FILIATION OR PATERNITY MAY BE PROVED THROUGH DNA TESTING.

The right against self-

incrimination is only against testimonial compulsion, and the right to privacy is not intended to stifle
scientific and technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good. As such,
DNA testing may be ordered in case proof of filiation or paternity is unlikely to be satisfactorily established
or difficult to be obtained, without violating the right against self-incrimination and privacy. (Agustin vs.
CA, G.R. No. 162571, June 15, 2005)
x—————x

Arnel L. Agustin vs. Court of Appeals and Martin Jose Prollamante

G.R. No. 162571, June 15, 2005
Corona, J.

FACTS:
In this petition for certiorari under Rule 65, petitioner assails the denial of the motion to dismiss
respondent’s complaint for support, and the directive for the parties to submit to DNA paternity testing.

Respondents Fe and her son Martin Prollamante sued Martin’s alleged biological father, petitioner Arnel
L. Agustin, for support before the RTC of Quezon City. They alleged that Arnel impregnated Fe who
gave birth to their child out of wedlock. Arnel purportedly signed the birth certificate as the father who
also shouldered the hospital expenses. However, he later denied having fathered the child and refused
requests for support despite his adequate financial capacity. In 2002, Fe and Martin sued Arnel for
support. On the other hand, petitioner Arnel denied having sired Martin because his affair and intimacy
with Fe had allegedly ended in 1998, long before Martin’s conception. Arnel learned that Fe told people
that he impregnated her but he refused to acknowledge the child. However, despite vehemently denying
having sired Martin, he expressed willingness to consider any proposal to settle the case.

Fe and Martin, then, moved for the issuance of an order directing all the parties to submit themselves to
DNA paternity testing. Arnel opposed and invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination and
right to privacy. He also moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action, considering the
forged signature on the birth certificate and that, under the law, an illegitimate child is not entitled to
support if not recognized by the putative father. Such motion was denied.

ISSUE:
1. Did the complaint convert the action for support into one for recognition?
2. Did the Court violate petitioner’s constitutional right against self-incrimination and right to
privacy when it directed the parties to submit themselves to DNA paternity testing?
HELD:
1. No, the complaint did not convert the action for support into one for recognition but merely
allowed the respondents to prove their cause of action against petitioner who had been denying
the authenticity of the documentary evidence of acknowledgement. But even if the assailed
resolution and order effectively integrated an action to compel recognition with an action for
support, such was valid and in accordance with jurisprudence. Whether or not respondent
Martin is entitled to support depends completely on the determination of filiation. A separate
action will only result in a multiplicity of suits, given how intimately related the main issues in
both cases are. The declaration of filiation is entirely appropriate to these proceedings.

2. No, the Court did not violate the rights of petitioner since because the kernel of the right against
self-incrimination is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The right is
simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt
and does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but as
part of object evidence. Likewise, the right to privacy is not intended to stifle scientific and
technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good. Further, in
case proof of filiation or paternity is unlikely to be satisfactorily established or difficult to be
obtained, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the
illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent, may be resorted to. A positive
match would clear up filiation or paternity. In Tijing v Court of Appeals, this Court has
acknowledged the strong weight of DNA testing.