LEGAL MEDICINE (SY 2013-2014) 1
PEOPLE VS. YATAR (2004)
FACTS:
On June 30, 1998, Kathylyn Uba stayed in her
grandmother’s (Isabel Dawang’s) house, despite her
intention to go forth Tuguegarao City, as her other
former’s housemate-relatives left in the morning. At
10:00 am, accused-appellant Joel Yatar was seen at the
back of the same house where Kathylyn stayed during
said date. At 12:30 pm, Judilyn, Kathylyn’s first cousin
saw Yatar, who was then wearing a white shirt with collar
and black pants, descended from the second floor and
was pacing back and forth at the back of Isabel
Dawang’s house, Judilyn didn’t find this unusual since
Yatar and his wife used to live therein. At 1:30 PM, Yatar
called upon Judilyn, telling the latter that he would not
be getting the lumber he had been gathering. This time,
Judilyn noticed that Yatar is now wearing a black shirt
(without collar) and blue pants; and noticed that the
latter’s eyes were “reddish and sharp”. Accused-appellant
asked about the whereabouts of Judilyn’s husband, as
the former purports to talk with the latter. Then, Yatar
immediately left when Judilyn’s husband arrived. In the
evening, when Isabel Dawang arrived home, she found
the lights of her house turned off, the door of the
ground floor opened, and the containers, which she
asked Kathylyn to fill up, were still empty. Upon
ascending the second floor to check whether the
teenage girl is upstairs, Isabel found that the door
therein was tied with rope. When Isabel succeeded
opening the tied door with a knife, and as she groped in
the darkness of the second level of her house, she felt
Kathylyn’s lifeless and naked body, with some intestines
protruding out from it. Soon after, police came to the
scene of the crime to provide assistance. Therein, they
found Kathylyn’s clothes and undergarments beside her
body. Amongst others, a white collared shirt splattered
with blood was also found 50-meters away from Isabel’s
house.
Meanwhile, semen has also been found upon
examination of Kathylyn’s cadaver. When subjected
under DNA testing, results showed that the DNA
PREPARED BY: TINA SIUAGAN
comprising the sperm specimen is identical to Yatar’s
genotype.
Yatar was accused of the special complex crime of Rape
with Homicide and was convicted for the same by the
Regional Trial Court of Tabuk, Kalinga. Thereafter, he
made an appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court in
order to assail the court a quo’s decision.
On appeal, Yatar avers that: (1) the trial court erred in
giving much weight to the evidence DNA testing or
analysis done on him, in lieu of the seminal fluid found
inside the victim’s (cadaver) vaginal canal; (2) the blood
sample taken from is violative of his constitutional right
against self-incrimination; and the conduct of DNA
testing is also in violation on prohibition against ex-post
facto laws.
MAIN ISSUE
Whether or not the result of the DNA testing done on
the sperm specimen may be used as evidence for Yatar’s
conviction?
HELD
Noteworthy is the fact this case was decided on 2004,
which was three (3) years before the Rules on DNA
evidence took effect.
The Supreme Court in this case ruled based on the US
case of Daubert vs. Merrell Dow as a precedent. In the
said US jurisprudence, it was ruled that pertinent
evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be
used, so long as the same is RELEVANT and RELIABLE.
Hence, it was called then as the DAUBERT TEST.
 RULE: At present, SECTION 7, RULES ON DNA
EVIDENCE may be used as the legal basis. Sec. 7
of the Rules on DNA evidence, which took effect
on 2007, provides for the factors to be
1

considered in assessing the probative weight or
value to be given on evidence derived or
generated from DNA testing. Such factors, are,
to wit:
(a) The chain of custody, including how the
biological samples were collected, how
they were handled, and the possibility of
contamination of the samples; (b) The
DNA testing methodology, including the
procedure followed in analyzing the
samples, the advantages
disadvantages of the procedure, and
compliance with the scientifically valid
standards in conducting the tests; (c)
The forensic DNA laboratory, including
accreditation by any
standards-setting institution and the
qualification of the analyst
conducted the tests. If the laboratory is
not accredited, the relevant experience
of the laboratory in forensic casework
and credibility shall be
established; and (d) The reliability of the
testing result, as hereinafter provided.
 APPLICATION – DAUBERT TEST:
The Honorable Supreme Court in this case
upheld the probative value of the DNA test
result yielded from the analysis of Yatar’s blood
sample from that of the semen specimen
obtained from the cadaver’s vaginal canal.
Accordingly, it held that the DNA evidence is
both reliable and relevant.
 In ascertaining the relevance of the
evidence in a case, it
determined whether or not the same
directly relates to a fact in issue, as to
induce belief in its existence or non-
existence. In this case, the evidence is
relevant in determining the perpetrator
of the crime;
 In giving probative value on the DNA
testing result, yielded from the analysis
of Yatar’s blood sample from that of the
biological sample (semen)
PREPARED BY: TINA SIUAGAN
LEGAL MEDICINE (SY 2013-2014) 2
from the victim’s vaginal canal, the trial
court considered the qualification of the
DNA analyst, the facility or laboratory in
which the DNA testing had been
performed, and the methodology used
in performing the DNA test. In the said
case, the DNA test was done at the UP
National Science Research Institute
(NSRI). The method used was
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
and
amplification method by Short
Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis, which
enables a tiny amount of DNA sequence
to be replicated exponentially in a span
reputable of few hours. Hence, sufficient DNA
analysis may be made easier even with
who small DNA samples at hand. The analyst
who performed the procedure was Dr.
Maria Corazon Abogado de Ungria,
who is a duly qualified expert witness on
properly
DNA print or identification techniques.
 CONCLUSION:
Hence, apart from the other sets of
circumstantial evidence correctly appreciated by
the trial court, the said DNA evidence is
sufficient to be admitted as evidence to warrant
the accused-appellant’s conviction of the crime
of Rape with Homicide.
ANNOTATIONS – WHAT IS DNA? – culled from this
case
must be
 DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic
information in all living organisms.23 A person’s
DNA is the same in each cell and it does not
change throughout a person’s lifetime; the DNA
in a person’s blood is the same as the DNA
found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and
shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue,
and vaginal and rectal cells.24 Most importantly,
obtained because of polymorphisms in human genetic
2
 LEGAL MEDICINE (SY 2013-2014) 3

structure, no two individuals have the same

DNA, with the notable exception of identical
twins;

 DNA print or identification technology has been

advanced as a uniquely effective means to link a
suspect to a crime, or to exonerate a wrongly
accused suspect, where biological evidence has
been left. For purposes of criminal investigation,
DNA identification is a fertile source of both
inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can
assist immensely in effecting a more accurate
account of the crime committed, efficiently
facilitating the conviction of the guilty, securing
the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the
proper administration of justice in every case.

 DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can

link a suspect to a crime or eliminate one from
suspicion in the same principle as fingerprints
are used.26 Incidents involving sexual assault
would leave biological evidence such as hair,
skin tissue, semen, blood, or saliva which can be
left on the victim’s body or at the crime scene.
Hair and fiber from clothing, carpets, bedding, or
furniture could also be transferred to the victim’s
body during the assault.27 Forensic DNA
evidence is helpful in proving that there was
physical contact between an assailant and a
victim. If properly collected from the victim,
crime scene or assailant, DNA can be compared
with known samples to place the suspect at the
scene of the crime.

PREPARED BY: TINA SIUAGAN 3