicF a$out m" situation once here. I reall" appreciate it# $ut please donPt give too much thought a$out it $ecause IPm ph"sicall" o.%. here. The important thing is that donPt thin% too much and have a lot of rest during "our spare time especiall" in the situation "ouPre in no6. If "ou are feeling homesic% (ust go out 6ith "our friends and tr" to en(o" "ourself to the fullest 6hile "ou are there ?ove# "ou said in "our letter that "ou regret ver" much "our going there R 6ishes E sicF that "ou have not left an"more. I understand "our feelings to 6hat had happened after "ou told me a$out it in the telephone. ''' ''' '''

?ove# I miss "ou so much that I al6a"s re&read those letters "ou had send me ver" often. At night I al6a"s thin% of "ou and the times 6ePre together $efore going to sleep. ''' ''' ''': E<nderscoring suppliedF

It 6as onl" after petitioner separated from .ari$el that he started to den" paternit" of 8oanna Rose. <ntil he got married to another 6oman# he did not o$(ect to $eing identified as 8oanna RosePs father as disclosed in the Certificate of ?ive 4irth. The evidence on record reveals that he even got a cop" of the said Certificate 6hen 8oanna Rose started schooling# as sho6n $" a receipt in his name from the San 8uan .unicipal 5ffice. ;is $elated denial cannot out6eigh the totalit" of the cogent evidence 6hich esta$lishes $e"ond reasona$le dou$t that petitioner is indeed the father of 8oanna Rose.J2K <nder Article *=- of the Bamil" Code# illegitimate filiation ma" $e esta$lished in the same 6a" and on the same evidence as legitimate children. Article *=0 of the Bamil" Code states> :The filiation of legitimate children is esta$lished $" an" of the follo6ing>

PE*F

The record of $irth appearing in the civil register or a final (udgmentH or

PE0F An admission of legitimate filiation in a pu$lic document or a private hand6ritten instrument and signed $" the parent concerned.P :In the a$sence of the foregoing evidence# the legitimate filiation shall $e proved $"> PE*F PE0F The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate childH or An" other means allo6ed $" the Rules of Court and special la6s. E0,-a# 0,,a# 0,=aF.P:

This article adopts the rule in Article 032 of the Civil Code that filiation ma" $e proven $" :an" evidence or proof that the defendant is his father.:J+K Petitioner has never controverted the evidence on record. ;is love letters to .ari$el vo6ing to $e a good father to 8oanna RoseH pictures of himself on various occasions cuddling 8oanna Rose and the Certificate of ?ive 4irth sa" it all. Accordingl"# his suit must fail. $HEREFORE# the petition is DIS.ISSED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is here$" ABBIR.ED. Costs against petitioner. SO OR&ERE&. Regalado -(hairman. Puno and +orres !r. !!. concur. Mendo'a !. no part# too% part in decision in the Court of Appeals. Ti(ing vs. Court of Appeals# ).R. No. *0-/1*# .arch 3# 011*# 2-+ SCRA *= SEC5ND DIVISI5N

'G.R. No. 125901. Ma/84 (, 2001,

E&GAR&O A. TIJING a*2 -IEN6ENI&A R. TIJING, petitioners, vs COURT OF APPEALS <S+:+*14 & : ! o*> a*2 ANGELITA &IAMANTE, respondents &ECISION KUISUM-ING, J.% Bor revie6 is the decision of the Court of Appeals dated .arch ,# *//,# in CA&).R. SP No. 2/1-,# reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court in a petition for habeas corpus of Edgardo Ti(ing# 8r.# allegedl" the child of petitioners. Petitioners are hus$and and 6ife. The" have si' children. The "oungest is Edgardo Ti(ing# 8r.# 6ho 6as $orn on April 0=# */3/# at the clinic of mid6ife and registered nurse ?ourdes VasCue@ in Sta. Ana# .anila. Petitioner 4ienvenida served as the laundr"6oman of private respondent Angelita Diamante# then a resident of Tondo# .anila. According to 4ienvenida in August */3/# Angelita 6ent to her house to fetch her for an urgent laundr" (o$. Since 4ienvenida 6as on her 6a" to do some mar%eting# she as%ed Angelita to 6ait until she returned. She also left her four& month old son# Edgardo# 8r.# under the care of Angelita as she usuall" let Angelita ta%e care of the child 6hile 4ienvenida 6as doing laundr". hen 4ienvenida returned from the mar%et# Angelita and Edgardo# 8r.# 6ere gone. 4ienvenida forth6ith proceeded to AngelitaAs house in Tondo# .anila# $ut did not find them there. AngelitaAs maid told 4ienvenida that her emplo"er 6ent out for a stroll and told 4ienvenida to come $ac% later. She returned to AngelitaAs house after three da"s# onl" to discover that Angelita had moved to another place. 4ienvenida then complained to her $aranga" chairman and also to the police 6ho seemed unmoved $" her pleas for assistance. Although estranged from her hus$and# 4ienvenida could not imagine ho6 her spouse 6ould react to the disappearance of their "oungest child and this made her pro$lem even more serious. As fate 6ould have it# 4ienvenida and her hus$and reconciled and together# this time# the" loo%ed for their missing son in other places. Not6ithstanding

their serious efforts# the" sa6 no traces of his 6herea$outs. Bour "ears later or in 5cto$er *//2# 4ienvenida read in a ta$loid a$out the death of Tomas ?ope@# allegedl" the common&la6 hus$and of Angelita# and 6hose remains 6ere l"ing in state in ;agono"# 4ulacan. 4ienvenida lost no time in going to ;agono"# 4ulacan# 6here she allegedl" sa6 her son Edgardo# 8r.# for the first time after four "ears. She claims that the $o"# 6ho 6as pointed out to her $" 4en(amin ?ope@# a $rother of the late Tomas ?ope@# 6as alread" named 8ohn Thomas ?ope@.J*K She avers that Angelita refused to return to her the $o" despite her demand to do so. 4ienvenida and Edgardo filed their petition for habeas corpus 6ith the trial court in order to recover their son. To su$stantiate their petition# petitioners presented t6o 6itnesses# namel"# ?ourdes VasCue@ and 4en(amin ?ope@. The first 6itness# VasCue@# testified that she assisted in the deliver" of one Edgardo Ti(ing# 8r. on April 0=# */3/ at her clinic in Sta. Ana# .anila. She supported her testimon" 6ith her clinical records. J0KThe second 6itness# 4en(amin ?ope@# declared that his $rother# the late Tomas ?ope@# could not have possi$l" fathered 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ as the latter 6as sterile. ;e recalled that Tomas met an accident and $umped his private part against the edge of a $anca causing him e'cruciating pain and eventual loss of his child&$earing capacit". 4en(amin further declared that Tomas admitted to him that 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ 6as onl" an adopted son and that he and Angelita 6ere not $lessed 6ith children. J2K Bor her part# Angelita claimed that she is the natural mother of the child. She asserts that at age +0# she gave $irth to 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ on April 0=# */3/# at the clinic of mid6ife Sosima Pangani$an in Singalong# .anila. She added# though# that she has t6o other children 6ith her real hus$and# Angel Sanche@. J+K She said the $irth of 8ohn Thomas 6as registered $" her common&la6 hus$and# Tomas ?ope@# 6ith the local civil registrar of .anila on August +# */3/. 5n .arch *1# *//-# the trial court concluded that since Angelita and her common&la6 hus$and could not have children# the alleged $irth of 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ is an impossi$ilit". J-K The trial court also held that the minor and 4ienvenida sho6ed strong facial similarit". Accordingl"# it ruled that Edgardo Ti(ing# 8r.# and 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ are one and the same person 6ho is the natural child of petitioners. The trial court decreed> ;EREB5RE# PRE.ISES C5NSIDERED# (udgment is here$" rendered )RANTIN) the petition for ;a$eas Corpus# as such# respondent Angelita Diamante is ordered to immediatel" release from her personal custod" minor 8ohn Thomas D. ?ope@# and turn him over andIor surrender his person to petitioners# Spouses Edgardo A. Ti(ing and 4ienvenida R. Ti(ing# immediatel" upon receipt hereof. 4ranch Sheriff of this Court# Carlos 4a(ar# is here$" commanded to implement the decision of this Court $" assisting herein petitioners in the recover" of the person of their minor son# Edgardo Ti(ing 8r.# the same person as 8ohn Thomas D. ?ope@. S5 5RDERED.J,K Angelita seasona$l" filed her notice of appeal.J=K Nonetheless# on August 2# *//+# the sheriff implemented the order of the trial court $" ta%ing custod" of the minor. In his report# the sheriff stated that Angelita peacefull" surrendered the minor and he turned over the custod" of said child to petitioner Edgardo Ti(ing. J3K 5n appeal# the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision rendered $" the trial court. The appellate court e'pressed its dou$ts on the propriet" of the habeas corpus. In its vie6# the evidence adduced $" 4ienvenida 6as not sufficient to esta$lish that she 6as the mother of the minor. It ruled that the lo6er court erred in declaring that Edgardo Ti(ing# 8r.# and 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ are one and the same person# J/K and disposed of the case# thus> IN VIE 5B T;E B5RE)5IN)# the decision of the lo6er court dated .arch *1# *//- is here$" REVERSED# and a ne6 one entered dismissing the petition in Spec. Proc. No. /+&=*,1,# and directing the custod" of the minor 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ to $e returned to respondent Angelita Diamante# said minor having $een under the care of said respondent at the time of the filing of the petition herein. S5 5RDERED.J*1K Petitioners sought reconsideration of the a$oveCuoted decision 6hich 6as denied. ;ence# the instant petition alleging> I T;AT T;E RESP5NDENT C5<RT 5B APPEA?S C5..ITTED A )RAVE ERR5R ;EN IT DEC?ARED T;AT T;E PETITI5NERSA ACTI5N B5R ;A4EAS C5RP<S IS .ERE?9 SEC5NDAR9 T5 T;E G<ESTI5N 5B BI?IATI5N T;AT T;E PETITI5NERS ;AD ?I7E ISE PR5VEN.

II T;AT T;E RESP5NDENT C5<RT 5B APPEA?S ERRED IN REVERSIN) T;E DECISI5N 5B T;E RE)I5NA? TRIA? C5<RT DIS.ISSIN) T;E PETITI5N B5R L;A4EAS C5RP<SM AND DIRECTIN) T;AT T;E C<ST5D9 5B T;E .IN5R 85;N T;5.AS ?5PES ;5 AS PR5VEN T5 T;E SA.E .IN5R AS ED)ARD5 R. TI8IN)# 8R.# 4E RET<RNED T5 T;E PRIVATE RESP5NDENT.J**K In our vie6# the crucial issues for resolution are the follo6ing> E*F E0F hether or not habeas corpus is the proper remed"! hether or not Edgardo Ti(ing# 8r.# and 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ are one and the same person and is the son of petitioners!

e shall discuss the t6o issues together since the" are closel" related. The 6rit of habeas corpus e'tends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention $" 6hich an" person is deprived of his li$ert"# or $" 6hich the rightful custod" of an" person is 6ithheld from the person entitled thereto. J*0K Thus# it is the proper legal remed" to ena$le parents to regain the custod" of a minor child even if the latter $e in the custod" of a third person of his o6n free 6ill. It ma" even $e said that in custod" cases involving minors# the Cuestion of illegal and involuntar" restraint of li$ert" is not the underl"ing rationale for the availa$ilit" of the 6rit as a remed". Rather# it is prosecuted for the purpose of determining the right of custod" over a child. J*2K It must $e stressed too that in habeas corpus proceedings# the Cuestion of identit" is relevant and material# su$(ect to the usual presumptions including those as to identit" of the person. In this case# the minorAs identit" is crucial in determining the propriet" of the 6rit sought. Thus# it must $e resolved first 6hether the Edgardo Ti(ing# 8r.# claimed $" 4ienvenida to $e her son# is the same minor named 8ohn Thomas ?ope@# 6hom Angelita insists to $e her offspring. e must first determine 6ho $et6een 4ienvenida and Angelita is the minorAs $iological mother. Evidence must necessaril" $e adduced to prove that t6o persons# initiall" thought of to $e distinct and separate from each other# are indeed one and the same. J*+K Petitioners must convincingl" esta$lish that the minor in 6hose $ehalf the application for the 6rit is made is the person upon 6hom the" have rightful custod". If there is dou$t on the identit" of the minor in 6hose $ehalf the application for the 6rit is made# petitioners cannot invo%e 6ith certaint" their right of custod" over the said minor. True# it is not the function of this Court to e'amine and evaluate the pro$ative value of all evidence presented to the concerned tri$unal 6hich formed the $asis of its impugned decision# resolution or order. J*-K 4ut since the conclusions of the Court of Appeals contradict those of the trial court# this Court ma" scrutini@e the evidence on the record to determine 6hich findings should $e preferred as more conforma$le to the evidentiar" facts. A close scrutin" of the records of this case reveals that the evidence presented $" 4ienvenida is sufficient to esta$lish that 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ is actuall" her missing son# Edgardo Ti(ing# 8r. Birst# there is evidence that Angelita could no longer $ear children. Brom her ver" lips# she admitted that after the $irth of her second child# she under6ent ligation at the .artine@ ;ospital in */=1# $efore she lived 6ith Tomas ?ope@ 6ithout the $enefit of marriage in */=+. Assuming she had that ligation removed in */=3# as she claimed# she offered no evidence she gave $irth to a child $et6een */=3 to */33 or for a period of ten "ears. The mid6ife 6ho allegedl" delivered the child 6as not presented in court. No clinical records# log $oo% or discharge order from the clinic 6ere ever su$mitted. Second# there is strong evidence 6hich directl" proves that Tomas ?ope@ is no longer capa$le of siring a son. 4en(amin ?ope@ declared in court that his $rother# Tomas# 6as sterile $ecause of the accident and that Tomas admitted to him that 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ 6as onl" an adopted son. .oreover# Tomas ?ope@ and his legal 6ife# .aria Rapatan ?ope@# had no children after almost fifteen "ears together. Though Tomas ?ope@ had lived 6ith private respondent for fourteen "ears# the" also $ore no offspring. Third# 6e find unusual the fact that the $irth certificate of 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ 6as filed $" Tomas ?ope@ instead of the mid6ife and on August +# */3/# four months after the alleged $irth of the child. <nder the la6# the attending ph"sician or mid6ife in attendance at $irth should cause the registration of such $irth. 5nl" in default of the ph"sician or mid6ife# can the parent register the $irth of his child. The certificate must $e filed 6ith the local civil registrar 6ithin thirt" da"s after the $irth.J*,K Significantl"# the $irth certificate of the child stated Tomas ?ope@ and private respondent 6ere legall" married on 5cto$er 2*# */=+# in ;agono"# 4ulacan# 6hich is false $ecause even private respondent had admitted she is a Lcommon&la6 6ifeM.J*=K This false entr" puts to dou$t the other data in said $irth certificate. Bourth# the trial court o$served several times that 6hen the child and 4ienvenida 6ere $oth in court# the t6o had strong similarities in their faces# e"es# e"e$ro6s and head shapes. Resem$lance $et6een a minor and his alleged parent is competent and material evidence to esta$lish parentage. J*3K Needless to stress# the trial courtAs conclusion should $e given high respect# it having had the opportunit" to o$serve the ph"sical appearances of the minor and petitioner

concerned. Bifth# ?ourdes VasCue@ testified that she assisted in 4ienvenidaAs giving $irth to Edgardo Ti(ing# 8r.# at her clinic. <nli%e private respondent# she presented clinical records consisting of a log $oo%# discharge order and the signatures of petitioners. All these considered# 6e are constrained to rule that su$(ect minor is indeed the son of petitioners. The 6rit of habeas corpus is proper to regain custod" of said child. A final note. Parentage 6ill still $e resolved using conventional methods unless 6e adopt the modern and scientific 6a"s availa$le. Bortunatel"# 6e have no6 the facilit" and e'pertise in using DNA test J*/K for identification and parentage testing. The <niversit" of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute E<P&NSRIF DNA Anal"sis ?a$orator" has no6 the capa$ilit" to conduct DNA t"ping using short tandem repeat ESTRF anal"sis. The anal"sis is $ased on the fact that the DNA of a childIperson has t6o E0F copies# one cop" from the mother and the other from the father. The DNA from the mother# the alleged father and child are anal"@ed to esta$lish parentage. J01K 5f course# $eing a novel scientific techniCue# the use of DNA test as evidence is still open to challenge. J0*K Eventuall"# as the appropriate case comes# courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissi$ilit" of DNA evidence. Bor it 6as said# that courts should appl" the results of science 6hen competentl" o$tained in aid of situations presented# since to re(ect said result is to den" progress. J00K Though it is not necessar" in this case to resort to DNA testing# in future it 6ould $e useful to all concerned in the prompt resolution of parentage and identit" issues. $HEREFORE# the instant petition is )RANTED. The assailed DECISI5N of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and decision of the Regional Trial Court is REINSTATED. Costs against the private respondent. SO OR&ERE&. /ellosillo -(hairman. Mendo'a /uena and De ,eon !r. !!. concur.

III.

Admissi$ilit" and Pro$ative Value People vs. Valle(o# supra.

IV.

DNA Evidence admissi$le in the SC People vs. 9atar# supra.

In re> The SCRA -1+

rit of ha$eas corpus for Re"naldo de Villa# ).R. No. *-100+#

.a"

*/#

011+#

+03

People vs. 8anson# ).R. No. *0-/23# April +# 0112# +11 SCRA -3+ SEC5ND DIVISI5N

'G.R. No. 1259=(. A0/ l 4, 200=,

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs JOEL JANSON a*2 RIC#Y PINANTAO al a! AOGCOC, appellants. &ECISION KUISUM-ING, J.% 5n appeal is the decisionJ*K of the Regional Trial Court# 4ranch TVII# 7idapa6an# Cota$ato promulgated on Septem$er *-# *//-# declaring appellants guilt" of the crime of ro$$er" 6ith rape# and sentencing each of them to the penalt" of Reclusion Perpetua and ordering them to pa" P21#111.11 and P*1#111.11 in favor of .arites Alcantara and Cesario Alcantara# respectivel". The information filed on August 2*# */3= alleged>

That on or a$out the 0+th da" of .arch */3,# at a$out *1>11 oAcloc% in the evening at 4aranga" .ateo# .unicipalit" of 7idapa6an# Province of Cota$ato# Philippines# and 6ithin the (urisdiction of this ;onora$le Court# the a$ove&named accused 85E? 8ANS5N# RIC79 PINANTA5 alias 5)C5 in compan" 6ith alias A4D<?# alias P<T5# 85;N D5E and PETER D5E# 6ho are still at large and 6hose names are still un%no6n# constituting a $and and armed 6ith long and short firearms# conspiring# confederating and mutuall" helping one another# 6ith intent to gain# 6ith force and intimidation# did then and there 6illfull"# unla6full" and feloniousl" ta%e and carr" a6a"# at gun point# cash mone" in the amount of P*#+11.11# three E2F pieces of 6rist 6atches# one E*F can coffee $eans and one E*F chic%en and if converted into cash it amounted to P*#3+-.11 or a total amount of Three Thousand T6o ;undred Bourt" EsicF Bive Pesos EP2#0+-.11F# Philippine Currenc"# o6ned $" .r. R .rs. CESARI5 A?CANTARAH and on the same occasion# the a$ove&named accused# 6ith the use of force# violence and intimidation and armed 6ith firearms# did then and there 6illfull"# unla6full" and feloniousl" ta%e turns in having carnal %no6ledge 6ith one .ARITESS A?CANTARA# a girl a$out *2 "ears old# daughter of .r. R .rs. CESARI5 A?CANTARA# against her 6ill and consent# to the damage and pre(udice of the aforesaid persons in the aforesaid amount. All contrar" to la6 6ith the aggravating circumstances of d6elling# nighttime and the use of unlicensed firearms. 7idapa6an# Cota$ato# August 2*# */3=.J0K 5n Decem$er /# */3=# $oth accused pleaded not guilt". J2K Trial then ensued. Bor the prosecution# the follo6ing 6itnesses 6ere presented> Teresa Alcantara# .arites Alcantara# Dante Alcantara# Cesario Alcantara# Dr. Cesar .anuel# Att". 8orge Serrudo# and police officers Pedro Idpan# 8r. and 5rtello Achas. TERESA A?CANTARA testified that on .arch 0+# */3, at a$out *1>11 in the evening# the accused 6ith si' E,F other companions as%ed for food. She as%ed them to come $ac% the follo6ing da" $ut the" threatened to strafe and $urn the house if the" are not let in. The accused then entered the house and once inside# made all occupants lie do6n $efore covering them 6ith a $lan%et. The accused demanded mone" from Teresa and she gave them P*#111. She 6as $rought to the %itchen and someone guarded her. Bor a 6hile# there 6as complete silence. Then she 6ent inside the room of her daughter .arites# and sa6 her totall" na%ed. ;er daughter told her that she 6as raped. She gave an additional P*#111 to the accused 6ho also got t6o E0F 6rist6atches 6orth P,/1.11# t6o E0F Sei%o 6atches 6orth P++2.11# a chic%en 6orth appro'imatel" P01.11# and one can of coffee $eans. The appellants 6ere spea%ing among themselves in the .ano$o dialect. Teresa identified appellants 8anson and Pinantao as t6o of the men 6ho ro$$ed their house and raped her daughter that night. She testified that she %ne6 appellants since the" 6ere their neigh$ors at .ateo. She also claimed that 6hile 8anson and Pinantao 6ere mas%ed during the incident# she recogni@ed them through their $od" $uilt# ph"sical appearance# and their voices 6hile spea%ing in .ano$o. J+K .ARITESJ-K A?CANTARA testified that she 6as thirteen E*2F "ears old at the time of the incident. She corro$orated the testimon" of her mother and added that after the group entered their house and hogtied her father# the appellants entered her room and turned off the lights inside. Someone po%ed a gun at her. Then Ric%" Pinantao# 6ho had an amputated right handH 8oel 8anson# and A$dul 8ona raped her. In open court she identified appellants Pinantao and 8anson as t6o of her a$users# claiming that the" 6ere previousl" %no6n to her. She claimed that she %ne6 Ric%" $ecause he 6as their neigh$or and that he often 6ent to their house to $u" $ananas# 6hile she %ne6 8oel $ecause he often 6ent to their $aranga" to visit his relatives. She li%e6ise claimed that 6hile the appellants turned off the lights in their house# there 6as a full moon that night 6hich gave her enough light to see her a$users. She immediatel" told her parents that she 6as raped# and she under6ent medical e'amination the follo6ing da". J,K DANTE A?CANTARA testified that on the da" of the ro$$er" he 6as onl" nine E/F "ears old. ;e said he recogni@ed appellants 8anson and Pinantao $ecause the" 6ere their neigh$ors. 5n cross&e'amination# he admitted that the four ro$$ers 6ere mas%ed# $ut the 6itness insisted that he 6as a$le to recogni@e Pinantao 6ith his cut 6rist and mustache# and also 8anson $ecause of his $uilt.J=K CESARI5 A?CANTARA testified that on .arch 0+# */3,# their house 6as ro$$ed and his daughter 6as raped. ;e admitted that during the incident# he 6as not a$le to identif" the perpetrators since he 6as hogtied face do6n6ards# and he 6as covered 6ith a $lan%et.J3K The prosecution also presented DR. CESAR .AN<E?. ;e testified that the ph"sical e'amination he conducted on .arites Alcantara a da" after the incident revealed that there 6ere lacerations $et6een the la$ia ma(ora# la$ia minora# and the prepuce caused $" a sharp instrument. There 6as also the presence of seminal fluid in the vagina of the victim indicating that there 6as actual se'ual contact.J/K ATT9. 85R)E SERR<D5 testified that he onl" assisted appellant 8anson in 6aiving his right to counsel# and that the s6orn statement 6as alread" prepared 6hen he signed it. Nevertheless# he as%ed appellant 8anson if the contents of the

statement 6ere true# and 6hether he 6ished to $e assisted $" counsel. J*1K PIS)T. PEDR5 IDPAN# 8R. testified that he 6as a mem$er of the Integrated National Police EINPF# 7idapa6an# Cota$ato# assigned in the investigation of the crime of ro$$er" 6ith rape involving appellant 8oel 8anson. ;e identified 8ansonAs s6orn statement sa"ing it 6as signed $" him 6ithout $eing forced. ;e admitted that during the investigation# there 6as no la6"er present and that Att". Serrudo signed the affidavit onl" after the investigation 6as conducted. ;e claimed# ho6ever# that prior to the custodial investigation# he informed 8anson of his constitutional rights and that despite $eing a .ano$o# 8anson full" understood Ce$uano# J**K 6hich 6as the language used during the custodial investigation. Binall"# PIS)T. 5RTE??5 AC;AS testified that he 6as at the police station 6hen Teresa Alcantara appeared on 8une 0+# */3,# and reCuested that she $e accompanied to the (ail to identif" the person 6ho 6as earlier apprehended and detained. She identified the person as appellant 8oel 8anson. 5n cross&e'amination# PISgt. Achas admitted that he 6as not the one 6ho conducted the investigation on the person of 8oel 8anson and that he could not remem$er 6hether appellant 8anson 6ho 6as then si'teen E*,F "ears old and a .ano$o 6as assisted $" a la6"er. Neither could he remem$er 6hether a mental or ph"sical e'amination 6as made upon 8anson. J*0K Bor the defense# the follo6ing 6itnesses 6ere presented> Datu Amado Pinantao# Att". Brancis Palmones# 8r.# and the t6o appellants> 8oel 8anson and Ric%" Pinantao. DAT< A.AD5 PINANTA5 testified that he is an uncle of Ric%" Pinantao# and that the" $elong to a cultural minorit" group# the .ano$os. ;e admitted that the" lived near the house of Cesario Alcantara. ;e said that on .arch 0+# */3,# appellant Pinantao 6as in their house and that it 6as impossi$le for him to $e else6here $ecause earlier# in */3-# Pinantao 6as hac%ed $" one 4ernardo Agio resulting in the amputation of PinantaoAs hand. ;e averred that Pinantao could not go out of their house $ecause at the time of the incident# the 6ound he sustained 6as not "et completel" healed.J*2K ATT9. BRANCIS PA?.5NES# 8R.# testified that he notari@ed the s6orn statement J*+K of the appellant 8anson on April 2# */3=# mar%ed as E'h. + and that 8anson affirmed and understood the contents of said affidavit $ecause it 6as translated to him in the Visa"an vernacular.J*-K Appellant 85E? 8ANS5N# for his o6n defense# declared that he 6as assisted $" a la6"er 6hen he 6as investigated and made to sign a s6orn statement $efore the police on 8une 0,# */3,. 4ut he denied the accusation against him and claimed that he 6as not assisted $" counsel during the custodial investigation. ;e claimed that he did not %no6 ho6 to read or 6rite# and that he 6as made to e'ecute a s6orn statement $efore a certain policeman named <lep. 5nl" after the investigation did Att". Serrudo sign the document. 5n cross&e'amination# he said that he 6as put in (ail for another crime# ro$$er".J*,K Appellant RIC79 PINANTA5 also denied the accusation against him# sa"ing that he did not %no6 .arites and Cesario Alcantara. ;e claimed that he 6as arrested in .arch */3= $ecause he 6as implicated $" appellant 8anson as one of the perpetrators of the crime# per instruction of one Cristina Agio. J*=K 5n Septem$er *-# *//-# the Regional Trial Court rendered (udgment thus> ;EREB5RE# prescinding from all of the foregoing considerations# the Court here$" pronounces the accused Ric%" Pinantao alias 5gco and 8oel 8anson guilt" of the crime of Ro$$er" 6ith Rape $e"ond reasona$le dou$t and accordingl"# sentences Ric%" Pinantao and 8oel 8anson each to undergo a prison term of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnif" .arites Alcantara the sum of P21#111.11H to indemnif" Cesario Alcantara the sum of P*1#111.11. No a6ard of other damages in the a$sence of proof thereof. S5 5RDERED.J*3K 4oth appellants filed their notices of appeal and su$mitted separate appellantAs $riefs. Appellant Ric%" Pinantao averred that> I T;E TRIA? C5<RT ERRED IN AD.ITTIN) T;E A??E)ED ETTRA&8<DICIA? UC5NBESSI5NA 5B APPE??ANT 85E? 8ANS5N# SAID EVIDENCE 4EIN) INAD.ISSI4?E 4ECA<SE IT AS 54TAINED IN VI5?ATI5N 5B T;E C5NSTIT<TI5NA? RI);TS 5B T;E ACC<SED AND S;5<?D N5T ;AVE TA7EN A)AINST ;IS C5&ACC<SED RIC79 PINANTA5# <NDER T;E INTER A?I5S ACTA R<?E AS A)AINST ;IS C5&ACC<SED RIC79 PINANTA5 EIT;ER B5R PR54A4?E CA<SE AND T;E RES<?TANT C5NVICTI5N 5B RIC79 PINANTA5H II

T;E TRIA? C5<RT ERRED IN )IVIN) EI);T AND CREDENCE T5 T;E PR5SEC<TI5N ITNESSES 5B T;E A?CANTARA BA.I?9 ;IC; ERE S;5T T;R5<); IT; .ATERIA? C5NTRADICTI5NS# INC5NSISTENCIES AND <NNAT<RA? TESTI.5NIESH and III T;E TRIA? C5<RT ERRED IN N5T BINDIN) T;AT T;E PR5SEC<TI5N .ISERA4?9 BAI?ED T5 ESTA4?IS; T;E )<I?T 5B T;E ACC<SED 4E95ND REAS5NA4?E D5<4T# AND T;AT IN BACT T;ERE AS A REAS5NA4?E D5<4T IN T;E IDENTITIES AND )<I?T 5B 45T; ACC<SED.J*/K Appellant 8oel 8anson# for his part# averred that> I T;E TRIA? C5<RT ERRED IN BINDIN) T;AT ACC<SED&APPE??ANT 85E? 8ANS5N IDENTIBIED 49 T;E PR5SEC<TI5N ITNESSESH and II T;E TRIA? C5<RT ERRED IN BINDIN) ACC<SED&APPE??ANT 85E? 8ANS5N )<I?T9 5B T;E CRI.E 5B R544ER9 IT; RAPE DESPITE T;E BAI?<RE 5B T;E PR5SEC<TI5N T5 PR5VE ;IS )<I?T 4E95ND REAS5NA4?E D5<4T.J01K Simpl" put# the issues in this case are as follo6s> E*F as the guilt of appellants 8anson and Pinantao proved $e"ond reasona$le dou$t! E0F Is the e'tra(udicial confession of 8anson admissi$le as evidence for the prosecution! and E2F .a" said confession $e used against co&accused Pinantao! e find the appeal impressed 6ith merit. Appellants should $e acCuitted. )enerall"# the findings of the trial court concerning credi$ilit" of 6itnesses are accorded great 6eight and respect $ecause it had the opportunit" to o$serve closel" in the first instance the demeanor of the 6itnesses presented $efore it. J0*K ;o6ever# 6hen the trial court overloo%ed or misunderstood significant contrarieties in the testimon" of 6itnesses 6hich if considered 6ould materiall" affect the result of the conviction# such findings 6ill not $ind this Court. J00K Such is the case at hand. Consistent 6ith the testimonies of Teresa# .arites# Cesario# and Dante Alcantara# 6e can gather that 6hat transpired that fateful night is as follo6s> In the evening of .arch 0+# */3,# si' E,F men came to the house of Cesario Alcantara threatening to strafe and $urn it should the" not $e let in. 5nce inside# the mas%ed group of men turned off the lights# hogtied Cesario# pushed him facedo6n and covered him 6ith $lan%ets. The" as%ed for mone" and Teresa gave them P+11.J02K Teresa 6as then led to the %itchen. During this time# her daughter .arites 6as raped J0+K $" four men. Then .arites 6as led to the %itchen 6here the culprits threatened to a$duct her if her mother 6ould not give them mone". Teresa then gave them an additional P*#111 6hile the group too% three 6rist6atches# one can of coffee# and one chic%en. Then the" left the house# all the 6hile spea%ing in the .ano$o dialect.J0-K hile the testimonies of the 6itnesses up to this point are credi$le and undisputed# it is unfortunate that the certaint" ends here. .arites testified in open court that she 6as raped $" Ric%" alias 5gco Pinantao# 8oel 8anson# and A$dul 8ona. She said that she came to %no6 Ric%" Pinantao $ecause he is a neigh$or and that he often goes to their house to $u" $ananas. She also said that she came to %no6 8oel 8anson $ecause he is al6a"s going to .ateo since he has a relative there.J0=K
J0,K

AS P5SITIVE?9

<pon cross&e'amination# ho6ever# .arites admitted that she 6as not certain of the identit" of her perpetrators at the time of the incident or immediatel" thereafter. According to her# it 6as onl" after 8oel 8anson 6as apprehended for another crime# and after he UconfessedA to the police# that she 6as a$le to confirm her suspicion. hen as%ed in open court# she 6as not a$le to satisfactoril" e'plain the discrepanc" in her initial s6orn statement $efore the police and her testimon" later. Pertinent portions of her testimon" in court are instructive> G> as this Ric%" Pinantao armed 6hen he entered "our room!

A> No sir# he 6asnAt.

G>

here EsicF "ou afraid of him!

A> No# sir. G> 7no6ing that# according to "ou# "ou %no6 him# did "ou not Cuestion him# Ric%"# 6h" are "ou doing this to me! A> I did not $ecause 0 was onl1 suspecting.J03K ''' G> Is it not .arites# to refresh "our memor"# is it not that 6hen a s6orn statement 6as ta%en from "our EsicF# "ou stated in "our affidavit that "ou did not recogni@e an"$od"! A> That 6as 6hat I stated in m" statement.J0/K ''' G> .iss .arites# in this s6orn statement of "ours# 6hich 6as alread" mar%ed as E'hi$it LEM for the prosecution and E'hi$it L*M for the defense# there is a Cuestion here> LCan "ou recogni@ed EsicF an" of the four men or an" of the si' men that ro$$ed and raped "ou!M J"ou ans6ered# LI do not %no6 an"one sir. No6K in "our testimon" here# "ou said that "ou %no6 the t6o accused# ho6 6ill "ou reconcile this one! A> It is li%e this# 6hat I am telling no6 in Court is the one true# during that time# 6hen the statement 6as ta%en on me EsicF# I have alread" suspect in m" mind and I could not tell their names $ut there 6ere some evidence that dovetailed in m" mind# li%e# the cut 6rist of the one perpetrator# Ric%" Pinantao and the mustache. And these are the things that I recall. G> No6# ho6 come that "ou did not tell the police of the perpetrators during that time of investigation! A> Sir# it is ver" hard to name names during that time 6hen a statement 6as ta%en on me. /ut when this !oel !anson was first apprehended it was confirmed b1 his statement to the policeman. EsicFJ21K ''' G> &o when !oel !anson was apprehended that was the time 1ou confirmed that he was the perpetrator2 A> ''' %es sir. ''' G> Therefore# "ou failed to recogni@e 8oel 8anson during said time of the incident! A> I %ne6 him through his $od" $uilt. ''' G> &o 1ou merel1 assumed that !oel !anson is one of those persons who robbed 1ou because of the aforesaid statement that his alleged statement in the police2 A> %es sir. ''' G> )ccording to 1ou 1ou have confirmed 1our suspicion of this !oel !anson after he was apprehended2 A> %es sir. G> In the same manner "ou confirmed "our suspicion of Ric%" Pinantao after he 6as apprehended! A> ;e himself revealed. Aside from that I alread" suspected $ecause of his cut 6rist and his mustache. J2*K Eemphasis oursF hile courts generall" $rush aside inconseCuential contradictions $et6een declarations of the affiant in her s6orn statements and those in court# the rule is other6ise 6here the discrepancies touch on su$stantial and irreconcila$le facts such as those omissions in the affidavit concerning important details 6hich the affiant 6ould not have failed to mention and 6hich omission could 6ell affect the credi$ilit" of the affiant. J20K If indeed# the victim recogni@ed one of her assailants as Ric%" Pinantao $ecause of his amputated hand# she should have mentioned such glaring trait the first time she gave her statement to the investigating officers. 4ut she never mentioned an"thing. 5n the contrar"# she admitted that she did not recogni@e an" of her assailants. She also admitted that it 6as onl" after 8oel 8anson 6as apprehended and UconfessedA to the crime# implicating Ric%" Pinantao# that she confirmed her suspicion.

The testimon" of Teresa Alcantara is also riddled 6ith uncertainties> G> ;o6 man" da" had lapsed EsicF $efore "ou reported the incident to the police! A> Three months after the incident. ''' G> ill "ou please e'plain 6h" "ou reported the incident after three months!

A> 0t was onl1 upon hearing through radio D34D the name of this person !oel !anson who was reported to have robbed the corn of a certain )tt1. !alipa that 0 reported to the police . G> That 6as the onl" reason 6h" "ou reported to the police after three months alread"! A> It is li%e this> After hearing that# I 6ent to the police right then and there. I sa6 this 8oel 8anson 6ho 6as the person among those 6ho raped m" daughter and entered our house. G> If "ou %ne6 alread" that 8oel 8anson 6as among those persons 6ho ro$$ed "ou# 6h" did "ou not report to the police immediatel"! A> The follo6ing morning# I immediatel" reported# sir. G> And "ou gave s6orn statement $efore the police on the follo6ing morning! A> Not "et# sir. G> 5f course this !oel !anson was unmas6ed when those six men came to 1our house2 A> +his !oel !anson and Ric61 Pinantao were the one -sic. wearing mas6. G> In other 6ords# during the incident "ou failed to recogni@e outright 6ho 6ere those persons mas%ed! A> 0 identified them through their bod1 built and voice because the1 were spea6ing Manobo. G> 4ut "ou identified them $ecause of their voice! A> Voice and $od"$uilt. G> 4ut of course# "ou did not actuall" see the face of 8oel 8anson! A> How can 0 see when he is mas6ed. ''' G> %ou onl1 mentioned his -!oel !anson7s. name -to the police. after 1ou heard his name over the D34D2 A> %es...J22K Eemphasis oursF hat stands out in the testimonies of the victims is that the" 6ere uncertain of the identities of the mas%ed men 6ho committed the ro$$er" and rape that night and anchored their suspicion on the alleged confession of 8oel 8anson. This confession# ho6ever# is itself inadmissi$le for failing to meet the constitutional reCuirements for admissi$ilit". The la6"er 6ho allegedl" assisted 8oel 8anson in the 6aiver of his right to counsel# Att". Serrudo# testified> G> In other 6ords# this s6orn statement mar%ed E'hi$it L4M 6as alread" t"pe6ritten and prepared 6hen it 6as $rought to "ou $" the police! A> 9es# sir# that is correct.J2+K ''' G> 4ut $efore he 6as $rought to "our office allegedl" to assist him in his 6aiving of his right# he 6as alread" su$(ected to investigation as this s6orn statement 6as alread" prepared! A> That is true# $ut not signed. G> 5f course he 6as not assisted $ecause he 6as alread" su$(ected to police investigation in his 6aiving of his constitutional rights! A> .a" $e# I am not sure a$out that. That 6as ma" $e# that 6as alread" prepared 6hen the" came to m" office $ut onl" unsigned. G> hat 6as prepared# the 6hole investigation or this entire part or that part of 6aiving his rights!

A> As far as 0 can remember it was alread1 prepared %our Honor .J2-K ''' G> )tt1. 8errudo we are clear to the fact that this document was alread1 prepared before when it was brought to 1our office2 A> %es sir.J2,K Eemphasis oursF The investigating police officer# PISgt. Pedro Idpan# also admitted in open court that the s6orn statement of appellant 8oel 8anson 6as ta%en 6ithout the presence of counsel and that this statement together 6ith the 6aiver of his right to counsel# 6as alread" prepared 6hen it 6as presented to Att". Serrudo for signing. As sho6n $" the transcript> G> 4ut the accused during the investigation 6as not assisted $" counsel# is that right! A> At the time 6hen I conducted the investigation# the counsel is not "et present. G> In other 6ords# during the conduct of the investigation there 6as no counsel $eing present assisting the accused 8oel 8anson! A> None# sir. G> So in all the s6orn statement of the accused 8oel 8anson made earlier 6as made 6ithout the assistance of counsel! EsicF A> hen I prepared the investigation I advised him to get a counsel of his o6n choice $ut the counsel 6as not "et present.

G> ;e 6as not assisted $" counsel during the conduct of the investigation! A> 9es# sir. Court > hat do "ou mean# Sergeant# Att". Serrudo 6as not "et present!

A> 9hen 0 conducted the investigation )tt1. 8errudo was not present. ''' Court> He signed it after the investigation2 A> +he prepared testimon1. Court> )fter the investigation2 A> )fter the investigation.J2=K Eemphasis oursF Clearl"# the alleged e'tra(udicial confession of appellant 8oel 8anson cannot $e admitted in evidence. The manner $" 6hich it 6as o$tained violated accusedAs constitutional right to counsel. It is 6ell&settled that the Constitution a$hors an uncounselled confession or admission and 6hatever information is derived therefrom shall $e regarded as inadmissi$le in evidence against the confessant. J23K As provided for in Article III# Section *0 of the */3= Constitution# E*F An" person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to $e informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel prefera$l" of his o6n choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel# he must $e provided 6ith one. These rights cannot $e 6aived e'cept in 6riting and in the presence of counsel. ''' E2F An" confession or admission o$tained in violation of this or the preceding section shall $e inadmissi$le against him. In People v. !avar J2/K this Court 6as clear in pronouncing that an" statement o$tained in violation of the Constitution# 6hether e'culpator" or inculpator"# in 6hole or in part# shall $e inadmissi$le in evidence. Even if the confession contains a grain of truth# if it 6as made 6ithout the assistance of counsel# it $ecomes inadmissi$le in evidence# regardless of the a$sence of coercion or even if it had $een voluntaril" given. J+1K In People v. Gome'#J+*K citing People v. Rodrigue'a #J+0K this Court held that Section *0E*F# Article III of the Constitution reCuires the assistance of counsel to a person under

custod" even 6hen he 6aives the right to counsel. <nder the Constitution and e'isting la6 as 6ell as (urisprudence# a confession to $e admissi$le must satisf" the follo6ing reCuirements> E*F it must $e voluntar"H E0F it must $e made 6ith the assistance of competent and independent counselH E2F it must $e e'pressH and E+F it must $e in 6riting. J+2K The purpose of providing counsel to a person under custodial investigation is to cur$ the uncivili@ed practice of e'tracting confession $" coercion no matter ho6 slight# as 6ould lead the accused to admit something false. hat is sought to $e avoided is the evil of e'torting from the ver" mouth of the person undergoing interrogation for the commission of an offense# the ver" evidence 6ith 6hich to prosecute and thereafter convict him. These constitutional guarantees have $een made availa$le to protect him from the inherentl" coercive ps"chological# if not ph"sical# atmosphere of such investigation.J++K hile the Constitution sanctions the 6aiver of the right to counsel# it must# ho6ever# $e voluntar"# %no6ing# and intelligent# made in the presence and 6ith the assistance of counsel# J+-K and it must $e in 6riting. Indeed# an" 6aiver of the right to counsel 6ithout the assistance of counsel has no evidentiar" value. J+,K In this case# it cannot $e said that the 6aiver of the right to counsel 6as made %no6ingl" and intelligentl". Appellant 8oel 8anson 6as illiterate# and a minor of si'teen E*,F "ears at the time of the offense. As held in the case of People v. /onola#J+=K 6here the accused 6as unschooled and onl" nineteen E*/F "ears old 6hen arrested# it is difficult to $elieve that considering the circumstances# the accused made an intelligent 6aiver of his right to counsel. In such instances# the need for counsel is more pronounced. It is also important to mention that the investigating officers alread" had a prepared statement 6hen the" 6ent to the la6"er 6ho is supposed to assist appellant 8anson in 6aiving his right to counsel. This is not 6hat is contemplated $" la6. In People v. $uidato !r.#J+3K 6here the police officers alread" prepared the affidavits of the accused 6hen the" 6ere $rought to the C?A5 Eno6 PA5F la6"er# and the latter e'plained the contents of the affidavits in #isa1an to the accused 6ho affirmed the veracit" and voluntar" e'ecution of the same# the court held that the affidavits are inadmissi$le in evidence even if the" 6ere voluntaril" given. As also ruled in People v. (ompil J+/K the $elated arrival of the C?A5 la6"er the follo6ing da"# even if prior to the actual signing of the uncounseled confession# does not cure the defect of lac% of counsel for the investigators 6ere alread" a$le to e'tract incriminator" statements from the accused therein. Thus# in People v. De !esus J-1K 6e said that admissions o$tained during custodial interrogations 6ithout the $enefit of counsel# although later reduced to 6riting and signed in the presence of counsel# are still fla6ed under the Constitution. As pointed out in People v. Deniega#J-*K if the la6"erAs role is reduced to $eing that of a mere 6itness to the signing of a priorl" prepared document al$eit indicating therein compliance 6ith the accusedAs constitutional rights# the constitutional standard is not met. Binall"# the invalid e'tra(udicial confession of 8oel 8anson cannot $e used against Ric%" Pinantao. An e'tra(udicial confession $" an accused implicating another ma" not $e utili@ed unless repeated in open court or 6hen there is an opportunit" for the co&accused to cross&e'amine the confessant on his e'tra(udicial statements. It is considered hearsa" as against said co&accused under the res inter alios acta rule# 6hich ordains that the rights of a part" cannot $e pre(udiced $" an act# declaration# or omission of another.J-0K Bor all the foregoing considerations# the (udgment of the Regional Trial Court finding 8anson and Pinantao guilt" of the crime of ro$$er" 6ith rape fails to persuade us that appellants have $een adeCuatel" identified as the perpetrators of the heinous offense. In our vie6# to affirm that (udgment of conviction on the $asis of contradictor" testimon" of prosecution 6itnesses and the fla6ed e'tra(udicial confession of appellant 8oel 8anson is to sanction a possi$le miscarriage of (ustice. hat $efell the Alcantara famil"# particularl" to .arites# is a$horrent and should $e condemned. 4ut after due reflection and deli$eration# 6e still find difficult" in sustaining the trial courtAs conclusion regarding appellantsA guilt $ecause of inconclusive identification. Dou$ts persist in our mind as to 6ho are the real malefactors. 9es# a comple' offense has $een perpetrated# $ut 6ho are the perpetrators! ;o6 6e 6ish 6e had DNA or other scientific evidence to still our dou$tsD 4ut 6e have onl" uncertain testimonies to rel" on. It is onl" 6hen the conscience is satisfied that the persons on trial are the ones 6ho committed the offense that the (udgment should $e for conviction. 5nl" 6hen there is proof $e"ond reasona$le dou$t can 6e $e certain that# after trial# onl" those responsi$le should $e made ans6era$le. J-2K The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its o6n merit and cannot $e allo6ed to dra6 strength from the 6ea%ness of the evidence for the defense.J-+K In this e'acting standard# the prosecution failed. It follo6s that the (udgment of the lo6er court convicting appellants ought to $e set aside for failure to meet the Cuantum of evidence constitutionall" reCuired. $HEREFORE# the decision of the Regional Trial Court of 7idapa6an# Cota$ato# 4ranch TVII# in Criminal Case No. 01*, is here$" REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellants 8oel 8anson and Ric%" Pinantao are ACG<ITTED# on grounds

of reasona$le dou$t# and ordered released from prison unless the" are $eing held for some other la6ful cause. The Director of Prisons is DIRECTED to implement this Decision and to report to this Court immediatel" the action ta%en hereon 6ithin five E-F da"s from receipt hereof. SO OR&ERE&. /ellosillo -(hairman. Mendo'a )ustria-Martine' and (alle*o &r. !!. concur. Agustin vs. Court of Appeals# ).R. No. *,0-=*# 8une *-# 011T;IRD DIVISI5N

'G.R. No. 1L25?1. J)*+ 15, 2005,

ARNEL L. AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AN& MINOR MARTIN JOSE PROLLAMANTE, REPRESENTE& -Y HIS MOTHERIGUAR&IAN FE ANGELA PROLLAMANTE, respondents. &ECISION CORONA, J.% At issue in this petition for certiorari J*K is 6hether or not the Court of Appeals ECAF gravel" erred in e'ercising its discretion# amounting to lac% or e'cess of (urisdiction# in issuing a decision J0Kand resolutionJ2K upholding the resolution and order of the trial court# J+K 6hich denied petitionerAs motion to dismiss private respondentsA complaint for support and directed the parties to su$mit themselves to deo'"ri$onucleic acid EDNAF paternit" testing. Respondents Be Angela and her son .artin Prollamante sued .artinAs alleged $iological father# petitioner Arnel ?. Agustin# for support and support pendente lite $efore the Regional Trial Court ERTCF of Gue@on Cit"# 4ranch *1,. J-K In their complaint# respondents alleged that Arnel courted Be in *//0# after 6hich the" entered into an intimate relationship. Arnel supposedl" impregnated Be on her 2+ th $irthda" on Novem$er *1# *///. Despite ArnelAs insistence on a$ortion# Be decided other6ise and gave $irth to their child out of 6edloc%# .artin# on August **# 0111 at the Capitol .edical ;ospital in Gue@on Cit". The $a$"As $irth certificate 6as purportedl" signed $" Arnel as the father. Arnel shouldered the pre&natal and hospital e'penses $ut later refused BeAs repeated reCuests for .artinAs support despite his adeCuate financial capacit" and even suggested to have the child committed for adoption. Arnel also denied having fathered the child. 5n 8anuar" */# 011*# 6hile Be 6as carr"ing five&month old .artin at the Capitol ;ills )olf and Countr" Clu$ par%ing lot# Arnel sped off in his van# 6ith the open car door hitting BeAs leg. This incident 6as reported to the police. In 8ul" 011*# Be 6as diagnosed 6ith leu%emia and has# since then# $een undergoing chemotherap". 5n .arch -# 0110# Be and .artin sued Arnel for support.J,K In his amended ans6er# Arnel denied having sired .artin $ecause his affair and intimac" 6ith Be had allegedl" ended in *//3# long $efore .artinAs conception. ;e claimed that Be had at least one other secret lover. Arnel admitted that their relationship started in *//2 $ut Lhe never reall" fell in love 6ith EBeF not onl" $ecause EsheF had at least one secret lover# a certain 8un# $ut also $ecause she proved to $e scheming and overl" demanding and possessive. As a result# theirs 6as a storm" on&and&off affair. hat started as a romantic liaison $et6een t6o consenting adults eventuall" turned out to $e a case of fatal attraction 6here EBeF $ecame so o$sessed 6ith EArnelF# to the point of even entertaining the idea of marr"ing him# that she resorted to various devious 6a"s and means to alienate EhimF from his 6ife and famil"O. <na$le to $ear the prospect of losing his 6ife and children# Arnel terminated the affair although he still treated her as a friend such as $" referring potential customers to the car aircon repair shopM J=K 6here she 6or%ed. ?ater on# Arnel found out that Be had another erst6hile secret lover. In .a" 0111# Arnel and his entire famil" 6ent to the <nited States for a vacation. <pon their return in 8une 0111# Arnel learned that Be 6as telling people that he had impregnated her. Arnel refused to ac%no6ledge the child as his $ecause their Llast intimac" 6as sometime in *//3.M J3K E'asperated# Be started calling ArnelAs 6ife and famil". 5n 8anuar" */# 011*# Be follo6ed Arnel to the Capitol ;ills )olf and Countr" Clu$ par%ing lot to demand that he ac%no6ledge .artin as his child. According to Arnel# he could not get through Be and the discussion $ecame so heated that he had no Lalternative $ut to move on $ut 6ithout $umping or hitting an" part of her $od".MJ/K Binall"# Arnel claimed that the signature and the communit" ta' certificate ECTCF attri$uted to him in the ac%no6ledgment of .artinAs $irth certificate 6ere falsified. The CTC erroneousl" reflected his marital status as single 6hen he 6as actuall" married and that his $irth "ear 6as */,- 6hen it should have $een */,+. J*1K

In his pre&trial $rief filed on .a" *=# 0110# Arnel vehementl" denied having sired .artin $ut e'pressed 6illingness to consider an" proposal to settle the case.J**K 5n 8ul" 02# 0110# Be and .artin moved for the issuance of an order directing all the parties to su$mit themselves to DNA paternit" testing pursuant to Rule 03 of the Rules of Court. J*0K Arnel opposed said motion $" invo%ing his constitutional right against self&incrimination. J*2K ;e also moved to dismiss the complaint for lac% of cause of action# considering that his signature on the $irth certificate 6as a forger" and that# under the la6# an illegitimate child is not entitled to support if not recogni@ed $" the putative father. J*+K In his motion# Arnel manifested that he had filed criminal charges for falsification of documents against Be EI.S. Nos. 10&-=02 and 10&=*/0F and a petition for cancellation of his name appearing in .artinAs $irth certificate Edoc%eted as Civil Case No. G&10&+,,,/F. ;e attached the certification of the Philippine National Police Crime ?a$orator" that his signature in the $irth certificate 6as forged. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint and ordered the parties to su$mit themselves to DNA paternit" testing at the e'pense of the applicants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Thus# this petition. In a nutshell# petitioner raises t6o issues> E*F 6hether a complaint for support can $e converted to a petition for recognition and E0F 6hether DNA paternit" testing can $e ordered in a proceeding for support 6ithout violating petitionerAs constitutional right to privac" and right against self&incrimination. J*-K The petition is 6ithout merit. Birst of all# the trial court properl" denied the petitionerAs motion to dismiss $ecause the private respondentsA complaint on its face sho6ed that the" had a cause of action against the petitioner. The elements of a cause of action are> E*F the plaintiffAs primar" right and the defendantAs corresponding primar" dut"# and E0F the delict or 6rongful act or omission of the defendant# $" 6hich the primar" right and dut" have $een violated. The cause of action is determined not $" the pra"er of the complaint $ut $" the facts alleged. J*,K In the complaint# private respondents alleged that Be had amorous relations 6ith the petitioner# as a result of 6hich she gave $irth to .artin out of 6edloc%. In his ans6er# petitioner admitted that he had se'ual relations 6ith Be $ut denied that he fathered .artin# claiming that he had ended the relationship long $efore the childAs conception and $irth. It is undisputed and even admitted $" the parties that there e'isted a se'ual relationship $et6een Arnel and Be. The onl" remaining Cuestion is 6hether such se'ual relationship produced the child# .artin. If it did# as respondents have alleged# then .artin should $e supported $" his father Arnel. If not# petitioner and .artin are strangers to each other and .artin has no right to demand and petitioner has no o$ligation to give support. Preliminaries aside# 6e no6 tac%le the main issues. Petitioner refuses to recogni@e .artin as his o6n child and denies the genuineness and authenticit" of the childAs $irth certificate 6hich he purportedl" signed as the father. ;e also claims that the order and resolution of the trial court# as affirmed $" the Court of Appeals# effectivel" converted the complaint for support to a petition for recognition# 6hich is supposedl" proscri$ed $" la6. According to petitioner# .artin# as an unrecogni@ed child# has no right to as% for support and must first esta$lish his filiation in a separate suit under Article 032 J*=K in relation to Article 0,-J*3K of the Civil Code and Section *# Rule *1-J*/K of the Rules of Court. The petitionerAs contentions are 6ithout merit. The assailed resolution and order did not convert the action for support into one for recognition $ut merel" allo6ed the respondents to prove their cause of action against petitioner 6ho had $een den"ing the authenticit" of the documentar" evidence of ac%no6ledgement. 4ut even if the assailed resolution and order effectivel" integrated an action to compel recognition 6ith an action for support# such 6as valid and in accordance 6ith (urisprudence. In +a1ag v. (ourt of )ppeals J01K 6e allo6ed the integration of an action to compel recognition 6ith an action to claim oneAs inheritance> OIn Paulino# 6e held that an illegitimate child# to $e entitled to support and successional rights from the putative or presumed parent# must prove his filiation to the latter. e also said that it is necessar" to allege in the complaint that the putative father had ac%no6ledged and recogni@ed the illegitimate child $ecause such ac%no6ledgment is essential to and is the $asis of the right to inherit. There $eing no allegation of such ac%no6ledgment# the action $ecomes one to compel recognition 6hich cannot $e $rought after the death of the putative father. The ratio decidendi in Paulino# therefore# is not the a$sence of a cause of action for failure of the petitioner to allege the fact of ac%no6ledgment in the complaint# $ut the prescription of the action. Appl"ing the foregoing principles to the case at $ar# although petitioner contends that the complaint filed $" herein private respondent merel" alleges that the minor Chad Cu"ugan is an illegitimate child of the deceased and is actuall" a claim for

inheritance# from the allegations therein the same ma" $e considered as one to compel recognition. Burther# 14a1 14+ 1;o 8a)!+! o9 a81 o*, o*+ 1o 8o.0+l /+8o7* 1 o* a*2 14+ o14+/ 1o 8la . *4+/ 1a*8+, .ay 3+ Do *+2 * o*+ 8o.0la *1 ! *o1 *+; * o)/ D)/ !0/)2+*8+. As earl" as J*/00K 6e had occasion to rule thereon in /ri' vs. /ri' et al. E+2 Phil. =,2 J*/00KF 6herein 6e said> The Cuestion 6hether a person in the position of the present plaintiff can in an" event maintain a comple' action to compel recognition as a natural child and at the same time to o$tain ulterior relief in the character of heir# is one 6hich in the opinion of this court must $e ans6ered in the affirmative# provided al6a"s that the conditions (ustif"ing the (oinder of the t6o distinct causes of action are present in the particular case. I* o14+/ ;o/2!, 14+/+ ! *o a3!ol)1+ *+8+!! 1y /+F) / *7 14a1 14+ a81 o* 1o 8o.0+l a8E*o;l+27.+*1 !4o)l2 4a:+ 3++* *!1 1)1+2 a*2 0/o!+8)1+2 1o a !)88+!!9)l 8o*8l)! o* 0/ o/ 1o 14+ a81 o* * ;4 84 14a1 !a.+ 0la *1 99 !++E! a22 1 o*al /+l +9 * 14+ 84a/a81+/ o9 4+ / . Certainl"# there is nothing so peculiar to the action to compel ac%no6ledgment as to reCuire that a rule should $e here applied different from that generall" applica$le in other cases. ' ' ' The conclusion a$ove stated# though not heretofore e'plicitl" formulated $" this court# is undou$tedl" to some e'tent supported $" our prior decisions. Thus# ;+ 4a:+ 4+l2 * *).+/o)! 8a!+!, a*2 14+ 2o81/ *+ .)!1 3+ 8o*! 2+/+2 ;+ll !+11l+2, 14a1 a *a1)/al 84 l2 4a: *7 a / 741 1o 8o.0+l a8E*o;l+27.+*1, 3)1 ;4o 4a! *o1 3++* * 9a81 l+7ally a8E*o;l+27+2, .ay .a *1a * 0a/1 1 o* 0/o8++2 *7! 9o/ 14+ 2 : ! o* o9 14+ *4+/ 1a*8+ a7a *!1 4 ! 8o4+ /! B B BH and the same person ma" intervene in proceedings for the distri$ution of the estate of his deceased natural father# or mother ' ' '. In neither of these situations has it $een thought necessar" for the plaintiff to sho6 a prior decree compelling ac%no6ledgment. The o$vious reason is that in partition suits and distri$ution proceedings the other persons 6ho might ta%e $" inheritance are $efore the courtH and the declaration of heirship is appropriate to such proceedings. E<nderscoring suppliedF Although the instant case deals 6ith support rather than inheritance# as in +a1ag# the $asis or rationale for integrating them remains the same. hether or not respondent .artin is entitled to support depends completel" on the determination of filiation. A separate action 6ill onl" result in a multiplicit" of suits# given ho6 intimatel" related the main issues in $oth cases are. To paraphrase +a1ag the declaration of filiation is entirel" appropriate to these proceedings. 5n the second issue# petitioner posits that DNA is not recogni@ed $" this Court as a conclusive means of proving paternit". ;e also contends that compulsor" testing violates his right to privac" and right against self&incrimination as guaranteed under the */3= Constitution. These contentions have no merit. )iven that this is the ver" first time that the admissi$ilit" of DNA testing as a means for determining paternit" has actuall" $een the focal issue in a controvers"# a $rief historical s%etch of our past decisions featuring or mentioning DNA testing is called for. In the *//- case of People v. +eehan6eeJ0*K 6here the appellant 6as convicted of murder on the testimon" of three e"e6itnesses# 6e stated as an obiter dictum that L6hile e"e6itness identification is significant# it is not as accurate and authoritative as the scientific forms of identification evidence such as the fingerprint or the D4) test result Eemphasis suppliedF.M 5ur faith in DNA testing# ho6ever# 6as not Cuite so steadfast in the previous decade. In Pe ,im v. (ourt of )ppeals# promulgated in *//=# 6e cautioned against the use of DNA $ecause LDNA# $eing a relativel" ne6 science# EhadF not as "et $een accorded official recognition $" our courts. Paternit" E6ouldF still have to $e resolved $" such conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating acts# ver$al and 6ritten# $" the putative father.M
J00K

In 011*# ho6ever# 6e opened the possi$ilit" of admitting DNA as evidence of parentage# as enunciated in +i*ing v. (ourt of )ppeals>J02K A final note. Parentage 6ill still $e resolved using conventional methods unless 6e adopt the modern and scientific 6a"s availa$le. Bortunatel"# 6e have no6 the facilit" and e'pertise in using DNA test for identification and parentage testing. The <niversit" of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute E<P&NSRIF DNA Anal"sis ?a$orator" has no6 the capa$ilit" to conduct DNA t"ping using short tandem repeat ESTRF anal"sis. The anal"sis is $ased on the fact that the DNA of a childIperson has t6o E0F copies# one cop" from the mother and the other from the father. The DNA from the mother# the alleged father and child are anal"@ed to esta$lish parentage. 5f course# $eing a novel scientific techniCue# the use of DNA test as evidence is still open to challenge. Eventuall"# as the appropriate case comes# courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissi$ilit" of DNA evidence. Bor it 6as said# that courts should appl" the results of science 6hen competentl" o$tained in aid of situations presented# since to re(ect said result is to den" progress. The first real $rea%through of DNA as admissi$le and authoritative evidence in Philippine (urisprudence came in 0110 6ith our en banc decision in People v. #alle*oJ0+K 6here the rape and murder victimAs DNA samples from the $loodstained

clothes of the accused 6ere admitted in evidence. e reasoned that Lthe purpose of DNA testing E6asF to ascertain 6hether an association e'istEedF $et6een the evidence sample and the reference sample. The samples collected E6ereF su$(ected to various chemical processes to esta$lish their profile.M A "ear later# in People v. !anson J0-K 6e acCuitted the accused charged 6ith rape for lac% of evidence $ecause Ldou$ts persistEedF in our mind as to 6ho E6ereF the real malefactors. 9es# a comple' offense EhadF $een perpetrated $ut 6ho E6ereF the perpetrators! ;o6 6e 6ish 6e had DNA or other scientific evidence to still our dou$tsDM In 011+# in +ecson et al. v. (5M:,:( J0,K 6here the Court en banc 6as faced 6ith the issue of filiation of then presidential candidate Bernando Poe 8r.# 6e stated> In case proof of filiation or paternit" 6ould $e unli%el" to satisfactoril" esta$lish or 6ould $e difficult to o$tain# DNA testing# 6hich e'amines genetic codes o$tained from $od" cells of the illegitimate child and an" ph"sical residue of the long dead parent could $e resorted to. A positive match 6ould clear up filiation or paternit". In Ti(ing vs. Court of Appeals# this Court has ac%no6ledged the strong 6eight of DNA testingO .oreover# in our en banc decision in People v. %atar J0=K 6e affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape 6ith homicide# the principal evidence for 6hich included DNA test results. e did a length" discussion of DNA# the process of DNA testing and the reasons for its admissi$ilit" in the conte't of our o6n Rules of Evidence> Deo'"ri$onucleic Acid# or DNA# is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. A personAs DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a personAs lifetimeH the DNA in a personAs $lood is the same as the DNA found in his saliva# s6eat# $one# the root and shaft of hair# ear6a'# mucus# urine# s%in tissue# and vaginal and rectal cells. .ost importantl"# $ecause of pol"morphisms in human genetic structure# no t6o individuals have the same DNA# 6ith the nota$le e'ception of identical t6ins. ''' ''' '''

In assessing the pro$ative value of DNA evidence# courts should consider# inter alia# the follo6ing factors> ho6 the samples 6ere collected# ho6 the" 6ere handled# the possi$ilit" of contamination of the samples# the procedure follo6ed in anal"@ing the samples# 6hether proper standards and procedures 6ere follo6ed in conducting the tests# and the Cualification of the anal"st 6ho conducted the tests. In the case at $ar# Dr. .aria Cora@on A$ogado de <ngria 6as dul" Cualified $" the prosecution as an e'pert 6itness on DNA print or identification techniCues. 4ased on Dr. de <ngriaAs testimon"# it 6as determined that the gene t"pe and DNA profile of appellant are identical to that of the e'tracts su$(ect of e'amination. The $lood sample ta%en from the appellant sho6ed that he 6as of the follo6ing gene t"pes> v A *-I*/# T;1* =I3# D;BRP0/I*1 and CSB*P5 *1I**# 6hich are identical 6ith semen ta%en from the victimAs vaginal canal. Veril"# a DNA match e'ists $et6een the semen found in the victim and the $lood sample given $" the appellant in open court during the course of the trial. Admittedl"# 6e are (ust $eginning to integrate these advances in science and technolog" in the Philippine criminal (ustice s"stem# so 6e must $e cautious as 6e traverse these relativel" uncharted 6aters. Bortunatel"# 6e can $enefit from the 6ealth of persuasive (urisprudence that has developed in other (urisdictions. Specificall"# the prevailing doctrine in the <.S. has proven instructive. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow E-1/ <.S. -=/ E*//2FH *0- ?. Ed. 0d +,/F it 6as ruled that pertinent evidence $ased on scientificall" valid principles could $e used as long as it 6as relevant and relia$le. 8udges# under Daubert# 6ere allo6ed greater discretion over 6hich testimon" the" 6ould allo6 at trial# including the introduction of ne6 %inds of scientific techniCues. DNA t"ping is one such novel procedure. <nder Philippine la6# evidence is relevant 6hen it relates directl" to a fact in issue as to induce $elief in its e'istence or non&e'istence. Appl"ing the Daubert test to the case at $ar# the DNA evidence o$tained through PCR testing and utili@ing STR anal"sis# and 6hich 6as appreciated $" the court a quo is relevant and relia$le since it is reasona$l" $ased on scientificall" valid principles of human genetics and molecular $iolog". Significantl"# 6e upheld the constitutionalit" of compulsor" DNA testing and the admissi$ilit" of the results thereof as evidence. In that case# DNA samples from semen recovered from a rape victimAs vagina 6ere used to positivel" identif" the accused 8oel L7a6itM 9atar as the rapist. 9atar claimed that the compulsor" e'traction of his $lood sample for DNA testing# as 6ell as the testing itself# violated his right against self&incrimination# as em$odied in $oth Sections *0 and *= of Article III of the Constitution. e addressed this as follo6s>

The contention is untena$le. The %ernel of the right is not against all compulsion# $ut against testimonial compulsion. The right against self&incrimination is simpl" against the legal process of e'tracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does not appl" 6here the evidence sought to $e e'cluded is not an incrimination $ut as part of o$(ect evidence. 5ver the "ears# 6e have e'pressl" e'cluded several %inds of o$(ect evidence ta%en from the person of the accused from the realm of self&incrimination. These include photographs# J03K hair#J0/Kand other $odil" su$stances. J21K e have also declared as constitutional several procedures performed on the accused such as pregnanc" tests for 6omen accused of adulter"#J2*K e'pulsion of morphine from oneAs mouth J20K and the tracing of oneAs foot to determine its identit" 6ith $lood" footprints.J22K In !imene' v. (a;i'ares#J2+K 6e even authori@ed the e'amination of a 6omanAs genitalia# in an action for annulment filed $" her hus$and# to verif" his claim that she 6as impotent# her orifice $eing too small for his penis. Some of these procedures 6ere# to $e sure# rather invasive and involuntar"# $ut all of them 6ere constitutionall" sound. DNA testing and its results# per our ruling in %atar#J2-K are no6 similarl" accepta$le. Nor does petitionerAs invocation of his right to privac" persuade us. In 5ple v. +orres#J2,K 6here 6e struc% do6n the proposed national computeri@ed identification s"stem em$odied in Administrative 5rder No. 213# 6e said> 0n no uncertain terms we also underscore that the right to privac1 does not bar all incursions into individual privac1. +he right is not intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good... Intrusions into the right must $e accompanied $" proper safeguards that enhance pu$lic service and the common good. ;istoricall"# it has mostl" $een in the areas of legalit" of searches and sei@ures# J2=K and the infringement of privac" of communicationJ23K 6here the constitutional right to privac" has $een criticall" at issue. PetitionerAs case involves neither and# as alread" stated# his argument that his right against self&incrimination is in (eopard" holds no 6ater. ;is hollo6 invocation of his constitutional rights elicits no s"mpath" here for the simple reason that the" are not in an" 6a" $eing violated. If# in a criminal case# an accused 6hose ver" life is at sta%e can $e compelled to su$mit to DNA testing# 6e see no reason 6h"# in this civil case# petitioner herein 6ho does not face such dire conseCuences cannot $e ordered to do the same. DNA paternit" testing first came to prominence in the <nited States# 6here it "ielded its first official results sometime in */3-. In the decade that follo6ed# DNA rapidl" found 6idespread general acceptance. J2/K Several cases decided $" various State Supreme Courts reflect the total assimilation of DNA testing into their rules of procedure and evidence. The case of 9ilson v. ,umbJ+1K sho6s that DNA testing is so commonl" accepted that# in some instances# ordering the procedure has $ecome a ministerial act. The Supreme Court of St. ?a6rence Count"# Ne6 9or% allo6ed a part" 6ho had alread" ac%no6ledged paternit" to su$seCuentl" challenge his prior ac%no6ledgment. The Court pointed out that# under the la6# specificall" Section -*, of the Ne6 9or% Bamil" Court Act# the Bamil" Court e'aminer had the dut"# upon receipt of the challenge# to order DNA tests>J+*K V -*,&a. Ac%no6ledgment of paternit". EaF An ac%no6ledgment of paternit" e'ecuted pursuant to section one hundred eleven&% of the social services la6 or section four thousand one hundred thirt"&five&$ of the pu$lic health la6 shall esta$lish the paternit" of and lia$ilit" for the support of a child pursuant to this act. Such ac%no6ledgment must $e reduced to 6riting and filed pursuant to section four thousand one hundred thirt"&five&$ of the pu$lic health la6 6ith the registrar of the district in 6hich the $irth occurred and in 6hich the $irth certificate has $een filed. No further (udicial or administrative proceedings are reCuired to ratif" an unchallenged ac%no6ledgment of paternit". E$F An ac%no6ledgment of paternit" e'ecuted pursuant to section one hundred eleven&% of the social services la6 or section four thousand one hundred thirt"&five&$ of the pu$lic health la6 ma" $e rescinded $" either signatorAs filing of a petition 6ith the court to vacate the ac%no6ledgment 6ithin the earlier of si't" da"s of the date of signing the ac%no6ledgment or the date of an administrative or a (udicial proceeding Eincluding a proceeding to esta$lish a support orderF relating to the child in 6hich either signator is a part". Bor purposes of this section# the :date of an administrative or a (udicial proceeding: shall $e the date $" 6hich the respondent is reCuired to ans6er the petition. After the e'piration of si't" da"s of the e'ecution of the ac%no6ledgment# either signator ma" challenge the ac%no6ledgment of paternit" in court onl" on the $asis of fraud# duress# or material mista%e of fact# 6ith the $urden of proof on the part" challenging the voluntar" ac%no6ledgment. U0o* /+8+ : *7 a 0a/1y@! 84all+*7+ 1o a* a8E*o;l+27.+*1, 14+ 8o)/1 !4all o/2+/ 7+*+1 8 .a/E+/ 1+!1! o/ &NA1+!1! 9o/ 14+ 2+1+/. *a1 o* o9 14+ 84 l2@! 0a1+/* 1y a*2 !4all .aE+ a 9 *2 *7 o9 0a1+/* 1y, 9 a00/o0/ a1+, * a88o/2a*8+ ; 14 14 ! a/1 8l+ . Neither signatorAs legal o$ligations# including the o$ligation for child support arising from the ac%no6ledgment# ma" $e suspended during the challenge to the ac%no6ledgment e'cept for good cause as the court ma" find. If a part" petitions to rescind an ac%no6ledgment and if the court determines that the alleged father is not the father of the child# or if the court finds that an ac%no6ledgment is invalid $ecause it 6as e'ecuted on the $asis of fraud# duress# or material mista%e of fact# the court shall vacate the ac%no6ledgment of paternit" and shall immediatel" provide a cop" of the order to the registrar of the district in 6hich the

childAs $irth certificate is filed and also to the putative father registr" operated $" the department of social services pursuant to section three hundred sevent"&t6o&c of the social services la6. In addition# if the mother of the child 6ho is the su$(ect of the ac%no6ledgment is in receipt of child support services pursuant to title si'&A of article three of the social services la6# the court shall immediatel" provide a cop" of the order to the child support enforcement unit of the social services district that provides the mother 6ith such services. EcF A determination of paternit" made $" an" other state# 6hether esta$lished through the parentsA ac%no6ledgment of paternit" or through an administrative or (udicial process# must $e accorded full faith and credit# if and onl" if such ac%no6ledgment meets the reCuirements set forth in section +-0EaFE=F of the social securit" act. Eemphasis suppliedF DNA testing also appears else6here in the Ne6 9or% Bamil" Court Act> J+0K V-20. )enetic mar%er and DNA testsH admissi$ilit" of records or reports of test resultsH costs of tests. aF The court shall advise the parties of their right to one or more genetic mar%er tests or DNA tests and# on the courtAs o6n motion or the motion of an" part"# shall order the mother# her child and the alleged father to su$mit to one or more genetic mar%er or DNA tests of a t"pe generall" ac%no6ledged as relia$le $" an accreditation $od" designated $" the secretar" of the federal department of health and human services and performed $" a la$orator" approved $" such an accreditation $od" and $" the commissioner of health or $" a dul" Cualified ph"sician to aid in the determination of 6hether the alleged father is or is not the father of the child. No !)84 1+!1 !4all 3+ o/2+/+2, 4o;+:+/, )0o* a ;/ 11+* 9 *2 *7 3y 14+ 8o)/1 14a1 1 ! *o1 * 14+ 3+!1 *1+/+!1! o9 14+ 84 l2 o* 14+ 3a! ! o9 /+! D)2 8a1a, +F) 1a3l+ +!1o00+l, o/ 14+ 0/+!).01 o* o9 l+7 1 .a8y o9 a 84 l2 3o/* 1o a .a// +2 ;o.a* . The record or report of the results of an" such genetic mar%er or DNA test ordered pursuant to this section or pursuant to section one hundred eleven&% of the social services la6 shall $e received in evidence $" the court pursuant to su$division EeF of rule fort"&five hundred eighteen of the civil practice la6 and rules 6here no timel" o$(ection in 6riting has $een made thereto and that if such timel" o$(ections are not made# the" shall $e deemed 6aived and shall not $e heard $" the court. I9 14+ /+8o/2 o/ /+0o/1 o9 14+ /+!)l1! o9 a*y !)84 7+*+1 8 .a/E+/ o/ &NA 1+!1 o/ 1+!1! *2 8a1+ a1 l+a!1 a * *+1y59 :+ 0+/8+*1 0/o3a3 l 1y o9 0a1+/* 1y, 14+ a2. !! o* o9 !)84 /+8o/2 o/ /+0o/1 !4all 8/+a1+ a /+3)11a3l+ 0/+!).01 o* o9 0a1+/* 1y, a*2 !4all +!1a3l !4, 9 )*/+3)11+2, 14+ 0a1+/* 1y o9 a*2 l a3 l 1y 9o/ 14+ !)00o/1 o9 a 84 l2 0)/!)a*1 1o 14 ! a/1 8l+ a*2 a/1 8l+ 9o)/ o9 14 ! a81. E$F henever the court directs a genetic mar%er or DNA test pursuant to this section# a report made as provided in su$division EaF of this section ma" $e received in evidence pursuant to rule fort"&five hundred eighteen of the civil practice la6 and rules if offered $" an" part". EcF The cost of an" test ordered pursuant to su$division EaF of this section shall $e# in the first instance# paid $" the moving part". If the moving part" is financiall" una$le to pa" such cost# the court ma" direct an" Cualified pu$lic health officer to conduct such test# if practica$leH other6ise# the court ma" direct pa"ment from the funds of the appropriate local social services district. In its order of disposition# ho6ever# the court ma" direct that the cost of an" such test $e apportioned $et6een the parties according to their respective a$ilities to pa" or $e assessed against the part" 6ho does not prevail on the issue of paternit"# unless such part" is financiall" una$le to pa". Eemphasis suppliedF In R.:. v. (.:.9. J+2K a decision of the .ississippi Supreme Court# DNA tests 6ere used to prove that ;. .# previousl" thought to $e an offspring of the marriage $et6een A.C. . and C.E. .# 6as actuall" the child of R.E. 6ith 6hom C.E. . had# at the time of conception# maintained an adulterous relationship. In :rie (ount1 Department of &ocial &ervices on behalf of +iffan1 M.H. v. Greg G. #J++K the +th Department of the Ne6 9or% Supreme CourtAs Appellate Division allo6ed ).).# 6ho had $een ad(udicated as T...;.As father $" default# to have the said (udgment vacated# even after si' "ears# once he had sho6n through a genetic mar%er test that he 6as not the childAs father. In this case# ).). onl" reCuested the tests after the Department of Social Services# si' "ears after ).). had $een ad(udicated as T...;.As father# sought an increase in his support o$ligation to her. In Greco v. (oleman#J+-K the .ichigan Supreme Court 6hile ruling on the constitutionalit" of a provision of la6 allo6ing non&modifia$le support agreements pointed out that it 6as $ecause of the difficult" of determining paternit" $efore the advent of DNA testing that such support agreements 6ere necessar"> As a result of &NA testing# the accurac" 6ith 6hich paternit" can $e proven has increased significantl" since the parties in this la6suit entered into their support agreementOEcurrent testing methods can determine the pro$a$ilit" of paternit" to //.//////N accurac"F. ;o6ever# at the time the parties $efore us entered into the disputed agreement# proving paternit" 6as a ver" significant o$stacle to an illegitimate childPs access to child support. The first reported results of modern &NA paternit" testing did not occur until */3-. E:In fact# since its first reported results in */3-# &NA matching has

progressed to Pgeneral acceptance in less than a decadeP:F. 5f course# 6hile prior $lood&testing methods could e'clude some males from $eing the possi$le father of a child# those methods could not affirmativel" pinpoint a particular male as $eing the father. Thus# 6hen the settlement agreement $et6een the present parties 6as entered in */31# esta$lishing paternit" 6as a far more difficult ordeal than at present. Contested paternit" actions at that time 6ere often no more than credi$ilit" contests. ConseCuentl"# in ever" contested paternit" action# o$taining child support depended not merel" on 6hether the putative father 6as# in fact# the childPs $iological father# $ut rather on 6hether the mother could prove to a court of la6 that she 6as onl" se'uall" involved 6ith one man&&the putative father. Allo6ing parties the option of entering into private agreements in lieu of proving paternit" eliminated the ris% that the mother 6ould $e una$le meet her $urden of proof. It is 6orth noting that amendments to .ichiganAs Paternit" la6 have included the use of DNA testing> J+,K V=00.=*, Pretrial proceedingsH $lood or tissue t"ping determinations as to mother# child# and alleged fatherH court orderH refusal to su$mit to t"ping or identification profilingH Cualifications of person conducting t"ping or identification profilingH compensation of e'pertH result of t"ping or identification profilingH filing summar" reportH o$(ectionH admissi$ilit"H presumptionH $urden of proofH summar" disposition. Sec. ,. E*F I* a 0/o8++2 *7 )*2+/ 14 ! a81 3+9o/+ 1/ al, 14+ 8o)/1, )0o* a00l 8a1 o* .a2+ 3y o/ o* 3+4al9 o9 + 14+/ 0a/1y, o/ o* 1! o;* .o1 o*, !4all o/2+/ 14a1 14+ .o14+/, 84 l2, a*2 all+7+2 9a14+/ !)3. 1 1o 3loo2 o/ 1 !!)+ 1y0 *7 2+1+/. *a1 o*!, ;4 84 .ay *8l)2+, 3)1 a/+ *o1 l . 1+2 1o, 2+1+/. *a1 o*! o9 /+2 8+ll a*1 7+*!, /+2 8+ll !o+*Hy.+!, 4).a* l+)Eo8y1+ a*1 7+*!, !+/). 0/o1+ *!, o/ &NA 2+*1 9 8a1 o* 0/o9 l *7, 1o 2+1+/. *+ ;4+14+/ 14+ all+7+2 9a14+/ ! l E+ly 1o 3+, o/ ! *o1, 14+ 9a14+/ o9 14+ 84 l2. I9 14+ 8o)/1 o/2+/! a 3loo2 o/ 1 !!)+ 1y0 *7 o/ &NA 2+*1 9 8a1 o* 0/o9 l *7 1o 3+ 8o*2)81+2 a*2 a 0a/1y /+9)!+! 1o !)3. 1 1o 14+ 1y0 *7 o/ &NA 2+*1 9 8a1 o* 0/o9 l *7, * a22 1 o* 1o a*y o14+/ /+.+2 +! a:a la3l+, 14+ 8o)/1 .ay 2o + 14+/ o9 14+ 9ollo; *7 > <a> E*1+/ a 2+9a)l1 D)27.+*1 a1 14+ /+F)+!1 o9 14+ a00/o0/ a1+ 0a/1y. <3> I9 a 1/ al ! 4+l2, allo; 14+ 2 !8lo!)/+ o9 14+ 9a81 o9 14+ /+9)!al )*l+!! 7oo2 8a)!+ ! !4o;* 9o/ *o1 2 !8lo! *7 14+ 9a81 o9 /+9)!al. E0F A $lood or tissue t"ping or DNA identification profiling shall $e conducted $" a person accredited for paternit" determinations $" a nationall" recogni@ed scientific organi@ation# including# $ut not limited to# the American association of $lood $an%s. ''' ''' '''

E-F I9 14+ 0/o3a3 l 1y o9 0a1+/* 1y 2+1+/. *+2 3y 14+ F)al 9 +2 0+/!o* 2+!8/ 3+2 * !)3!+81 o* <2> 8o*2)81 *7 14+ 3loo2 o/ 1 !!)+ 1y0 *7 o/ &NA 2+*1 9 8a1 o* 0/o9 l *7 ! 99N o/ 4 74+/, a*2 14+ &NA 2+*1 9 8a1 o* 0/o9 l+ a*2 !)..a/y /+0o/1 a/+ a2. !! 3l+ a! 0/o: 2+2 * !)3!+81 o* <4>, 0a1+/* 1y ! 0/+!).+2. I9 14+ /+!)l1! o9 14+ a*aly! ! o9 7+*+1 8 1+!1 *7 .a1+/ al 9/o. 2 o/ .o/+ 0+/!o*! *2 8a1+ a 0/o3a3 l 1y o9 0a1+/* 1y 7/+a1+/ 14a* 99N, 14+ 8o*1/a81 *7 la3o/a1o/y !4all 8o*2)81 a22 1 o*al 7+*+1 8 0a1+/* 1y 1+!1 *7 )*1 l all 3)1 1 o9 14+ 0)1a1 :+ 9a14+/! ! +l . *a1+2, )*l+!! 14+ 2 !0)1+ *:ol:+! 2 o/ .o/+ 0)1a1 :+ 9a14+/! ;4o 4a:+ 2+*1 8al &NA. E,F <pon the esta$lishment of the presumption of paternit" as provided in su$section E-F# either part" ma" move for summar" disposition under the court rules. this section does not a$rogate the right of either part" to child support from the date of $irth of the child if applica$le under section =. Eemphasis suppliedF In Raffert1 v. Per6ins#J+=K the Supreme Court of .ississippi ruled that DNA test results sho6ing paternit" 6ere sufficient to overthro6 the presumption of legitimac" of a child $orn during the course of a marriage> The presumption of legitimac" having $een re$utted $" the results of the $lood test eliminating Per%ins as 8ustinPs father# even considering the evidence in the light most favora$le to Per%ins# 6e find that no reasona$le (ur" could find that Easter is not 8ustinPs father $ased upon the //./+N pro$a$ilit" of paternit" concluded $" the DNA testing. In &.!.<. and !.(.<. v. R.(.9.#J+3K the North Da%ota Supreme Court upheld an order for genetic testing given $" the Court of Appeals# even after trial on the merits had concluded 6ithout such order $eing given. Significantl"# 6hen 8.C.B.# the mother# first filed the case for paternit" and support 6ith the District Court# neither part" reCuested genetic testing. It

6as onl" upon appeal from dismissal of the case that the appellate court remanded the case and ordered the testing# 6hich the North Da%ota Supreme Court upheld. The case of =ohl v. )mundson J+/K decided $" the Supreme Court of South Da%ota# demonstrated that even default (udgments of paternit" could $e vacated after the ad(udicated father had# through DNA testing# esta$lished non&paternit". In this case# 7ohl# having e'cluded himself as the father of AmundsonAs child through DNA testing# 6as a$le to have the default (udgment against him vacated. ;e then o$tained a ruling ordering Amundson to reim$urse him for the amounts 6ithheld from his 6ages for child support. The Court said LE6Fhile Amundson ma" have a remed" against the father of the child# she su$mitEtedF no authorit" that reCuireEdF 7ohl to support her child. Contrar" to AmundsonPs position# the fact that a default (udgment 6as entered# $ut su$seCuentl" vacated# EdidF not foreclose 7ohl from o$taining a mone" (udgment for the amount 6ithheld from his 6ages.M In M.).&. v. Mississippi Dept. of Human &ervices #J-1K another case decided $" the Supreme Court of .ississippi# it 6as held that even if paternit" 6as esta$lished through an earlier agreed order of filiation# child support and visitation orders could still $e vacated once DNA testing esta$lished someone other than the named individual to $e the $iological father. The .ississippi ;igh Court reiterated this doctrine in 9illiams v. 9illiams.J-*K The foregoing considered# 6e find no grave a$use of discretion on the part of the pu$lic respondent for upholding the orders of the trial court 6hich $oth denied the petitionerAs motion to dismiss and ordered him to su$mit himself for DNA testing. <nder Rule ,- of the *//= Rules of Civil Procedure# the remed" of certiorari is onl" availa$le L6hen an" tri$unal# $oard or officer has acted 6ithout or in e'cess of its or his (urisdiction# or 6ith grave a$use of discretion amounting to lac% or e'cess of (urisdiction# and there is no appeal# nor an" plain# speed" and adeCuate remed" in the ordinar" course of la6.MJ-0K In ,and /an6 of the Philippines v. the (ourt of )ppeals J-2K 6here 6e dismissed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule ,-# 6e discussed at length the nature of such a petition and (ust 6hat 6as meant $" Lgrave a$use of discretionM> )rave a$use of discretion implies such capricious and 6himsical e'ercise of (udgment as is eCuivalent to lac% of (urisdiction or# in other 6ords# ;4+/+ 14+ 0o;+/ ! +B+/8 !+2 * a* a/3 1/a/y .a**+/ 3y /+a!o* o9 0a!! o*, 0/+D)2 8+, o/ 0+/!o*al 4o!1 l 1y, a*2 1 .)!1 3+ !o 0a1+*1 o/ 7/o!! a! 1o a.o)*1 1o a* +:a! o* o9 a 0o! 1 :+ 2)1y o/ 1o a : /1)al /+9)!al 1o 0+/9o/. 14+ 2)1y +*Do *+2 o/ 1o a81 a1 all * 8o*1+.0la1 o* o9 la; . The special civil action for certiorari is a remed" designed for the correction of errors of (urisdiction and not errors of (udgment. The raison d7etre for the rule is 6hen a court e'ercises its (urisdiction# an error committed 6hile so engaged does not deprive it of the (urisdiction $eing e'ercised 6hen the error is committed. If it did# ever" error committed $" a court 6ould deprive it of its (urisdiction and ever" erroneous (udgment 6ould $e a void (udgment. In such a scenario# the administration of (ustice 6ould not survive. ;ence# 6here the issue or Cuestion involved affects the 6isdom or legal soundness of the decisionWnot the (urisdiction of the court to render said decisionWthe same is $e"ond the province of a special civil action for certiorari. The proper recourse of the aggrieved part" from a decision of the CA is a petition for revie6 on certiorari under Rule +- of the Revised Rules of Court. 5n the other hand# if the error su$(ect of the recourse is one of (urisdiction# or the act complained of 6as perpetrated $" a Cuasi&(udicial officer or agenc" 6ith grave a$use of discretion amounting to lac% or e'cess of (urisdiction# the proper remed" availa$le to the aggrieved part" is a petition for certiorari under Rule ,- of the said Rules. Eemphasis suppliedF In the instant case# the petitioner has in no 6a" sho6n an" ar$itrariness# passion# pre(udice or personal hostilit" that 6ould amount to grave a$use of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals. The respondent court acted entirel" 6ithin its (urisdiction in promulgating its decision and resolution# and an" error made 6ould have onl" $een an error in (udgment. As 6e have discussed# ho6ever# the decision of the respondent court# $eing firml" anchored in la6 and (urisprudence# 6as correct.

E0 lo7)+ Bor too long# illegitimate children have $een marginali@ed $" fathers 6ho choose to den" their e'istence. The gro6ing sophistication of DNA testing technolog" finall" provides a much needed eCuali@er for such ostraci@ed and a$andoned progen". e have long $elieved in the merits of DNA testing and have repeatedl" e'pressed as much in the past. This case comes at a perfect time 6hen DNA testing has finall" evolved into a dependa$le and authoritative form of evidence gathering. e therefore ta%e this opportunit" to forcefull" reiterate our stand that DNA testing is a valid means of determining paternit".

$HEREFORE# in vie6 of the foregoing# the petition is here$" DENIED. The Court of AppealsA decision dated 8anuar" 03# 011+ in CA&).R. SP No. 31/,* is here$" ABBIR.ED in toto. Costs against petitioner. SO OR&ERE&. Panganiban -(hairman. &andoval-Gutierre' (arpio-Morales and Garcia !!. concur. ;errera vs. Al$a# ).R. No. *+3001# 8une *-# 011V. hen DNA Evidence is not necessar" Andal vs. People# ).R. No. *2303,&,/

EN 4ANC

'G.R. No!. 1=(2L(5L9. May 2L, 1999,

JURRY AN&AL, RICAR&O AN&AL a*2 E&$IN MEN&OMA, petitioners, vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, -ATANGAS -R. 05, LEMERY, THE &IRECTOR, -UREAU OF CORRECTIONS, a*2 THE HONORA-LE, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, * 14+ / o99 8 al 8a0a8 1 +!, respondents RESOLUTION PER #5R0A6% The po6er of (udicial revie6 is an aspect of (udicial po6er that allo6s this Court ever" opportunit" to revie6# revise# reverse# modif"# or affirm on appeal or certiorari# as the la6 or the Rules of Court ma" provide# final (udgments and orders of lo6er courts and to determine 6hether or not there has $een a grave a$use of discretion amounting to lac% of or e'cess of (urisdiction on the part of an" $ranch or instrumentalit" of the government. J*K The case $efore us is a petition for a 6rit of habeas corpus filed $" 8ur" Andal# Ricardo Andal and Ed6in .endo@a# all convicted of rape 6ith homicide in Criminal Case No. *+3&/+ and *+/&/+# Regional Trial Court# 4atangas# 4ranch 1-# ?emer"# affirmed $" this Court in a decision en banc promulgated on Septem$er 0-# *//=# and a resolution promulgated on Be$ruar" *=# *//3. The" are scheduled for e'ecution on 8une *,# *=# and *3# *///. Petitioners see% a 6rit of habeas corpus on the $asis of a claim of mistrial andIor that the decision of the Regional Trial Court# 4atangas# 4ranch 1-# ?emer"# 6as void. The" pra" for a temporar" restraining order to sta" their e'ecution andIor a preliminar" in(unction en(oining their e'ecution. The petitioners rel" on the argument that the trial court 6as LoustedM of (urisdiction to tr" their case since the pre&trial identification of the accused 6as made 6ithout the assistance of counsel and 6ithout a valid 6aiver from the accused. The petitioners cite the case of 5laguer v. .ilitar" Commission No. 2+ J0K# 6herein in a separate opinion# 8ustice Claudio Teehan%ee stated that L5nce a deprivation of a constitutional right is sho6n to e'ist# the court that rendered the (udgement is deemed ousted of its (urisdiction and habeas corpus is the appropriate remed" to assail the legalit" of the detention.M e agree 6ith petitioners that the e'tra&ordinar" 6rit of habeas corpus is the appropriate remed" to inCuire into Cuestions of violation of the petitionersA constitutional rights and that this Court has (urisdiction to entertain this revie6. Indeed# under the Constitution# the (urisdiction of this Court has $een e'panded Lto determine 6hether or not there has $een a grave a$use of discretion amounting to lac% or e'cess of (urisdiction on the part of an" $ranch or instrumentalit" of the )overnmentM. J2K And under Rule *10# Section * of the Revised Rules of Court# it is provided that LE'cept as other6ise e'pressl" provided $" la6# the 6rit of habeas corpus shall e'tend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention $" 6hich an" person is deprived of his li$ert"# or $" 6hich the rightful custod" of an" person is 6ithheld from the person entitled thereto.M ;e ma" also avail himself of the 6rit 6here as a conseCuence of a (udicial proceeding EaF there has $een a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a personH E$F the court had no (urisdiction to impose the sentenceH or EcF an e'cessive penalt" has $een imposed# as such sentence is void as to such e'cess. J+K

;o6ever# in this case# 6e find that there 6as no violation of the constitutional rights of the accused and a resultant deprivation of li$ert" or due process of la6. In fact# the petition ma" $e vie6ed as an attempt at a second motion for reconsideration of a final decision of the Court# disguised as one for habeas corpus. The accused 6ere sentenced to the supreme penalt" of death as a result of a valid accusation# trial# and (udgment $" a court of competent (urisdiction# after a fair and eCuita$le trial. The factual milieu does not sho6 a mistrial or a violation of the constitutional rights of the accused. As ruled $" this Court# in its decision of Septem$er 0-# *//=# Lthe constitutional infirmit" cannot affect the conclusion since accused& appellants did not ma%e an" confessions or admissions in regard to the crime charged. Burther the earring recovered from 8ur" Andal 6as not o$tained in the course of the investigation itself# $ut o$tained through a search incident to a la6ful arrest.MJ-K The Court has held in a long cases# that Lan" illegalit" attendant during the arrest is deemed cured 6hen the accused voluntaril" su$mitted themselves to the (urisdiction of the court $" entering their pleaM J,K. The trial court therefore had (urisdiction to tr" the case. The Court su$seCuentl" affirmed the decision $ased on a careful consideration of the evidence presented $oth $" the prosecution and the defense. The a$sence of the testimon" of Rufino Andal due to the failure of the defense counsel to present him as a 6itness 6ill not ma%e the (udgment of the lo6er court invalid or void. The case 6as decided on the evidence presented# 6hich this Court considered sufficient to support the (udgment of conviction. The issue of LDNA testsM as a more accurate and authoritative means of identification than e"e&6itness identification need not $e $ela$ored. The accused 6ere all properl" and dul" identified $" the prosecutionAs principal 6itness. 5limpio Corales# a $rother in la6 of accused 8urr" and Ricardo Andal. DNA testing proposed $" petitioners to have an o$(ective and scientific $asis of identification of Lsemen samples to compare 6ith those ta%en from the vagina of the victimM are thus unnecessar" or are forgotten evidence too late to consider no6. The trial court imposed and this Court affirmed the correct sentence. The death penalt" is 6hat the la6 prescri$es in cases involving rape 6ith homicide. J=K e agree 6ith the accused that the" should $e afforded ever" opportunit" to prove their innocence# especiall" in cases involving the death penalt"H in this case# the Court can state categoricall" that ever" opportunit" 6as provided the accused. ;o6ever# painful the decision ma" $e in this case# 6e have conscientiousl" revie6ed the case. Bour E+F 8ustices of the Court maintain their position as to the unconstitutionalit" of Repu$lic Act No. =,-/ in so far as it prescri$es the death penalt" for certain heinous crimesH nevertheless# the" su$mit to the ruling of the ma(orit" to the effect that the la6 is constitutional and that the death penalt" ma" $e la6full" imposed in proper cases as the one at $ar. IN 6IE$ $HEREOF, 6e here$" resolve to DEN9 the petition for habeas corpus# and declare valid the (udgment rendered $" the trial court and affirmed $" this Court. This resolution is final. No costs. SO OR&ERE&. Davide !r. (.!. Romero /ellosi VI. Pro$ative value of DNA Anal"sis as Evidence Valle(o standard> People vs. Valle(o# supra. VII. DNA e'amination and right to self&incrimination People vs. 9atar# supra. ;errera vs. Al$a# supra.