People v Umanito (2007)

FACTS:

 On Jan 1990, Umanito was charged with the crime of rape, allegedly committed on 15 July 1989, 9 pm, in the
town of Naguilian,La Union.
 Umanito committed the crime with a fan knife and by means of force and threats against the victim, AAA.
 The information was filed after AAA’s mother noticed that AAA’s stomach was becoming larger -> AAA became
pregnant as a result of the rape, and eventually bore a child.
 5 years later, in 1995, Umanito was arrested. His defense was alibi and inconsistencies in the testimony of the
rape victim, but the RTC found for the victim and sentenced Umanito to reclusion perpetua.
 On appeal, CA denied the appeal and affirmed RTC’s decision.
 In this appeal, appellant seeks his acquittal on reasonable doubt by reason of the belated filing of the case
against him and the questionable credibility of AAA with respect to her varying allegations.

ISSUE/RATIO

Whether or not the prosecution has successfully met the level of proof needed to find the appellant guilty of the
crime of rape – NO

 The fact that AAA bore a child as a result of the purported rape may provide the definitive key to the absolution of
Umanito.
 AAA and her child are directed to submit themselves to DNA testing under the aegis of the New Rule on DNA
Evidence (AM No. 06-11-5-SC), which took effect on 15 Oct 2007 (a few days before promulgation of this case).
 DNA print/identification technology is now recognized as a uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a crime,
or to absolve one erroneously accused, where biological evidence is available. The groundwork for
acknowledging the strong weight of DNA testing was first laid out in Tijing v. CA . Herrera v. Alba discussed DNA
analysis as evidence and traced the development of its admissibility in our jurisdiction. Tecson v. COMELEC said
that in case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to establish, DNA testing could be resorted to.
 The determination of whether or not Umanito is the father (through DNA testing) is material to the fair and correct
adjudication of his appeal.
o Under Sec. 4 of AM No. 06-11-5-SC, the courts are authorized, after due hearing and notice, motu
proprio to order a DNA testing. However, since SC is not a trier of facts, it would be more appropriate that
the case be remanded to RTC for reception of evidence.
 But the hearing should be confined to ascertaining the feasibility of DNA testing with due regard to the
standards set. RTC should order the DNA testing if it finds it to be feasible in this case.