Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
INTRODUCTION
We all know King Solomon, the biblical king who has been
regarded as the epitome of wisdom. The most widely known story of his
wisdom is about two women who each lay claim to being the mother of
the same child.2 After hearing the womens arguments, Solomon called
for a sword to be brought before him and commanded the child to be cut
in half and shared between the two. After hearing this terrible verdict,
one woman promptly renounces her claim, evincing that she would
rather give up the child than see him killed. Conversely, the other woman
consented to the strange verdict handed down by the king. Solomon
declares the woman who showed compassion to be the true mother
entitled to the child, as a true, loving mother would rather surrender her
baby to another than see him hurt.
1
Atty. Jess Zachael B. Espejo is the Dean of the College of Legal Education of the University of Mindanao.
His teaching career has spanned 14 years, which saw him teach subjects such as Sales, Credit Transactions,
Torts and Damages, Public International Law, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Civil Law Review and Remedial
Law Review. He is also a pre-bar reviewer at Ateneo Pre-Bar Review Center (Civil Law) and Magnificus
Juris (Bar Techniques). Some of his works have been published in the Mindanao Law Journal and the
journal of the San Beda College Graduate School of Law, where he obtained his Masters Degree in Law
in July 2015.
2
1 Kings 3:16-28.
3
See SOMBONG vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 111876, January 31, 1996, for an example of two
women claiming to be the legitimate parent of the same child.
4
Genesis 4:8.
5
Genesis 34:1-2.
6
As per 2008 data gathered in the United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal
Justice Systems.
to 2013, there were 9,452 reported cases of rape. 7 Many of these cases
remain unsolved.
7
http://www.pcw.gov.ph/statistics/201405/statistics-violence-against-filipino-women (last retrieved on
January 7, 2017).
8
Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in League of Cities vs. COMELEC, June 28,
2011.
9
Concurring Opinion of Justice Robert Jackson, Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 [1953].
10
DELA LLANA vs. BIONG, G.R. No. 182356, December 4, 2013.
11
CRUZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 122445 November 18, 1997.
12
A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, Section 3(b).
13
Ibid., Section 3(c).
14
Ibid., Section 3(a).
DNA evidence, under the Rules of Court, is classified as object
evidence as it is addressed to the senses of the court. The consequences
of this characterization are as follows:
1. Expert testimony is, for all intents and purposes, mere opinion
evidence. The presentation of DNA evidence is, therefore, subject to
the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court.20
2. While object evidence does not lie, the expert who processes and
testifies about it may. Object evidence by itself is reliable but the
manner of collecting, processing and preserving it may be prone to
error.
15
G.R. No. 130209, March 14, 2001.
16
Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
17
PEOPLE vs. MALIMIT, G.R. No. 109775, November 14, 1996.
18
Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
19
Ibid., note 10.
20
Section 2, A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC or the Rule on DNA Evidence.
3. The matter of whether to require expert evidence is entirely within
the discretion of the courts. In PEREZ versus PEOPLE, 21 the
Supreme Court declared that Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised
Rules of Court states that the opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training, which he is
shown to possess, may be received in evidence. The use of the word
may signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness is
permissive and not mandatory on the part of the courts.
25
See discussions on the Frye and Daubert tests.
26
PEOPLE vs. BASITE, 459 Phil. 197, 206-207 (2003), citing PEOPLE vs. BAID, G.R. No. 129667, July
31, 2000, 336 SCRA 656, 675.
27
Internet reference @ http://i-uv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/BlacksLaw4th.pdf, last retrieved on
January 5, 2017.
28
PEOPLE vs. TEEHANKEE, JR., G.R. Nos. 111206-08 October 6, 1995.
criminologist who lived between 1877 and 1966. He is considered as the
pioneer in forensic science. Known as the Sherlock Holmes of France,
He formulated the basic principle of forensic science that "every contact
leaves a trace". This is now known to us as Locard's exchange principle.
A virtual acolyte of Locard, Paul Leland Kirk, who was an American
chemist and forensic scientist, explained the exchange principle as
follows:
In this portion of the paper, identified are the several uses of DNA
Evidence as they were prominently used in different areas of the world.
The uses of DNA Evidence are:
1. Identification;
2. Determination of parentage or pedigree; and
3. Criminal investigation and prosecution.
Identification
29
PAUL L. KIRK, Crime Investigation: Physical Evidence And The Police Laboratory (1953).
A prominent historical example of the use of DNA for identification
was the case of Josef Mengele, a Nazi Officer during World War 2 who
became known as the Angel of Death. Mengele was a member of a team
of doctors responsible for the selection of victims to be killed in gas
chambers and for performing deadly human experiments on prisoners. It
is ironic that Mengele was also obsessed with biology and genetics during
his tenure as a Nazi doctor. His experiments included sewing twin boy
toddlers together so that he could investigate how Siamese twins
behaved. In another case involving twins, one was infected with
tuberculosis, then, on his orders, both were killed so he could observe the
different pathology.
So, when Germany fell, Mengele fled. Due to the severity of his
crimes, it was imperative that he be captured and brought to justice.
This sparked almost a half-century manhunt for Mengele that involved
the governments of several countries. Decades into the manhunt for
Mengele, he successfully eluded capture and there were still alleged
sightings of him as late as 1985. In 1969, a man named Wolfgang
Gerhard drowned in Brazil and was eventually buried there. There were
tips alluding to the possibility that Gerhard was actually Mengele in
disguise. This led to the exhumation of Gerhards body. Biological
samples were taken. Blood specimens from Mengele's wife and son were
used to reconstitute his DNA pattern. Finally, in 1992, the remains of
Gerhard were confirmed to be those of Mengele, thus ending the
manhunt and bringing closure to the story of the so-called Angel of
Death. The very science that he so craved, albeit in macabre ways, led to
the discovery of his corpse.
30
Ibid., note 28.
31
G.R. No. 112229, March 18, 1997.
32
G.R. No. 138268, May 26, 1999.
In PEOPLE versus PENASO, 33 the Supreme Court was once again
asked to order DNA testing in another attempt to reverse conviction. In
this case, however, the criminal complaint alleged that the rape caused
the private complainant to have an unwanted pregnancy of an unwanted
child. The private complainant later gave birth to a baby boy exactly
eight (8) months after the rape allegedly took place. To the authors mind,
because it was specifically alleged that it was the very devilish act of
the accused that caused the victims pregnancy, if DNA testing proves
that the accused is not the father of the child, there would at least be
some reasonable doubt and DNA testing would therefore be proper. Had
there been no allegation that the rape caused the private complainant to
be pregnant, DNA testing would of course be irrelevant. The fact also that
the child was born only eight (8) months after the rape even elicits some
suspicion that the child was not fathered by the accused. There was, in
fact, no mention in the case that the child was born premature or before
term. The Supreme Court denied the request for DNA testing by quoting
Andal and by ruling that:
33
G.R. No. 121980, February 23, 2000.
34
G.R. No. 129220, September 6, 2000.
35
G.R. No. 125901, March 8, 2001.
the fact that the DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies, one copy
from the mother and the other from the father. The DNA from the
mother, the alleged father and child are analyzed to establish
parentage.
It was only in 2002 when the Supreme Court first used DNA
evidence in convicting the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In PEOPLE
versus VALLEJO,36 the accused was charged with raping and murdering
a 9-year-old child. The victims DNA samples from the bloodstained
clothes of the accused were admitted in evidence. The DNA profile from
vaginal swabs taken from the rape victim matched the accuseds DNA
profile. The high Court affirmed the accuseds conviction of rape with
homicide and sentenced him to death. The Supreme Court held:
The Supreme Court elucidated further and said that DNA Testing
may yield any of the following possible results:
36
G.R. No. 144656, May 9, 2002.
conclusion is absolute and requires no further analysis or
discussion;
3. Inclusion, which means that the samples are similar, and could
have originated from the same source. In such a case, the samples
are found to be similar, the analyst proceeds to determine the
statistical significance of the similarity.
The Supreme Court then laid down guidelines which would later
find their way into what would eventually be the Rule on DNA Evidence,
as follows:
37
B.M. No. 984, June 25, 2002; summarized and cited in THE EVOLUTION AND ANATOMY OF THE
PHILIPPINE RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE by Peter P. Ng, M.D., LL.B., Ph.D., which appears in the UST
Law Review, 52 AY 2007-2008, p. 77-117.
childs paternity through DNA Testing. Cesar promised to abide with the
result of the DNA test and to give financial support as religiously as
before, even more, if Michael was proved to be his son. Strangely,
however, Tuesday refused to undergo DNA testing. Hence, the Supreme
Court ruled:
Changing Tide
38
G.R. No. 125938, April 4, 2003.
39
G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004.
In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to
satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to obtain, DNA testing,
which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the
illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent
could be resorted to. A positive match would clear up filiation or
paternity. In Tijing vs. Court of Appeals, this Court has
acknowledged the strong weight of DNA testing.
To the authors mind, the most important case about DNA evidence
was the 2004 case of PEOPLE versus YATAR. 41 Yatar was convicted of the
crime of Rape with Homicide. Testing showed that the DNA of the sperm
specimen from the vagina of the victim was identical the semen to be
that of appellants gene type. In this case, the Supreme Court found time
to examine international precedents and their applicability in the
Philippine jurisdiction. As we would later on notice, the Rule on DNA
evidence appears to be heavily influenced by these precedents. Sayeth
the Supreme Court:
1. FRYE TEST (Frye vs. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir.
1923), later on expanded by State vs. Schwartz)
2. DAUBERT TEST, (Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509
U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993)), later on expanded by Kumho Tire
vs. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999).
While we agree with the trial court that forensic DNA typing
has gained general acceptance in the scientific community, we hold
that admissibility of specific test results in a particular case hinges
on the laboratorys compliance with appropriate standards and
controls, and the availability of their testing data and results.
Our own Supreme Court observed in Yatar that, under the Daubert
test:
Post-Yatar cases
49
See note 53.
50
UNITED STATES vs. INGHAM, 42 M.J. 218, 226 (A.C.M.R. 1995)
51
G.R. No. 124814, October 21, 2004.
RE: DE VILLA52 was a criminal paternity case decided after Yatar.
The Supreme Court already convicted De Villa by final judgment of
raping his niece Aileen. The judgment made reference to the fact that it
was the act of rape that got the niece pregnant and to give birth to a
child, once again after only eight (8) months. Since it was never alleged
that Aileen gave birth to a full-term nine-month-old baby, the Supreme
Court gave credence to the prosecutions assertion that she prematurely
gave birth to an eight-month-old baby by normal delivery. While serving
sentence, De Villa sought the conduct of blood and DNA test in order to
determine the paternity of the child allegedly conceived as a result of the
rape. Denied by the Supreme Court, De Villa had the DNA test conducted
independently.
The results of the tests revealed that De Villa was not the father of
Aileens child. De Villa then filed a petition for habeas corpus and asked
for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Echoing its
previous ruling in Penaso, the Supreme Court held:
52
G.R. No. 158802, November 17, 2004.
Another civil paternity suit, HERRERA versus ALBA, 53 was decided
by the Supreme Court in 2005. Petitioner Herrera raised the issue of
whether a DNA test is a valid probative tool in this jurisdiction to
determine filiation. Petitioner inquired into the conditions under which
DNA technology may be integrated into our judicial system and the
prerequisites for the admissibility of DNA test results in a paternity suit.
Petitioner further submitted that the appellate court gravely abused its
discretion when it authorized the trial court to embark on a new
procedure to determine filiation despite the absence of legislation to
ensure its reliability and integrity, want of official recognition as made
clear in Pe Lim and the presence of technical and legal constraints in its
implementation. Petitioner maintained that the proposed DNA paternity
testing violated his right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Courts
ruling in Herrera was good and timely as, through the instrumentality of
this case, doctrines which would later on find their way into the Rule on
DNA Evidence were either reiterated or laid down for the first time:
53
G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005.
DNA analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity
should be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of W is less
than 99.9%, the results of the DNA analysis should be considered as
corroborative evidence. If the value of W is 99.9% or higher, then
there is refutable presumption of paternity. This refutable
presumption of paternity should be subjected to the Vallejo
standards.
54
G.R. No. 162571, June 15, 2005.
Petitioners case involves neither. His hollow invocation of his
constitutional rights elicits no sympathy here for the simple reason
that they are not in any way being violated. If, in a criminal case, an
accused whose very life is at stake can be compelled to submit to
DNA testing, we see no reason why, in this civil case, petitioner
herein who does not face such dire consequences cannot be ordered
to do the same.
SCOPE
In Criminal Actions
In an adultery case where the husband alleges that his wife gave
birth to another mans offspring, what would be the status of the child?
Under the Family Code, children conceived or born during the marriage
of the parents are presumed to legitimate. 61 In fact, the child shall be
considered legitimate although the mother may have declared against its
legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress. 62 If the offended
husband wishes to impugn the legitimacy of the child, he may do so by
59
Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code.
60
41 Phil. 62 (1920).
61
Article 164 of the Family Code (E.O. No. 209).
62
Article 167.
proving that, for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not
have been his.63
In Civil Actions
In Special Proceedings
DEFINITION OF TERMS
63
Article 166 (2).
64
Rule 1, Section 3(c) of the Rules of Court.
65
Rule 102, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.
66
SALVANA vs. GAELA, 55 Phil. 680.
c. DNA evidence constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results
and other genetic information directly generated from DNA testing
of biological samples.
67
Section 2, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.
68
SPOUSES OCO vs. LIMBARING, G.R. No. 161298, January 31, 2006.
69
Ibid.
defense of suits.70 Note further that to apply the real party in interest
standard would defeat the language and intent of the Rule which is not
to limit applications for DNA testing to parties.
70
Ibid, note 67.
71
Rule 19 of the Rules of Court.
72
Section 1 of Rule 19 provides, in part: A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in
the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected
by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may,
with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. (Underscoring supplied).
applicants rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding? Take
note that no such duty is imposed by Section 4.
Section 5 of the Rule provides that, if the court finds that the
requirements in Section 4 have been complied with, the court shall:
73
Rules 23 and 24 of the Rules of Court.
An order granting the DNA testing shall be immediately
executory and shall not be appealable. Any petition for certiorari
initiated therefrom shall not, in any way, stay the implementation
thereof, unless a higher court issues an injunctive order. The grant of
DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic
admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that
may be obtained as a result thereof.
74
Rule 128, Section 3 of the Rules of Court.
75
Rule 132, Section 34 of the Rules of Court.
76
Ibid, note 18;
77
A.M. No. 12-8-8-SC, promulgated on September 4, 2012.
78
Ibid., Section 1.
79
Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code. xxx Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods.
Post-conviction DNA Testing
SURVEY OF CASES
Post-conviction DNA testing
In the second Umanito case,82 the results were in. The post-
conviction DNA testing showed a 99.9999% probability of paternity that
Umanito was the biological father of the child born out of the rape. The
Court ruled:
80
ANDAL vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 138268, May 26, 1999; PEOPLE versus PENASO, G.R. No. 121980,
February 23, 2000; IN RE: DE VILLA, G.R. No. 158802, November 17, 2004, PEOPLE vs. MACAPAL,
G.R. No. 155335, July 14, 2005; PEOPLE versus RAYLES, G.R. No. 169874, July 27, 2007.
81
G.R. No. 172607, October 26, 2007.
82
PEOPLE versus UMANITO, G.R. No. 172607, April 16, 2009.
Given that the results of the Court-ordered DNA testing
conforms with the conclusions of the lower courts, and that no cause
is presented for us to deviate from the penalties imposed below, the
Court sees no reason to deny Umanitos Motion to Withdraw Appeal.
83
G.R. No. 179712, June 27, 2008.
A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or
the Supreme Court, or with any member of said courts, which may
conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of origin
and issue the appropriate orders.
Revisiting De Villa
The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, therefore,
is that the individual seeking such relief be illegally deprived of his
freedom of movement or placed under some form of illegal restraint.
If an individuals liberty is restrained via some legal process, the
writ of habeas corpus is unavailing. Concomitant to this principle,
the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to directly assail a
84
Lifted from the on-line article Innocents die as DNA goes untested by Rowan Hooper, available @
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8377-innocents-die-as-dna-goes-untested/ (Last retrieved on
January 8, 2017)
judgment rendered by a competent court or tribunal which, having
duly acquired jurisdiction, was not deprived or ousted of this
jurisdiction through some anomaly in the conduct of the proceedings.
This author cannot help but wonder if the verdict had been
different had De Villa been decided after the Rule took effect. In the case,
the Supreme Court noted that it was hard-pressed to find legal basis on
which to anchor the grant of the writ as De Villa did not allege any denial
of a constitutional right. The Supreme Court lamented that De Villa
invoked of the remedy without asserting any legal grounds therefor.
Besides, with the adamant stand of the Supreme Court that pregnancy is
not an element of rape, a case similar to De Villa where a writ of habeas
corpus is applied for on the ground of negative paternity would
conceivably be decided in the same way as De Villa, Andal and Penaso.
Hypothetically, however, if the conviction, for example, relied solely on
DNA to identify the accused, a favorable result of post-conviction DNA
testing might be sufficient to overturn it and cause the issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus. This author further notes that, as adverted to by the
Supreme Court in De Villa, the petitioner there was unable to give good
grounds for the issuance of the writ. His statement of grounds was
imprecise.
Now, Section 10 provides viable legal basis for the issuance of the
writ by direct provision of the Rule. It is therefore logical to suppose that,
to successfully invoke the writ, the habeas corpus petitioner can properly
utilize Section 10 as basis but should be more precise in his invocation of
the remedy by clearly stating ample legal basis on which to anchor the
grant of a writ of habeas corpus.
85
G.R. No. 182457, January 30, 2013.
86
Ibid., note 84.
b. The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in
analyzing the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the
procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid standards
in conducting the tests;
Relevance of mismatching
DNA evidence
87
G.R. No. 185708, September 29, 2010.
Neither a positive DNA match of the semen nor the presence of
spermatozoa is essential in finding that rape was committed. The
important consideration in rape cases is not the emission of semen
but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ.
The Court agrees with the findings of the RTC and the CA that
the foregoing pieces of circumstantial evidence, when analyzed and
taken together, definitely lead to no other conclusion than that Petrus
was the author of the kidnapping for ransom. When viewed as a
whole, the prosecution evidence effectively established his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
Probability of Paternity
Of note is the fact that Section 9(c) is directly taken from the
pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Herrera where the Court ruled
that:
A complete match between the DNA profile of the child and the
DNA profile of the putative father does not necessarily establish
paternity. For this reason, trial courts should require at least 99.9%
as a minimum value of the Probability of Paternity (W) prior to a
paternity inclusion. W is a numerical estimate for the likelihood of
paternity of a putative father compared to the probability of a
random match of two unrelated individuals. XXX
In this case, the Supreme Court, in considering the fact that the
child was born during Jinkys marriage with her Japanese husband, held
that:
Then, anent DNA testing, the Supreme Court said that with the
advancement in the field of genetics, and the availability of new
technology, it can now be determined with reasonable certainty whether
Rogelio is the biological father of the minor, through DNA testing. But,
more importantly, the Supreme Court in Ong declared that the death of
the petitioner does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for
as long as there exists appropriate biological samples of his DNA. XXX
(T)he term biological sample means any organic material originating from a
persons body, even if found in inanimate objects, that is susceptible to
DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva, and other body fluids, tissues,
hairs and bones. The Supreme Court added:
Confidentiality
Where the person from whom the biological sample was taken
files a written verified request to the court that allowed the DNA
testing for the disclosure of the DNA profile of the person and all
results or other information obtained from the DNA testing, the same
may be disclosed to the persons named in the written verified
request.
The rule that DNA profiles and all results or other information
obtained from DNA testing shall be confidential is reasonable and
appropriate. It has been opined that the collection of DNA evidence
creates potential problems for the privacy and dignity of citizens. 92 The
collection of genetic material identifying individuals gives the state
important information that undeniably creates the potential for abuse
92
See Are Police Building a Massive DNA Database? by Scott Lemieux which appears in
www.alternet.org/story/154667/are_police_building_a_massive_dna_database (last retrieved on January 9,
2017).
such as the collection and use of personal information purposes of
harassment and blackmail.93
Section 12 of the Rule provides in part that: (t)he trial court shall
preserve the DNA evidence in its totality, including all biological samples,
DNA profiles and results or other genetic information obtained from DNA
testing. The rule likewise allows the courts to order the appropriate
government agencies to preserve the DNA evidence for varying periods of
time, depending on the nature of the case. In criminal cases, DNA
evidence can be stored and preserved for not less than the period of time
that any person is under trial for an offense or, in case the accused is
serving sentence, until such time as the accused has served his
sentence. We will see later on how storage and preservation of DNA
became an issue in LEJANO versus PEOPLE.95
In all other cases, DNA evidence must be preserved until such time
as the decision in the case where the DNA evidence was introduced has
become final and executory.
96
Article III, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution.
97
G.R. No. 172326, January 19, 2009.
98
See Section 9(b).
In PEOPLE versus HIPONA,99 the appellant argued that he should
only be held liable for robbery and not for the complex crime of Rape
with Homicide and Robbery, as found by the trial court. He cites the
testimony of prosecution witness Aida Viloria-Magsipoc, the DNA expert
of the National Bureau of Investigation, that she found the vaginal
smears taken from AAA to be negative of appellants DNA. The Supreme
Court dismissed his argument and ruled that:
The DNA test is not essential, while there exists other evidence
pinning down accused-appellant as the perpetrator. Indeed, if he
honestly thought that the DNA test could have proved his innocence,
he could have asked for the conduct of said test during his trial,
instead of belatedly raising it on appeal, and attempting to dictate
upon the prosecution what course of actions it should have
undertaken.
99
G.R. No. 185709, February 18, 2010.
100
G.R. No. 185708, September 29, 2010.
101
G.R. No. 188705, March 2, 2011.
The Vizconde Case
(LEJANO vs. PEOPLE)102
Four years after the massacre, or in 1995, the NBI announced that
it had solved the crime. It presented star witness Jessica M. Alfaro, an
NBI informer, who claimed that she witnessed the crime. She pointed to
accused Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Tony Boy Lejano, Artemio Dong
Ventura, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Pyke Fernandez, Peter Estrada,
Miguel Ging Rodriguez, and Joey Filart as culprits. She also tagged
police officer, Gerardo Biong, as an accessory after the fact. Relying
primarily on Alfaro's testimony, on August 10, 1995, the public
prosecutors filed an information for rape with homicide against Webb
and company.
102
G.R. No. 176389, December 14, 2010.
believed to be still under the safekeeping of the NBI. The Court granted
the request pursuant to Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence.
Unfortunately, on April 27, 2010, the NBI informed the Court that
it no longer has custody of the specimen, the same having been turned
over to the trial court. The trial record shows, however, that the specimen
was not among the object evidence that the prosecution offered in
evidence in the case.
However, the Supreme Court said that Webb was not entitled to an
acquittal simply because of the failure of the State to produce the DNA
evidence. To quote the Supreme Court:
Still, Webb is not entitled to acquittal for the failure of the State
to produce the semen specimen at this late stage. For one thing, the
103
373 U.S. 83 (1963).
ruling in Brady v. Maryland that he cites has long be overtaken by
the decision in Arizona v. Youngblood, 104 where the U.S. Supreme
Court held that due process does not require the State to preserve
the semen specimen although it might be useful to the accused
unless the latter is able to show bad faith on the part of the
prosecution or the police. Here, the State presented a medical expert
who testified on the existence of the specimen and Webb in fact
sought to have the same subjected to DNA test.
For, another, when Webb raised the DNA issue, the rule
governing DNA evidence did not yet exist, the country did not yet
have the technology for conducting the test, and no Philippine
precedent had as yet recognized its admissibility as evidence.
Consequently, the idea of keeping the specimen secure even after
the trial court rejected the motion for DNA testing did not come up.
Indeed, neither Webb nor his co-accused brought up the matter of
preserving the specimen in the meantime.
Had the case been initiated, tried and decided in the advent of the
Rule, Section 12 of course mandates preservation of DNA evidence in
criminal cases for not less than the period of time that any person is
under trial for an offense or, in case the accused is serving sentence,
until such time as the accused has served his sentence.
104
488 U.S. 41 (1988).
Lejano appears to have also put a kink in the armor of positive
identification as the strongest evidence in rape cases. Here, Webbs main
defense is alibi, considered in Philippine law to be an inherently weak
defense which is viewed with suspicion and received with caution
because it can easily be fabricated.105 To establish alibi, the accused
must prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence that he was
present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, 106
and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the
crime.107
105
PEOPLE vs. HIVELA, G.R. No. 132061, September 21, 1999.
106
PEOPLE vs. HILLADO, 367 Phil. 29 (1999).
107
PEOPLE vs. SABAN, G.R. No. 110559, November 24, 1999.
108
PEOPLE vs. TABION, G.R. No. 132715, October 20, 1999, as cited in Penaso.
And second, the witness story of what she personally saw
must be believable, not inherently contrived. A witness who testifies
about something she never saw runs into inconsistencies and makes
bewildering claims.
The supposed eye-witness Alfaro and her testimony, which was the
main evidence used by the trial court to convict the accused, fail to meet
the above criteria, according to the Supreme Court. The Court found her
testimony inherently incredible.
109
G.R. No. 176389, January 18, 2011.
110
Article 172; see also DE CASTRO versus ASSIDAO-DE CASTRO, G.R. No. 160172, February 13,
2008.
affirmative if we are to count the rulings in Ong, Umanito, Tecson,
Herrera and Lucas as affirmations.
However, the Supreme Court, as of the date of this paper, has yet
come up with a categorical ruling to this effect. As the law currently
stands, DNA evidence is at best secondary evidence of filiation. In one
case,111 the Supreme Court held that (w)here, instead, a claim for
recognition is predicated on other evidence merely tending to prove
paternity, i.e., outside of a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court
of record or an authentic writing, judicial action within the applicable
statute of limitations is essential in order to establish the childs
acknowledgment. This doctrine appears to put a limitation on the utility
of DNA evidence in paternity cases despite the fact that, as held in Ong,
the Supreme Court succinctly stated that (i)n case proof of filiation or
paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult
to obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from body
cells of the illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead
parent could be resorted to. Thus, the length of time within which the
physical residue of a long dead parent may be used may not really be
that long, as it is subject to the statute of limitations. We should take
note that, in Ong, the only limitation as to the use of DNA to establish
paternity and filiation was for as long as there exist appropriate biological
samples of his DNA.
Conclusion