ADVANCE EVIDENCE AND

FORENSICS

DNA EVIDENCE

PETER P. NG, M.D., LL.B., Ph.D.

 ADMISSIBILITY AND
PROBATIVE VALUE OF
DNA EVIDENCE

PHILIPPINE
JURISPRUDENCE
 CASES
EDGARDO A. TIJING and BIENVENIDA R. TIJING, petitioners, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS (Seventh Division) and ANGELITA
DIAMANTE respondents.
DIAMANTE, respondents [G.R.
[G R No.
No 125901.
125901 March 88, 2001]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

GERRICO VALLEJO Y SAMARTINO @ PUKE,, accused-appellant.
pp
[G.R. No. 144656. May 9, 2002] – LANDMARK CASE

ARNEL L. AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

AND MINOR MARTIN JOSE PROLLAMANTE
PROLLAMANTE, REPRESENTED BY
HIS MOTHER/GUARDIAN FE ANGELA PROLLAMANTE,
respondents. [G.R. No. 162571. June 15, 2005]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. JOEL YATAR alias

“KAWIT”, appellant. [G.R. No. 150224. May 19, 2004]
 CASES
People v. Teehankee
Pe Lim v. CA
Tecson v.
v COMELEC
People v. Andan
In Re De Villa
Herrera v.
v Alba
People v. Teehankee 1995
appellant was convicted of murder on
the testimony of three eyewitnesses, sc
stated as an obiter dictum that
z “while eyewitness identification is
significant it is not as accurate and
significant,
authoritative as the scientific forms of
identification evidence such as the
fingerprint or the DNA test result”
Pe Lim vv. Court of Appeals
1997
we cautioned against the use of DNA
because “DNA, being a relatively new
science,, ((had)) not as y
yet been accorded
official recognition by our courts.
Paternity (would) still have to be
resolved by such conventional evidence
as the relevant incriminating acts, verbal
and written, by y the p
putative father.”
Tijing vv. CA
CA, GR No
No. 125901
125901,
March 8,, 2001
opened the possibility of admitting DNA as evidence
of parentage
Parentage will still be resolved using conventional
methods unless we adopt the modern and scientific
ways available. Fortunately, we have now the facility
and expertise in using DNA test for identification and
parentage testing
testing.
The University of the Philippines Natural Science
Research Institute (UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis
Laboratory has now the capability to conduct DNA
typing using short tandem repeat (STR) analysis.
Tijing vv. CA
CA, GR No
No. 125901
125901,
March 8,, 2001
Of course, being a novel scientific technique, the use
of DNA test as evidence is still openp to challenge.
g
Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, courts
should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA
evidence For it was said
evidence. said, that courts should apply
the results of science when competently obtained in
aid of situations presented, since to reject said result
is to deny progress.
progress
Though it is not necessary in this case to resort to
DNA testing, in future it would be useful to all
concerned d iin th
the promptt resolution
l ti off parentage
t andd
identity issues.
 People vv. Vallejo
Vallejo, GR No
No.
144656, May 09, 2002
Rape with homicide
recovered the white basketball shirt,
with the name Samartino and No. 13
printed at the back, and the violet
basketball shorts, with the number 9
printed on it, worn by accused-appellant
the dayy before.
The shirt and shorts were bloodstained.
 People vv. Vallejo
Vallejo, GR No
No.
144656, May 09, 2002
buccal swabs and hair samples from
accused-appellant
d ll t
DNA Test - vaginal swabs of the victim taken
by Dr. Vertido during the autopsy contained
the DNA profiles of accused-appellant and
the victim
Court: In rape
p with homicide,, the evidence
against an accused is more often than not
circumstantial.
 People vv. Vallejo
Vallejo, GR No
No.
144656, May 09, 2002
Under Rule 133, section 4 of the Revised
R l on Evidence,
Rules E id circumstantial
i t ti l evidence
id iis
sufficient to sustain a conviction if:
z “(a) there is more than one circumstance;
z “(b) the facts from which the inferences are
d i d are proven; and
derived d
z “(c) the combination of all circumstances is such
as to produce conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.”
 Vallejo Standard
In assessing the probative value of DNA
evidence therefore,
evidence, therefore courts should consider,
consider
among others things, the following data:
z how the samples were collected, how they were
h dl d
handled,
z the possibility of contamination of the samples,
z samples
the procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
z whether the proper standards and procedures
were followed in conducting the tests, and
z the qualification of the analyst who conducted the
tests.
 People vv. Vallejo
Vallejo, GR No
No.
144656, May 09, 2002
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of Rape with Homicide and
g him to the supreme
sentencing p penalty
p y
of DEATH
People vv. YATAR
YATAR, GR No
No.
150224, May 19, 2004
special complex crime of Rape with
H i id
Homicide
presence of semen in the vaginal
p g canal
of the victim
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of the
sperm specimen from the vagina of the
victim was identical the semen to be
that of appellant’s gene type
 People vv. YATAR
YATAR, GR No
No.
150224, May 19, 2004
Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant
when it relates directly to a fact in issue as to
induce belief in its existence or non-
existence.
Applying the Daubert test to the case at bar,
the DNA evidence obtained through PCR
testing and utilizing STR analysis
analysis, and which
was appreciated by the court a quo is
relevant and reliable since it is reasonablyy
based on scientifically valid principles of
human genetics and molecular biology.
 People vv. YATAR
YATAR, GR No
No.
150224, May 19, 2004
Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to warrant a
conviction must form an unbroken chain which leads
conviction,
to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused,
to the exclusion of others, is the perpetrator of the
crime.
i
To determine whether there is sufficient
circumstantial evidence
evidence, three requisites must
concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2)
facts on which the inferences are derived are proven;
and d (3) the
th combination
bi ti off allll th
the circumstances
i t iis
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
 People vv. YATAR
YATAR, GR No
No.
150224, May 19, 2004
Defendant said: blood sample taken from him
as wellll as th
the DNA ttests
t were conducted
d t d in
i
violation of his right to remain silent as well as
hi right
his i ht against
i t self-incrimination
lf i i i ti under d
Secs. 12 and 17 of Art. III of the Constitution
SC: The kernel of the right is not against all
compulsion, but against testimonial
compulsion.
 People vv. YATAR
YATAR, GR No
No.
150224, May 19, 2004
People v. Rondero that although accused-appellant
insisted that hair samples were forcibly taken from
him and submitted to the National Bureau of
Investigation for forensic examination, the hair
samples
l may b be admitted
d itt d iin evidence
id against
i t hi
him,
for what is proscribed is the use of testimonial
compulsion
p or anyy evidence communicative in nature
acquired from the accused under duress.
G.R. No. 125687, 9 December 1999, 320 SCRA 383.
 People vv. YATAR
YATAR, GR No
No.
150224, May 19, 2004
Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to
fingerprinting photographing
fingerprinting, photographing, paraffin
paraffin, blood and
DNA, as there is no testimonial compulsion involved.
Under People v. Gallarde where immediately after
th incident,
the i id t th the police
li authorities
th iti ttook k pictures
i t off th
the
accused without the presence of counsel, we ruled
that there was no violation of the right
g against
g self-
incrimination. The accused may be compelled to
submit to a physical examination to determine his
involvement in an offense of which he is accused
accused.
G.R. No. 133025, 27 February 2000, 325 SCRA 835.
 People vv. YATAR
YATAR, GR No
No.
150224, May 19, 2004
No ex-post facto law is involved in the case at
bar.
The science of DNA typing involves the
admissibility, relevance and reliability of the
evidence obtained under the Rules of Court.
Whereas an ex-post facto law refers primarily
to a q
question of law,, DNA pprofiling
g requires
q a
factual determination of the probative weight
of the evidence presented.
p
Tecson et al
Tecson, al. vv. COMELEC
2004
In case proof of filiation or paternity would be
unlikely
lik l tto satisfactorily
ti f t il establish
t bli h or wouldld b
be
difficult to obtain, DNA testing, which
examines
i genetic
ti codes
d obtained
bt i d ffrom b body
d
cells of the illegitimate child and any physical
id off th
residue the llong d
deadd parentt could
ld b
be
resorted to.
A positive match would clear up filiation or
paternity.
 Agustin vv. CA
CA, GR No
No.
162571, June 15, 2005
for support and support pendente lite
two issues:
z ( ) whether a complaint
(1) p for support
pp can
be converted to a petition for recognition
and
z (2) whether DNA paternity testing can be
ordered in a proceeding for support without
violating
i l i petitioner’s
ii ’ constitutional
i i l right
i h to
privacy and right against self-incrimination
 Agustin vv. CA
CA, GR No
No.
162571, June 15, 2005
This case comes at a perfect time when
DNA testing has finally evolved into a
p
dependable and authoritative form of
evidence gathering.
SC therefore took this opportunity to
forcefully reiterate our stand that DNA
testing is a valid means of determining
p
paternity.
y
IN RE: THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
FOR REYNALDO DE VILLA GR 155802,
November 2004
Rape case
Convicted serving sentence
DNA of child not the same as De Villa
The DNA evidence presented by petitioner-
petitioner
relator is not material and relevant to the
crime of rape.
p
A new trial on the ground of post-conviction
DNA testing is different from a new trial under
R l 121,
Rule 121 which
hi h is
i available
il bl only
l before
b f fi l
final
judgment.
 People V
V. Andal
G.R. Nos. 138268-69. June 15, 1999
The proposed DNA testing of the semen
found on the victim is not ground to re-open
re open
the final judgment in the case at bar.
It is not only late and the probability that it will
bring about the acquittal of appellants is at
best arguable.
best, arguable
The conviction of the accused is based on
nothing less than the testimony of an eye eye-
witness whose credibility has been passed
upon
p byy the trial court and this Court.
 Herrera vv. Alba
Alba, GR No
No.
148220 , June 15, 2005
petition for compulsory recognition,
supportt andd damages
d
Issues:
z Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing
and contended that it has not gained
g
acceptability.
z Petitioner further argued that DNA
paternity testing violates his right against
self-incrimination.
Questions?