Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

C.

Types
1. With a Search Warrant
d. Things that may be seized
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE
SECTION 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply
whenever DNA evidence, as defined in
Section 3 hereof, is offered, used, or
proposed to be offered or used as evidence in
all criminal and civil actions as well as special
proceedings.
Sec. 2. Application of other Rules on
Evidence. In all matters not specifically
covered by this Rule, the Rules of Court and
other pertinent provisions of law on evidence
shall apply.
Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. For purposes of
this Rule, the following terms shall be defined
as follows:
Biological sample means any organic
material originating from a persons body,
even if found in inanimate objects, that is
susceptible to DNA testing. This includes
blood, saliva and other body fluids, tissues,
hairs and bones;
DNA means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is
the chain of molecules found in every
nucleated cell of the body. The totality of an
individuals DNA is unique for the individual,
except identical twins;
DNA evidence constitutes the totality of the
DNA profiles, results and other genetic
information directly generated from DNA
testing of biological samples;
DNA profile means genetic information
derived from DNA testing of a biological
sample obtained from a person, which
biological sample is clearly identifiable as
originating from that person;
DNA testing means verified and credible
scientific
methods
which
include
the
extraction of DNA from biological samples,
the generation of DNA profiles and the
comparison of the information obtained from
the DNA testing of biological samples for the
purpose of determining, with reasonable
certainty, whether or not the DNA obtained

from two or more distinct biological samples


originates from the same person (direct
identification) or if the biological samples
originate from related persons (kinship
analysis); and
Probability of Parentage means the
numerical estimate for the likelihood of
parentage of a putative parent compared
with the probability of a random match of two
unrelated individuals in a given population.
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:
A biological sample exists that is relevant to
the case;
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;
The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid
technique;
The DNA testing has the scientific potential to
produce new information that is relevant to
the proper resolution of the case; and
The existence of other factors, if any, which
the court may consider as potentially
affecting the accuracy of integrity of the DNA
testing.
This 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.
Sec. 5. DNA Testing Order. If the court finds
that the requirements in Section 4 hereof
have been complied with, the court shall
Order, where appropriate, that biological
samples be taken from any person or crime
scene evidence;
Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing
designed to protect the integrity of the
biological sample, the testing process and the
reliability of the test results, including the
condition that the DNA test results shall be
simultaneously disclosed to parties involved

in the case; and


If the biological sample taken is of such an
amount that prevents the conduct of
confirmatory testing by the other or the
adverse party and where additional biological
samples of the same kind can no longer be
obtained, issue an order requiring all parties
to the case or proceedings to witness the
DNA testing to be conducted.
An order granting the DNA testing shall be
immediately executory and shall not be
appealable. Any petition for certiorari
initiated therefrom shall not, in any way, stay
the implementation thereof, unless a higher
court issues an injunctive order. The grant of
DNA testing application shall not be
construed as an automatic admission into
evidence of any component of the DNA
evidence that may be obtained as a result
thereof.
Sec. 6. Post-conviction DNA Testing. Postconviction DNA testing may be available,
without need of prior court order, to the
prosecution or any person convicted by final
and executory judgment provided that (a) a
biological sample exists, (b) such sample is
relevant to the case, and (c) the testing
would probably result in the reversal or
modification of the judgment of conviction.
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 chair of custody, including how the
biological samples were collected, how they
were handled, and the possibility of
contamination of the samples;
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;
The forensic DNA laboratory, including
accreditation by any reputable standardssetting 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
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:
The falsifiability of the principles or methods
used, that is, whether the theory or technique
can be and has been tested;
The subjection to peer review and publication
of the principles or methods;
The general acceptance of the principles or
methods
by
the
relevant
scientific
community;
The existence and maintenance of standards
and controls to ensure the correctness of
data generated;
The existence of an appropriate reference
population database; and
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.
Sec. 9. of DNA Testing Results. In evaluating
the results of DNA testing, the court shall
consider the following:
The evaluation of the weight of matching
DNA
evidence
or
the
relevance
of
mismatching DNA evidence;
The results of the DNA testing in the light of
the totality of the other evidence presented
in the case; and that
DNA results that exclude the putative parent
from paternity shall be conclusive proof of
non-paternity. If the value of the Probability of
Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the
DNA testing shall be considered as
corroborative evidence. If the value of the
Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher
there shall be a disputable presumption of
paternity.
Sec. 10. Post-conviction DNA Testing
Remedy if the Results Are Favorable to the
Convict. The convict or the prosecution may
file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in

the court of origin if the results of the postconviction DNA testing are favorable to the
convict. In the case the court, after due
hearing finds the petition to be meritorious, if
shall reverse or modify the judgment of
conviction and order the release of the
convict, unless continued detention is
justified for a lawful cause.
A similar petition may be filed either in the
Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or
with any member of said courts, which may
conduct a hearing thereon or remand the
petition to the court of origin and issue the
appropriate orders.
Sec. 11. Confidentiality. DNA profiles and all
results or other information obtained from
DNA testing shall be confidential. Except
upon order of the court, a DNA profile and all
results or other information obtained from
DNA testing shall only be released to any of
the following, under such terms and
conditions as may be set forth by the court:
Person from whom the sample was taken;
Person from whom the sample was taken;
Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal
action;
Duly authorized law enforcement agencies;
and
Other persons as determined by the court.
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.
Where the person from whom the biological
sample was taken files a written verified
request to the court that allowed the DNA
testing for the disclosure of the DNA profile of
the person and all results or other
information obtained from the DNA testing,
he same may be disclosed to the persons
named in the written verified request.
Sec. 12. Preservation of DNA Evidence. The
trial court shall preserve the DNA evidence in
its totality, including all biological samples,
DNA profiles and results or other genetic

information obtained from DNA testing. For


this purpose, the court may order the
appropriate government agency to preserve
the DNA evidence as follows:
In criminal cases:
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;
In all other cases, until such time as the
decision in the case where the DNA evidence
was introduced has become final and
executory.
The court may allow the physical destruction
of a biological sample before the expiration of
the periods set forth above, provided that:
A court order to that effect has been secured;
or
The person from whom the DNA sample was
obtained has consented in writing to the
disposal of the DNA evidence.
Sec. 13. Applicability to Pending Cases.
Except as provided in Section 6 and 10
hereof, this Rule shall apply to cases pending
at the time of its effectivity.
Sec. 14. Effectivity. This Rule shall take effect
on October 15, 2007, following publication in
a newspaper of general circulation.
PEOPLE v. UMANITO (2009)
Case Brief. Umanito was convicted for rape,
which rape resulted in the plaintiffs pregnancy.
In his appeal to the SC, court resolved to apply
the then recently promulgated New Rules on
DNA Evidence to determine whether Umanito is
the father of plaintiffs child. On remand, the
trial court ruled that Umanito was the biological
father based on the result of the DNA analysis.
SC herein granted Umanitos motion to
withdraw appeal, whereby he is deemed to
have acceded to the rulings of the RTC
Doctrine. Under Section 9, A.M. No. 06-11-5SC, if the value of the Probability of Paternity is
99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable
presumption of paternity
Buccal swab after arrest
MARYLAND v. KING

Case Brief. After his 2009 arrest on first- and


second-degree assault charges, respondent
King was processed through a Wicomico
County, Maryland, facility, where booking
personnel used a cheek swab to take a DNA
sample pursuant to the Maryland DNA
Collection Act (Act). The swab was matched to
an unsolved 2003 rape, and King was charged
with that crime. He moved to suppress the DNA
match, arguing that the Act violated the Fourth
Amendment, but the Circuit Court Judge found
the law constitutional. King was convicted of
rape. The Maryland Court of Appeals set aside
the conviction, finding unconstitutional the
portions of the Act authorizing DNA collection
from felony arrestees. The Supreme Court
reversed the CA.
Doctrine. When officers make an arrest
supported by probable cause to hold for a
serious offense and bring the suspect to the
station to be detained in custody, taking and
analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestees DNA
is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a
legitimate police booking procedure that is
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment
Blood Test for DUI
MISSOURI v. McNEELY
Case Brief. Respondent McNeely was stopped
by Missouri police for over speeding and
crossing the centerline. After declining to take
a breath test to measure his blood alcohol
concentration (BAC), he was arrested and taken
to a nearby hospital for blood testing.The
officer never attempted to secure a search
warrant. McNeely refused to consent to the
blood test but the officer instructed the lab
technician to take a sample. McNeelys BAC
tested well above the legal limit, and he was
charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI).
He moved to suppress the blood test result,
arguing that taking his blood without a warrant
violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Trial
Court agreed as well as the State Supreme
Court.
Doctrine. The warrant requirement is subject
to
exceptions.
One
well-recognized
exception, and the one at issue in this case,
applies when the exigencies of the situation
make the needs of law enforcement so
compelling that a warrantless search is
objectively reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment.
e. Form and content of warrant; lifetime

Rule 126, Sec. 1 Search warrant defined.


A search warrant is an order in writing issued
in the name of the People of the Philippines,
signed by a judge and directed to a peace
officer, commanding him to search for
personal property described therein and bring
it before the court
Sec. 6 Issuance and form of search warrant.
If the judge is satisfied of the existence of
facts upon which the application is based or
that there is probable cause to believe that
they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which
must be substantially in the form prescribed
by these Rules.
Sec. 10 Validity of search warrant. A
search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days
from its date. Thereafter it shall be void
BACHE v. RUIZ, supra
MUSTANG LUMBER v. CA
Case Brief. Petitioner was found in possession
of lumber without the required documents
under the law. Their lumber-dealer permit was
suspended. They were caught again after said
suspension, with lumber without the required
documents, which they were going to sell.
Petitioner argued that lumber was not under
the coverage of Sec 78 of PD 705, and that the
searches and seizures were invalid. The Court
held that lumber was under the coverage of
the same, and that the searches and seizures
were valid.
Doctrine. Rule 126 Sec 10. Validity of search
warrant A search warrant shall be valid for 10
days from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void.
When the search under a warrant on one day
was interrupted, it may be continued under the
same warrant the following day, provided it is
still within the ten-day period
f. Validity of Warrant
PEOPLE v. ESTRADA, supra
PEOPLE v. CA, supra
g. Scope of Search with Warrant of Arrest
VALEROSO v. CA
Case Brief. Petitioner Valeroso was caught
with illegal possession of fire arm. He questions
the validity of the evidence for being in breach
of his constitutional right against unlawful
search and seizure. Supreme Court agrees with

him and rules that the scope of warrantless


arrests has limits.
DOCTRINE. As a general rule, the procurement
of a warrant is required before a law enforcer

can validly search or seize the person, house,


papers, or effects of any individual. We would
like to stress that the scope of the warrantless
search is not without limitations

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen