G.R. No.

171713

December 17, 2007

ESTATE OF ROGELIO G. ONG, petitioner, vs.Minor JOANNE RODJIN DIAZ, Re re!en"e# b$ %er Mo"&er 'n# G('r#i'n, Jin)$ *. Di'+, respondent. DE*ISION *%I*O,NAZARIO, J.This is a petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure assailing (1) the Decision 1 of the Court of ppeals dated !" #ove$%er !&&5 and (!) the Resolution ! of the sa$e court dated 1 'arch !&&( den)ing petitioner*s 'otion for Reconsideration in C +,.R. C- #o. .&1!5. Co$plaint" for co$pulsor) recognition with pra)er for support pending litigation was filed %) $inor /oanne Rod0in Dia1 (/oanne), represented %) her $other and guardian, /in2) C. Dia1 (/in2)), against Rogelio ,. 3ng (Rogelio) %efore the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac Cit). 4n her Co$plaint, /in2) pra)ed that 0udg$ent %e rendered5 (a) 3rdering defendant to recogni1e plaintiff /oanne Rod0in Dia1 as his daughter. (%) 3rdering defendant to give plaintiff $onthl) support of P!&,&&&.&& pendente lite and thereafter to fi6 $onthl) support. (c) 3rdering the defendant to pa) plaintiff attorne)*s fees in the su$ of P1&&,&&&.&&. (d) ,ranting plaintiff such other $easure of relief as $a)%e 0ust and e7uita%le in the pre$ises.4 s alleged %) /in2) in her Co$plaint in #ove$%er 188" in Tarlac Cit), she and Rogelio got ac7uainted. This developed into friendship and later %losso$ed into love. t this ti$e, /in2) was alread) $arried to a /apanese national, 9asegawa :atsuo, in a civil wedding sole$ni1ed on 18 ;e%ruar) 188" %) 'unicipal Trial Court /udge Panfilo -. -alde1.5

;ro$ /anuar) 1884 to <epte$%er 188=, /in2) and Rogelio coha%ited and lived together at ;airlane <u%division, and later at Capitol ,arden, Tarlac Cit). ;ro$ this live+in relationship, $inor /oanne Rod0in Dia1 was conceived and on !5 ;e%ruar) 188= was %orn at the Central >u1on Doctors* 9ospital, Tarlac Cit). Rogelio %rought /in2) to the hospital and too2 $inor /oanne and /in2) ho$e after deliver). Rogelio paid all the hospital %ills and the %aptis$al e6penses and provided for all of $inor /oanne*s needs ? recogni1ing the child as his. 4n <epte$%er 188=, Rogelio a%andoned $inor /oanne and /in2), and stopped supporting $inor /oanne, falsel) alleging that he is not the father of the child. Rogelio, despite /in2)*s re$onstrance, failed and refused and continued failing and refusing to give support for the child and to ac2nowledge her as his daughter, thus leading to the filing of the heretofore adverted co$plaint. fter su$$ons had %een dul) served upon Rogelio, the latter failed to file an) responsive pleading despite repeated $otions for e6tension, pro$pting the trial court to declare hi$ in default in its 3rder dated . pril 1888. Rogelio*s nswer with Counterclai$ and <pecial and ffir$ative Defenses was received %) the trial court onl) on 15 pril 1888. /in2) was allowed to present her evidence ex parte on the %asis of which the trial court on !" pril 1888 rendered a decision granting the reliefs pra)ed for in the co$plaint. 4n its Decision( dated !" pril 1888, the RTC held5 @9ARA;3RA, 0udg$ent is here%) rendered5 1. 3rdering defendant to recogni1e plaintiff as his natural childB !. 3rdering defendant to provide plaintiff with a $onthl) support of P1&,&&&.&& and further ". 3rdering defendant to pa) reasona%le attorne)*s fees in the

a$ount of P5,&&&.&& and the cost of the suit. 3n != pril 1888, Rogelio filed a $otion to lift the order of default and a $otion for reconsideration see2ing the court*s understanding, as he was then in a 7uandar) on what to do to find a solution to a ver) difficult pro%le$ of his life.. 3n !8 pril 1888, Rogelio filed a $otion for new trial with pra)er that the decision of the trial court dated !" pril 1888 %e vacated and the case %e considered for trial de novo pursuant to the provisions of <ection (, Rule ". of the 188. Rules of Civil Procedure. = 3n 1( /une 1888, the RTC issued an 3rder granting Rogelio*s 'otion for #ew Trial5 @9ARA;3RA, finding defendant*s $otion for new trial to %e i$pressed with $erit, the sa$e is here%) granted. The 3rder of this court declaring defendant in default and the decision is this court dated pril !", 1888 are here%) set aside %ut the evidence adduced shall re$ain in record, su%0ect to cross+ e6a$ination %) defendant at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. 4n the $eanti$e defendant*s answer is here%) ad$itted, su%0ect to the right of plaintiff to file a repl) andCor answer to defendant*s counterclai$ within the period fi6ed %) the Rules of Court. cting on plaintiff*s application for support pendente lite which this court finds to %e warranted, defendant is here%) ordered to pa) to plaintiff i$$ediatel) the su$ of P!,&&&.&& a $onth fro$ /anuar) 15, 1888 to 'a) 1888 as support pendente lite in arrears and the a$ount of P4,&&&.&& ever) $onth thereafter as regular support pendente lite during the pendenc) of this case.8 The RTC finall) held5 The onl) issue to %e resolved is whether or not the defendant is the father of the plaintiff /oanne Rod0in Dia1. <ince it was dul) esta%lished that plaintiff*s $other /in2) Dia1 was

$arried at the ti$e of the %irth of /oanne Rod0in Dia1, the law presu$es that /oanne is a legiti$ate child of the spouses 9asegawa :atsuo and /in2) Dia1 ( rticle 1(4, ;a$il) Code). The child is still presu$ed legiti$ate even if the $other $a) have declared against her legiti$ac) ( rticle 1(., 4%id). The legiti$ac) of a child $a) %e i$pugned onl) on the following grounds provided for in rticle 1(( of the sa$e Code. Paragraph 1 of the said rticle provides that there $ust %e ph)sical i$possi%ilit) for the hus%and to have se6ual intercourse with the wife within the first 1!& da)s of the "&& da)s following the %irth of the child %ecause of ? a) ph)sical incapacit) of the hus%and to have se6ual intercourse with his wifeB %) hus%and and wife were living separatel) in such a wa) that se6ual intercourse was not possi%leB c) serious illness of the hus%and which prevented se6ual intercourse. 4t was esta%lished %) evidence that the hus%and is a /apanese national and that he was living outside of the countr) (T<#, ug. !., 1888, page 5) and he co$es ho$e onl) once a )ear. Doth evidence of the parties proved that the hus%and was outside the countr) and no evidence was shown that he ever arrived in the countr) in the )ear 188. preceding the %irth of plaintiff /oanne Rod0in Dia1. @hile it $a) also %e argued that plaintiff /in2) had a relationship with another $an %efore she $et the defendant, there is no evidence that she also had se6ual relations with other $en on or a%out the conception of /oanne Rod0in. /oanne Rod0in was her second child (see A6h. E E), so her first child, a certain #icole (according to defendant) $ust have a different father or $a) %e the son of 9asegawa :FuGtsuo. The defendant ad$itted having %een the one who shouldered the hospital %ills representing the e6penses in connection with the %irth of plaintiff. 4t is an evidence of ad$ission that he is the real father of plaintiff. Defendant also ad$itted that even when he stopped going out with /in2), he and /in2) used to go to $otels even after 188(. Defendant also ad$itted that on so$e instances, he still used to see

/in2) after the %irth of /oanne Rod0in. Defendant was even the one who fetched /in2) after she gave %irth to /oanne. 3n the strength of this evidence, the Court finds that /oanne Rod0in is the child of /in2) and defendant Rogelio 3ng and it is %ut 0ust that the latter should support plaintiff.1& 3n 15 Dece$%er !&&&, the RTC rendered a decision and disposed5 @9ARA;3RA, 0udg$ent is here%) rendered declaring /oanne Rod0in Dia1 to %e the illegiti$ate child of defendant Rogelio 3ng with plaintiff /in2) Dia1. The 3rder of this Court awarding support pendente lite dated /une 15, 1888, is here%) affir$ed and that the support should continue until /oanne Rod0in Dia1 shall have reached $a0orit) age. 11 Rogelio filed a 'otion for Reconsideration, which was denied for lac2 of $erit in an 3rder of the trial court dated 18 /anuar) !&&1. 1! ;ro$ the denial of his 'otion for Reconsideration, Rogelio appealed to the Court of ppeals. fter all the responsive pleadings had %een filed, the case was su%$itted for decision and ordered re+raffled to another /ustice for stud) and report as earl) as 1! /ul) !&&!. 1" During the pendenc) of the case with the Court of ppeals, Rogelio*s counsel filed a $anifestation infor$ing the Court that Rogelio died on !1 ;e%ruar) !&&5B hence, a #otice of <u%stitution was filed %) said counsel pra)ing that Rogelio %e su%stituted in the case %) the Astate of Rogelio 3ng,14 which $otion was accordingl) granted %) the Court of ppeals.15 4n a Decision dated !" #ove$%er !&&5, the Court of ppeals held5 @9ARA;3RA, pre$ises considered, the present appeal is here%) ,R #TAD. The appealed Decision dated Dece$%er 15, !&&& of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac, Tarlac, Dranch (" in Civil Case #o. =.88 is here%) <AT <4DA. The case is here%) RA' #DAD to the court a 7uo for the issuance of an order directing the parties to $a2e arrange$ents for D# anal)sis for the purpose of deter$ining the paternit) of plaintiff $inor /oanne Rod0in Dia1, upon consultation and in coordination with la%oratories and e6perts on the field of D# anal)sis.

#o pronounce$ent as to costs.1( Petitioner filed a 'otion for Reconsideration which was denied %) the Court of ppeals in a Resolution dated 1 'arch !&&(. 4n disposing as it did, the Court of follows5 ppeals 0ustified its Decision as

4n this case, records showed that the late defendant+appellant Rogelio ,. 3ng, in the earl) stage of the proceedings volunteered and suggested that he and plaintiff*s $other su%$it the$selves to a D# or %lood testing to settle the issue of paternit), as a sign of good faith. 9owever, the trial court did not consider resorting to this $odern scientific procedure notwithstanding the repeated denials of defendant that he is the %iological father of the plaintiff even as he ad$itted having actual se6ual relations with plaintiff*s $other. @e %elieve that D# paternit) testing, as current 0urisprudence affir$s, would %e the $ost relia%le and effective $ethod of settling the present paternit) dispute. Considering, however, the unti$el) de$ise of defendant+appellant during the pendenc) of this appeal, the trial court, in consultation with out la%oratories and e6perts on the field of D# anal)sis, can possi%l) avail of such procedure with whatever re$aining D# sa$ples fro$ the deceased defendant alleged to %e the putative father of plaintiff $inor whose illegiti$ate filiations is the su%0ect of this action for support.1. 9ence, this petition which raises the following issues for resolution5 4 @9AT9AR 3R #3T T9A C3HRT 3; PPA >< ARRAD @9A# 4T D4D #3T D4<'4<< RA<P3#DA#T*< C3'P> 4#T ;3R C3'PH><3RI RAC3,#4T43# DA<P4TA 4T< ;4#D4#, T9 T T9A A-4DA#CA PRA<A#TAD ; 4>AD T3 PR3-A T9 T R3,A>43 ,. 3#, @ < 9AR ; T9AR. 44 @9AT9AR 3R #3T T9A C3HRT 3; PPA >< ARRAD @9A# 4T D4D #3T DAC> RA RA<P3#DA#T < T9A >A,4T4' TA C94>D 3; /4#:I C. D4 J #D 9AR / P #A<A 9H<D #D,

C3#<4DAR4#, T9 T RA<P3#DA#T ; 4>AD T3 RADHT T9A PRA<H'PT43# 3; 9AR >A,4T4' CI. 444 @9AT9AR 3R #3T T9A C3HRT 3; PPA >< ARRAD @9A# 4T RA' #DAD T9A C <A T3 T9A C3HRT KH3 ;3R D# # >I<4< DA<P4TA T9A ; CT T9 T 4T 4< #3 >3#,AR ;A <4D>A DHA T3 T9A DA T9 3; R3,A>43 ,. 3#,.1= Petitioner pra)s that the present petition %e given due course and the Decision of the Court of ppeals dated #ove$%er !", !&&5 %e $odified, %) setting aside the 0udg$ent re$anding the case to the trial court for D# testing anal)sis, %) dis$issing the co$plaint of $inor /oanne for co$pulsor) recognition, and %) declaring the $inor as the legiti$ate child of /in2) and 9asegawa :atsuo. 18 ;ro$ a$ong the issues presented for our disposition, this Court finds it prudent to concentrate its attention on the third one, the propriet) of the appellate court*s decision re$anding the case to the trial court for the conduct of D# testing. Considering that a definitive result of the D# testing will decisivel) la) to rest the issue of the filiation of $inor /oanne, we see no reason to resolve the first two issues raised %) the petitioner as the) will %e rendered $oot %) the result of the D# testing. s a whole, the present petition calls for the deter$ination of filiation of $inor /oanne for purposes of support in favor of the said $inor. ;iliation proceedings are usuall) filed not 0ust to ad0udicate paternit) %ut also to secure a legal right associated with paternit), such as citi1enship, support (as in the present case), or inheritance. The %urden of proving paternit) is on the person who alleges that the putative father is the %iological father of the child. There are four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternit) action which parties have to face5 a prima facie case, affir$ative defenses, presu$ption of legiti$ac), and ph)sical rese$%lance %etween the putative father and child.!& child %orn to a hus%and and wife during a valid $arriage is presu$ed legiti$ate.!1 s a guarant) in favor of the child and to

protect his status of legiti$ac), provides5

rticle 1(. of the ;a$il) Code

rticle 1(.. The children shall %e considered legiti$ate although the $other $a) have declared against its legiti$ac) or $a) have %een sentenced as an adulteress. The law re7uires that ever) reasona%le presu$ption %e $ade in favor of legiti$ac). @e e6plained the rationale of this rule in the recent case of Cabatania v. Court of Appeals!!5 The presu$ption of legiti$ac) does not onl) flow out of a declaration in the statute %ut is %ased on the %road principles of natural 0ustice and the supposed virtue of the $other. The presu$ption is grounded on the polic) to protect the innocent offspring fro$ the odiu$ of illegiti$ac). The presu$ption of legiti$ac) of the child, however, is not conclusive and conse7uentl), $a) %e overthrown %) evidence to the contrar). 9ence, rticle !55 of the #ew Civil Code!" provides5 rticle !55. Children %orn after one hundred and eight) da)s following the cele%ration of the $arriage, and %efore three hundred da)s following its dissolution or the separation of the spouses shall %e presu$ed to %e legiti$ate. gainst this presu$ption no evidence shall %e ad$itted other than that of the ph)sical i$possi%ilit) of the hus%and*s having access to his wife within the first one hundred and twent) da)s of the three hundred which preceded the %irth of the child. This ph)sical i$possi%ilit) $a) %e caused5 1) D) the i$potence of the hus%andB !) D) the fact that hus%and and wife were living separatel) in such a wa) that access was not possi%leB ") D) the serious illness of the hus%and.!4 The relevant provisions of the ;a$il) Code provide as follows5

RT. 1.!. The filiation of legiti$ate children is esta%lished %) an) of the following5 (1) The record of %irth appearing in the civil register or a final 0udg$entB or (!) n ad$ission of legiti$ate filiation in a pu%lic docu$ent or a private handwritten instru$ent and signed %) the parent concerned. 4n the a%sence of the foregoing evidence, the legiti$ate filiation shall %e proved %)5 (1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legiti$ate childB or (!) n) other $eans allowed %) the Rules of Court and special laws. RT. 1.5. 4llegiti$ate children $a) esta%lish their illegiti$ate filiation in the sa$e wa) and on the sa$e evidence as legiti$ate children. There had %een divergent and incongruent state$ents and assertions %andied a%out %) the parties to the present petition. Dut with the advance$ent in the field of genetics, and the availa%ilit) of new technolog), it can now %e deter$ined with reasona%le certaint) whether Rogelio is the %iological father of the $inor, through D# testing. D# is the funda$ental %uilding %loc2 of a person*s entire genetic $a2e+up. D# is found in all hu$an cells and is the sa$e in ever) cell of the sa$e person. ,enetic identit) is uni7ue. 9ence, a person*s D# profile can deter$ine his identit). !5 D# anal)sis is a procedure in which D# e6tracted fro$ a %iological sa$ple o%tained fro$ an individual is e6a$ined. The D# is processed to generate a pattern, or a D# profile, for the individual fro$ who$ the sa$ple is ta2en. This D# profile is uni7ue for each person, e6cept for identical twins. Aver)one is %orn with a distinct genetic %lueprint called D# (deo6)ri%onucleic acid). 4t is e6clusive to an individual (e6cept in the rare occurrence of identical twins that share a single, fertili1ed egg),

and D# is unchanging throughout life. Deing a co$ponent of ever) cell in the hu$an %od), the D# of an individual*s %lood is the ver) D# in his or her s2in cells, hair follicles, $uscles, se$en, sa$ples fro$ %uccal swa%s, saliva, or other %od) parts. The che$ical structure of D# has four %ases. The) are 2nown as ( denine), , (guanine), C (c)stosine) and T (th)$ine). The order in which the four %ases appear in an individual*s D# deter$ines his or her ph)sical $a2e up. nd since D# is a dou%le stranded $olecule, it is co$posed of two specific paired %ases, +T or T+ and ,+C or C+ ,. These are called Egenes.E Aver) gene has a certain nu$%er of the a%ove %ase pairs distri%uted in a particular se7uence. This gives a person his or her genetic code. <o$ewhere in the D# fra$ewor2, nonetheless, are sections that differ. The) are 2nown as E polymorphic loci,E which are the areas anal)1ed in D# t)ping (profiling, tests, fingerprinting). 4n other words, D# t)ping si$pl) $eans deter$ining the E polymorphic loci.E 9ow is D# t)ping perfor$edL ;ro$ a D# sa$ple o%tained or e6tracted, a $olecular %iologist $a) proceed to anal)1e it in several wa)s. There are five (5) techni7ues to conduct D# t)ping. The) are5 the R;>P (restriction fragment length polymorphism )B Ereverse dot blotE or 9> DK aCP$ loci which was used in !=. cases that were ad$itted as evidence %) ". courts in the H.<. as of #ove$%er 1884B D# processB -#TR (varia%le nu$%er tande$ repeats)B and the $ost recent which is 2nown as the PCR+(Fpol)$eraseG chain reaction) %ased <TR (short tande$ repeats) $ethod which, as of 188(, was availed of %) $ost forensic la%oratories in the world. PCR is the process of replicating or cop)ing D# in an evidence sa$ple a $illion ti$es through repeated c)cling of a reaction involving the so+ called D# pol)$eri1e en1)$e. STR, on the other hand, ta2es $easure$ents in 1" separate places and can $atch two (!) sa$ples with a reported theoretical error rate of less than one (1) in a trillion. /ust li2e in fingerprint anal)sis, in D# t)ping, E matchesE are deter$ined. To illustrate, when D# or fingerprint tests are done to identif) a suspect in a cri$inal case, the evidence collected fro$ the cri$e scene is co$pared with the E knownE print. 4f a su%stantial a$ount of the identif)ing features are the sa$e, the D# or

fingerprint is dee$ed to %e a $atch. Dut then, even if onl) one feature of the D# or fingerprint is different, it is dee$ed not to have co$e fro$ the suspect. s earlier stated, certain regions of hu$an D# show variations %etween people. 4n each of these regions, a person possesses two genetic t)pes called Eallele,E one inherited fro$ each parent. 4n FaG paternit) test, the forensic scientist loo2s at a nu$%er of these varia%le regions in an individual to produce a D# profile. Co$paring ne6t the D# profiles of the $other and child, it is possi%le to deter$ine which half of the child*s D# was inherited fro$ the $other. The other half $ust have %een inherited fro$ the %iological father. The alleged father*s profile is then e6a$ined to ascertain whether he has the D# t)pes in his profile, which $atch the paternal t)pes in the child. 4f the $an*s D# t)pes do not $atch that of the child, the $an is e6cluded as the father. 4f the D# t)pes $atch, then he is not e6cluded as the father.!( 4n the newl) pro$ulgated rules on D# evidence it is provided5 <AC. " Definition of Terms. ? ;or purposes of this Rule, the following ter$s shall %e defined as follows5 6666 (c) ED# evidenceE constitutes the totalit) of the D# profiles, results and other genetic infor$ation directl) generated fro$ D# testing of %iological sa$plesB (d) ED# profileE $eans genetic infor$ation derived fro$ D# testing of a %iological sa$ple o%tained fro$ a person, which %iological sa$ple is clearl) identifia%le as originating fro$ that personB (e) ED# testingE $eans verified and credi%le scientific $ethods which include the e6traction of D# fro$ %iological sa$ples, the generation of D# profiles and the co$parison of the infor$ation o%tained fro$ the D# testing of %iological sa$ples for the purpose of deter$ining, with reasona%le certaint), whether or not the D# o%tained fro$ two or $ore distinct %iological sa$ples originates fro$ the sa$e person (direct identification) or if the %iological sa$ples originate fro$ related persons (2inship anal)sis)B and

(f) EPro%a%ilit) of ParentageE $eans the nu$erical esti$ate for the li2elihood of parentage of a putative parent co$pared with the pro%a%ilit) of a rando$ $atch of two unrelated individuals in a given population. $idst the protestation of petitioner against the D# anal)sis, the resolution thereof $a) provide the definitive 2e) to the resolution of the issue of support for $inor /oanne. 3ur articulation in Agustin v. Court of Appeals!. is particularl) relevant, thus5 3ur faith in D# testing, however, was not 7uite so steadfast in the previous decade. 4n Pe >i$ v. Court of ppeals (""( Phil. .41, !.& <CR 1), pro$ulgated in 188., we cautioned against the use of D# %ecause ED# , %eing a relativel) new science, (had) not as )et %een accorded official recognition %) our courts. Paternit) (would) still have to %e resolved %) such conventional evidence as the relevant incri$inating acts,ver%al and written, %) the putative father.E 4n !&&1, however, we opened the possi%ilit) of ad$itting D# as evidence of parentage, as enunciated in Ti ing v. Court of Appeals F,.R. #o. 1!58&1, = 'arch !&&1, "54 <CR 1.G5 6 6 6 Parentage will still %e resolved using conventional $ethods unless we adopt the $odern and scientific wa)s availa%le. ;ortunatel), we have now the facilit) and e6pertise in using D# test for identification and parentage testing. The Hniversit) of the Philippines #atural <cience Research 4nstitute (HP+#<R4) D# nal)sis >a%orator) has now the capa%ilit) to conduct D# t)ping using short tande$ repeat (<TR) anal)sis. The anal)sis is %ased on the fact that the D# of a childCperson has two (!) copies, one cop) fro$ the $other and the other fro$ the father. The D# fro$ the $other, the alleged father and child are anal)1ed to esta%lish parentage. 3f course, %eing a novel scientific techni7ue, the use of D# test as evidence is still open to challenge. Aventuall), as the appropriate case co$es, courts should not hesitate to rule on the ad$issi%ilit) of D# evidence. ;or it was said, that courts should appl) the results of science when co$petentl) o%tained in aid of situations presented, since to re0ect said results is to den) progress. The first real %rea2through of D# as ad$issi%le and authoritative

evidence in Philippine 0urisprudence ca$e in !&&! with out en banc decision in !eople v. "alle o F,.R. #o. 144(5(, 8 'a) !&&!, "=! <CR 18!G where the rape and $urder victi$*s D# sa$ples fro$ the %loodstained clothes of the accused were ad$itted in evidence. @e reasoned that Ethe purpose of D# testing (was) to ascertain whether an association e6ist(ed) %etween the evidence sa$ple and the reference sa$ple. The sa$ples collected (were) su%0ected to various che$ical processes to esta%lish their profile. )ear later, in !eople v. #anson F,.R. #o. 1!58"=, 4 pril !&&", 4&& <CR 5=4G, we ac7uitted the accused charged with rape for lac2 of evidence %ecause Edou%ts persist(ed) in our $ind as to who (were) the real $alefactors. Ies, a co$ple6 offense (had) %een perpetrated %ut who (were) the perpetratorsL 9ow we wish we had D# or other scientific evidence to still our dou%ts.E 4n !&&4, in Tecson$ et al. v. C%&'('C F,.R. #os. 1(14"4, 1(1("4 and 1(1=!4, " 'arch !&&4, 4!4 <CR !..G, where the Court en banc was faced with the issue of filiation of then presidential candidate ;ernando Poe, /r., we stated5 4n case proof of filiation or paternit) would %e unli2el) to satisfactoril) esta%lish or would %e difficult to o%tain, D# testing, which e6a$ines genetic codes o%tained fro$ %od) cells of the illegiti$ate child and an) ph)sical residue of the long dead parent could %e resorted to. positive $atch would clear up filiation or paternit). 4n Ti ing v. Court of Appeals, this Court has ac2nowledged the strong weight of D# testing... 'oreover, in our en %anc decision in !eople v. )atar F,.R. #o. 15&!!4, 18 'a) !&&4, 4!= <CR 5&4G, we affir$ed the conviction of the accused for rape with ho$icide, the principal evidence for which included D# test results. 6 6 6. Co$ing now to the issue of re$and of the case to the trial court, petitioner 7uestions the appropriateness of the order %) the Court of ppeals directing the re$and of the case to the RTC for D# testing given that petitioner has alread) died. Petitioner argues that a re$and of the case to the RTC for D# anal)sis is no longer feasi%le due to the death of Rogelio. To our $ind, the alleged i$possi%ilit) of

co$pl)ing with the order of re$and for purposes of D# testing is $ore ostensi%le than real. Petitioner*s argu$ent is without %asis especiall) as the #ew Rules on D# Avidence != allows the conduct of D# testing, either motu proprio or upon application of an) person who has a legal interest in the $atter in litigation, thus5 <AC. 4. Application for D*A Testing %rder. ? The appropriate court $a), at an) ti$e, either motu proprio or on application of an) person who has a legal interest in the $atter in litigation, order a D# testing. <uch order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following5 (a) %iological sa$ple e6ists that is relevant to the caseB

(%) The %iological sa$ple5 (i) was not previousl) su%0ected to the t)pe of D# testing now re7uestedB or (ii) was previousl) su%0ected to D# testing, %ut the results $a) re7uire confir$ation for good reasonsB (c) The D# testing uses a scientificall) valid techni7ueB (d) The D# testing has the scientific potential to produce new infor$ation that is relevant to the proper resolution of the caseB and (e) The e6istence of other factors, if an), which the court $a) consider as potentiall) affecting the accurac) or integrit) of the D# testing. ;ro$ the foregoing, it can %e said that the death of the petitioner does not ipso facto negate the application of D# testing for as long as there e6ist appropriate %iological sa$ples of his D# . s defined a%ove, the ter$ E%iological sa$pleE $eans an) organic $aterial originating fro$ a person*s %od), even if found in inani$ate o%0ects, that is suscepti%le to D# testing. This includes %lood, saliva, and other %od) fluids, tissues, hairs and %ones. !8 Thus, even if Rogelio alread) died, an) of the %iological sa$ples as enu$erated a%ove as $a) %e availa%le, $a) %e used for D# testing. 4n this case, petitioner has not shown the i$possi%ilit) of o%taining an appropriate %iological sa$ple that can %e utili1ed for the

conduct of D# testing. nd even the death of Rogelio cannot %ar the conduct of D# testing. 4n !eople v. +manito,"& citing Tecson v. Commission on 'lections$"1 this Court held5 The !&&4 case of Tecson v. Commission on 'lections F,.R. #o. 1(14"4, " 'arch !&&4, 4!4 <CR !..G li2ewise reiterated the acceptance of D# testing in our 0urisdiction in this wise5 EFiGn case proof of filiation or paternit) would %e unli2el) to satisfactoril) esta%lish or would %e difficult to o%tain, D# testing, which e6a$ines genetic codes o%tained fro$ %od) cells of the illegiti$ate child and 'n$ &$!ic'. re!i#(e o/ "&e .on0 #e'# 'ren" co(.# be re!or"e# "o.E 4t is o%vious to the Court that the deter$ination of whether appellant is the father of *s child, which $a) %e acco$plished through D# testing, is $aterial to the fair and correct ad0udication of the instant appeal. Hnder <ection 4 of the Rules, the courts are authori1ed, after due hearing and notice, motu proprio to order a D# testing. 9owever, while this Court retains 0urisdiction over the case at %ar, capacitated as it is to receive and act on the $atter in controvers), the <upre$e Court is not a trier of facts and does not, in the course of dail) routine, conduct hearings. 9ence, it would %e $ore appropriate that the case %e re$anded to the RTC for reception of evidence in appropriate hearings, with due notice to the parties. (A$phasis supplied.) s we have declared in the said case of Agustin v. Court of Appeals"!5 6 6 6 F;Gor too long, illegiti$ate children have %een $arginali1ed %) fathers who choose to den) their e6istence. The growing sophistication of D# testing technolog) finall) provides a $uch needed e7uali1er for such ostraci1ed and a%andoned progen). @e have long %elieved in the $erits of D# testing and have repeatedl) e6pressed as $uch in the past. This case co$es at a perfect ti$e when D# testing has finall) evolved into a dependa%le and authoritative for$ of evidence gathering. @e therefore ta2e this opportunit) to forcefull) reiterate our stand that D# testing is a valid $eans of deter$ining paternit).

1%EREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lac2 of $erit. The Decision of the Court of ppeals dated !" #ove$%er !&&5 and its Resolution dated 1 'arch !&&( are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. )nares,Santiago$ Chairperson$ Austria,&artine-$$ *achura$ Reyes$ ##.$ concur.