563 Phil. 132
TINGA, J,:
That on or about 9:00 P.M. of July 15, 1989, at Brgy[.] Daramuangan, Municipality of Naguilian, Province of La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused who was armed with a fan knife and by means of force and threats, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeeded in having a sexual intercourse to [sic] the undersigned who is unmarried woman of good reputation, a woman who is over 12 but below 18 years old [sic] of age, to the damage and prejudice of the offended party.It was only five (5) years later, or sometime in 1995, that appellant was arrested. It took place when he went to the Municipal Hall of Naguilian to secure a police clearance.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
It was around 9:00 o’clock in the evening of July 15, 1989, while on her way to her grandmother’s home, when private complainant [AAA][6] was accosted by a young male. It was only later when she learned the name of accused-appellant UMANITO. She recounted that accused-appellant UMANITO waited for her by the creek, and then with a knife pointed at [AAA]’s left side of the [sic] abdomen, he forced her to give in to his kisses, to his holding her breasts and stomach, and to his pulling her by the arm to be dragged to the Home Economics Building inside the premises of the Daramuangan Elementary School where accused-appellant UMANITO first undressed her [AAA] and himself with his right hand while he still clutched the knife menacingly on his left hand. Private complainant [AAA] recounted that she could not shout because she was afraid. She further recounted that accused-appellant UMANITO laid her down on a bench, 4 meters long and 24 inches wide, set the knife down, then mounted her, inserting his penis into her [AAA’s] vagina and shortly thereafter, accused-appellant UMANITO dressed up and threatened [AAA] while poking the knife at her neck, not to report the incident to the police or else he said he would kill her. Accused-appellant UMANITO then left, while the victim [AAA] went on to her grandmother’s house and she noticed that it was already around 1:00 o’clock in the morning when she reached there.Appellant’s version on the stand was different. Denying the accusations of AAA, he claimed that on 15 July 1989, he was home the whole day, helping his family complete rush work on picture frames ordered from Baguio. He did not step out of their house on the evening in question, he added.[9] Concerning his relationship with AAA, appellant admitted that he had courted her but she spurned him. He conjectured, though, that AAA had a crush on him since she frequently visited him at his house.[10]
In January 1990, 6 months after the incident, private complainant [AAA’s] mother,[7] noticed the prominence on [AAA]’s stomach. It was only then when the victim, private complainant [AAA], divulged to her mother the alleged rape and told her the details of what had happened in July, [sic] 1989. After hearing private complainant [AAA]’s story, her mother brought her to the police station.[8]
The U.P. National Science Research Institute (NSRI), which conducted the DNA tests in this case, used the Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification method by Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis. With PCR testing, tiny amounts of a specific DNA sequence can be copied exponentially within hours. Thus, getting sufficient DNA for analysis has become much easier since it became possible to reliably amplify small samples using the PCR method.[26]The ground work for acknowledging the strong weight of DNA testing was first laid out in Tijing v. Court of Appeals,[27] where the Court said –
x x x 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. 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. The analysis is based on 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. Of course, being a novel scientific technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is still open to challenge. Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was 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. Though it is not necessary in this case to resort to DNA testing, in future it would be useful to all concerned in the prompt resolution of parentage and identity issues.[28]The leading case of Herrera v. Alba,[29] where the validity of a DNA test as a probative tool to determine filiation in our jurisdiction was put in issue, discussed DNA analysis as evidence and traced the development of its admissibility in our jurisdiction. Thus:
DNA is the fundamental building block of a person’s entire genetic make-up. DNA is found in all human cells and is the same in every cell of the same person. Genetic identity is unique. Hence, a person’s DNA profile can determine his identity.The 2004 case of Tecson v. Commission on Elections[31] likewise reiterated the acceptance of DNA testing in our jurisdiction in this wise: “[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.”[32]
DNA analysis is a procedure in which DNA extracted from a biological sample obtained from an individual is examined. The DNA is processed to generate a pattern, or a DNA profile, for the individual from whom the sample is taken. This DNA profile is unique for each person, except for identical twins. We quote relevant portions of the trial court’s 3 February 2000 Order with approval:Everyone is born with a distinct genetic blueprint called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). It is exclusive to an individual (except in the rare occurrence of identical twins that share a single, fertilized egg), and DNA is unchanging throughout life. Being a component of every cell in the human body, the DNA of an individual’s blood is the very DNA in his or her skin cells, hair follicles, muscles, semen, samples from buccal swabs, saliva, or other body parts.The 2002 case of People v. Vallejo discussed DNA analysis as evidence. This may be considered a 180 degree turn from the Court’s wary attitude towards DNA testing in the 1997 Pe Lim case, where we stated that “DNA, being a relatively new science, x x x has not yet been accorded official recognition by our courts.” In Vallejo, the DNA profile from the vaginal swabs taken from the rape victim matched the accused’s DNA profile. We affirmed the accused’s conviction of rape with homicide and sentenced him to death.
The chemical structure of DNA has four bases. They are known as A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cystosine) and T (thymine). The order in which the four bases appear in an individual’s DNA determines his or her physical makeup. And since DNA is a double-stranded molecule, it is composed of two specific paired bases, A-T or T-A and G-C or C-G. These are called “genes.”
Every gene has a certain number of the above base pairs distributed in a particular sequence. This gives a person his or her genetic code. Somewhere in the DNA framework, nonetheless, are sections that differ. They are known as “polymorphic loci,” which are the areas analyzed in DNA typing (profiling, tests, fingerprinting, or analysis/DNA fingerprinting/genetic tests or fingerprinting). In other words, DNA typing simply means determining the “polymorphic loci.”
How is DNA typing performed? From a DNA sample obtained or extracted, a molecular biologist may proceed to analyze it in several ways. There are five (5) techniques to conduct DNA typing. They are: the RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism); “reverse dot blot” or HLA DQ a/Pm loci which was used in 287 cases that were admitted as evidence by 37 courts in the U.S. as of November 1994; mtDNA process; VNTR (variable number tandem repeats); and the most recent which is known as the PCR-([polymerase] chain reaction) based STR (short tandem repeats) method which, as of 1996, was availed of by most forensic laboratories in the world. PCR is the process of replicating or copying DNA in an evidence sample a million times through repeated cycling of a reaction involving the so-called DNA polymerize enzyme. STR, on the other hand, takes measurements in 13 separate places and can match two (2) samples with a reported theoretical error rate of less than one (1) in a trillion.
Just like in fingerprint analysis, in DNA typing, “matches” are determined. To illustrate, when DNA or fingerprint tests are done to identify a suspect in a criminal case, the evidence collected from the crime scene is compared with the “known” print. If a substantial amount of the identifying features are the same, the DNA or fingerprint is deemed to be a match. But then, even if only one feature of the DNA or fingerprint is different, it is deemed not to have come from the suspect.
As earlier stated, certain regions of human DNA show variations between people. In each of these regions, a person possesses two genetic types called “allele,” one inherited from each parent. In [a] paternity test, the forensic scientist looks at a number of these variable regions in an individual to produce a DNA profile. Comparing next the DNA profiles of the mother and child, it is possible to determine which half of the child’s DNA was inherited from the mother. The other half must have been inherited from the biological father. The alleged father’s profile is then examined to ascertain whether he has the DNA types in his profile, which match the paternal types in the child. If the man’s DNA types do not match that of the child, the man is excluded as the father. If the DNA types match, then he is not excluded as the father (Emphasis in the original).
x x x x
x x x x
Vallejo discussed the probative value, not admissibility, of DNA evidence. By 2002, there was no longer any question on the validity of the use of DNA analysis as evidence. The Court moved from the issue of according “official recognition” to DNA analysis as evidence to the issue of observance of procedures in conducting DNA analysis.
In 2004, there were two other cases that had a significant impact on jurisprudence on DNA testing: People v. Yatar and In re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa. In Yatar, a match existed between the DNA profile of the semen found in the victim and the DNA profile of the blood sample given by appellant in open court. The Court, following Vallejo’s footsteps, affirmed the conviction of appellant because the physical evidence, corroborated by circumstantial evidence, showed appellant guilty of rape with homicide. In De Villa, the convict-petitioner presented DNA test results to prove that he is not the father of the child conceived at the time of commission of the rape. The Court ruled that a difference between the DNA profile of the convict-petitioner and the DNA profile of the victim’s child does not preclude the convict-petitioner’s commission of rape.[30]
SEC. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order.–The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following:Given our earlier pronouncements on the relevance of the DNA testing, it would be unbecoming of the RTC to conclude otherwise, Section 4 (d) notwithstanding. The hearing should be confined to ascertaining the feasibility of DNA testing with due regard to the standards set in Section 4 (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Rules.
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may require confirmation for good reasons;
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.
The Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced.[34]
SEC. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence. – In assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the court shall consider the following:The trial court is further enjoined to observe the requirements of confidentiality and preservation of the DNA evidence in accordance with Sections 11[37] and 12 [38] of the Rules.
(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 and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests;
(c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable standards-setting institution and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established; and
(d) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.
The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of evidence shall apply suppletorily.
SEC. 8. Reliability of DNA testing methodology.–In evaluating whether the DNA testing methodology is reliable, the court shall consider the following:
(a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested;
(b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods;
(c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific community;
(d) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the correctness of data gathered;
(e) The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and
(f) The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles and the significance and limitation of statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles.
(1) Person from whom the sample was taken;Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any information concerning a DNA profile without the proper court order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the court wherein such DNA evidence was offered, presented or sought to be offered and presented.
(2) Lawyers representing parties in the case or action where the DNA evidence is offered and presented or sought to be offered and presented;
(3) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action;
(4) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and
(5) Other persons as determined by the court.
(a) In criminal cases:The court may allow the physical destruction of a biological sample before the expiration of the periods set forth above provided that:(b) in all other cases, until such time as the decision in the case where the DNA evidence was introduced has become final and executory.
- 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; and
(a) a court order to that effect has been secured; or[39] People v. Vallejo, 431 Phil. 798, 817 (2002).
(b) the person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in writing to the disposal of the DNA evidence.