PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, versus ALFREDO PASCUAL

Y ILDEFONSO, G.R. No. 172326 | 2009-01-19

profiling. She explained in her testimony that generally, with the

vaginal smear, they could see if there is a male profile in the smear.
However in this case, when they received the vaginal smear on the
stained slide, the same had already undergone serological analysis.

FACTS: The conviction of accused-appellant stemmed from an

Hence, according to the chemist, the DNA testing conducted on the

Amended Information dated February 23, 2001, filed with the RTC

specimen subject of this case was inconclusive.[40] In light of this

for the crime designated as Rape with Homicide and Robbery. During

flawed procedure, we hold that the result of the DNA examination

trial, the defense presentedas witness, Aida Viloria-Magsipoc,

does not entitle accused-appellant to an acquittal.

forensic chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

------------------------------------------------------

Said witness testified on the result of the DNA analysis which she
conducted on the specimens submitted by the trial court consisting of

JESSE U. LUCAS, vs. JESUS S. LUCAS,

the victim's vaginal smear and panty. According to her, no DNA

G.R. No. 190710 | 2011-06-06

sample from the suspect was present on the aforesaid specimens.[8]

On cross-examination, she declared that based on DNA testing, she
could not determine if a woman was raped or not. She further

FACTS: Petitioner, Jesse U. Lucas, filed a Petition to Establish

declared that in this case, it was possible that the stained vaginal

Illegitimate Filiation (with Motion for the Submission of Parties to

smear prevented a complete and good result for the DNA profiling.

DNA Testing)2 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72,

Upon being questioned by the court, the forensic chemist confirmed

Valenzuela City. The RTC, finding the petition to be sufficient in

that DNA testing on the subject specimens was inconclusive and that

form and substance, issued the Order3 setting the case for hearing and

the result was not good, as the specimens submitted, i.e., the stained

urging anyone who has any objection to the petition to file his

vaginal smear and the dirty white panty, had already undergone

opposition. After learning of the September 3, 2007 Order,

serological analysis.[9]

respondent

Jesus

Lucas

filed

motion

for

reconsideration. Respondent argued that DNA testing cannot be had

The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the trial court's

on the basis of a mere allegation pointing to respondent as petitioner's

decision. Hence, accused-appellant seeks for a final review of his

father. Moreover, jurisprudence is still unsettled on the acceptability

case and makes much of the result of the DNA analysis conducted by

of DNA evidence.

the NBI that his profile was not in the victim's vaginal smear. As
such, he argues he is innocent of the crime charged.

The court dismissed respondent's arguments that there is no basis for

the taking of DNA test, and that jurisprudence is still unsettled on the

ISSUE: Does the result of the DNA examination entitle the accused-

acceptability of DNA evidence. It noted that the new Rule on DNA

appellant to an acquittal?

Evidence11 allows the conduct of DNA testing, whether at the court's

instance or upon application of any person who has legal interest in

RULING: In People v Yatar, the Supreme Court held that in assessing

the matter in litigation.

the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, inter

alia, the following factors: how the samples were collected, how they

ISSUE: Is a prima facie showing necessary before a court can issue a

were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the

DNA testing order?

procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper

standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and

RULING: The Rule on DNA Evidence was enacted to guide the

the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.[39]

Bench and the Bar for the introduction and use of DNA evidence in
the judicial system. It provides the "prescribed parameters on the

In the case at bar, while the DNA analysis of the victim's vaginal

requisite elements for reliability and validity (i.e., the proper

smear showed no complete profile of the accused-appellant, the same

procedures, protocols, necessary laboratory reports, etc.), the possible

is not conclusive considering that said specimen was already stained

sources of error, the available objections to the admission of DNA

or contaminated which, according to the forensic chemist, Aida

test results as evidence as well as the probative value of DNA

Villoria-Magsipoc, deters a complete and good result for DNA

evidence." It seeks "to ensure that the evidence gathered, using

various methods of DNA analysis, is utilized effectively and properly,

Sandiganbayan (5th Division), the Court stated, "Section 5, Rule 110

[and] shall not be misused and/or abused and, more importantly, shall

of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure expressly provides that

continue to ensure that DNA analysis serves justice and protects,

all criminal action shall be prosecuted under the direction and control

rather than prejudice the public."

35

of the fiscal and what prosecution evidence should be presented

during the trial depends solely upon the discretion of the

As a preliminary matter, before the court may issue an order for

prosecutor."34 The DNA test is not essential, while there exists other

compulsory blood testing, the moving party must show that there is a

evidence pinning down accused-appellant as the perpetrator. Indeed,

reasonable possibility of paternity. As explained hereafter, in cases in

if he honestly thought that the DNA test could have proved his

which paternity is contested and a party to the action refuses to

innocence, he could have asked for the conduct of said test during his

voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing must be held

trial, instead of belatedly raising it on appeal, and attempting to

in which the court can determine whether there is sufficient evidence

dictate upon the prosecution what course of actions it should have

to establish a prima facie case which warrants issuance of a court

undertaken.

37

order for blood testing. This condition precedent should be applied

to protect the putative father from mere harassment suits. Thus,
during the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must
present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of
paternity.

The identification of an accused by an eyewitness is a vital piece of

evidence and most decisive of the success or failure of the case for
the prosecution. But even while significant, an eyewitness
identification, which authors not infrequently would describe to be
"inherently suspect," is not as accurate and authoritative as the
scientific forms of identification evidence like by fingerprint or by
DNA testing.35 x x x

Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the issuance of a

DNA testing order remains discretionary upon the court. The court
may, for example, consider whether there is absolute necessity for the
DNA testing. If there is already preponderance of evidence to
establish paternity and the DNA test result would only be
corroborative, the court may, in its discretion, disallow a DNA

While a DNA test might have been more conclusive, the cited case
did not mandate DNA testing in place of eyewitness testimony. In
that particular case, scientific forms of identification were held to be
preferable over eyewitness testimony, as pictures of the accused were
what were presented for identification, so the testimony of the
witness was tainted. The holding of a DNA test was never in issue.

testing.
People of the Philippines vs. Juanito Cabigquez y
Alastra

G.R. No. 185708 | 2010-09-29

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FEDERICO LUCERO

G.R. No. 188705 | 2011-03-02

FACTS: JUANITO CABIGQUEZ Y ALASTRA ALIAS

FACTS: Accused Lucero was charged with the crime of Rape with

"DODOY", was charged with the crime of RAPE and

Homicide which allegedly occured on or about June 7, 1997, in the

Robbery. During the trial or on October 21, 2002, the

Municipality of Tagum, Davao, against AAA, an eighteen (18) year

trial court, on motion by the defense, ordered the

old girl. The trial court held that enough circumstantial evidence was

National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Manila to

presented to prove the guilt of the accused, and rendered its Decision

conduct a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis on the

finding the accused guilty. Said ruling of the trial court were affirmed

sperm taken from AAA's vagina. On May 21, 2003, NBI

by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this appeal was filed where Lucero

Forensic Chemist III Aida Viloria Magsipoc testified that

claims as his defense that a DNA test should have been done to match

the sample collected from AAA did not match

the spermatozoa found in the victim's body to a sample taken from

Cabigquez's DNA profile since the specimen submitted

him, and that since no DNA test was done, he cannot be linked to the

to them were mere vaginal discharges from AAA.27

crime.

Nevertheless, the trial court rendered judgment

ISSUE: Whether or not a DNA test should have been conducted by

the prosecution so as to erase all doubts as to the identity of the
perpetrator.
RULING: It is not for accused-appellant to determine which evidence
or testimony the prosecution should present. In Loguinsa, Jr. v.

convicting Cabigquez of the crimes charged. The Court

of Appeals upheld the RTC in convicting appellant of
both crimes of robbery and rape.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cabiguez should be convicted of
the crime of Rape filed against him.

RULING: Yes. The factual findings of the lower courts

indubitably prove that appellant raped AAA even if the
specimen obtained from the vaginal swabs and
submitted to the NBI failed to match appellant's DNA
profile. Rape is committed by a man who shall have
carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat or
intimidation.35 The commission of rape was clearly
shown by testimonial and documentary evidence; the
defense submits that it is the identity of the
perpetrator which is not duly established.
For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA
identification is indeed a fertile source of both
inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. 36 In this case,
however, the result of the DNA test is rendered
inconclusive to exculpate or inculpate the appellant
since the sample tested by the NBI merely contained
vaginal discharges. In the laboratory test earlier
conducted by Dr. Villapae on the vaginal swab
obtained from AAA's genitalia, the presence of
spermatozoa was confirmed. This notwithstanding, the
totality of evidence satisfactorily established that it
was indeed appellant who raped AAA.
AAA's daughter, BBB, who witnessed the entire
incident which happened inside their store on the night
in question, positively identified appellant as the one
who raped her mother against the latter's will by
threatening her and her children with a handgun he
was then carrying. BBB's unflinching and consistent
testimony, when taken together with Dr. Villapae's
findings and AAA's own declarations in court, provides
sufficient basis for the conviction of appellant for rape.
NOVER BRYAN SALVADOR y DE LEON vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 164266 | July 23, 2008
FACTS: At 4:30 in the morning of September 21, 1997, the
Zuiga spouses and their daughter Marianne arrived home. They
opened the main door which was then locked. After preparing for
sleep, Marianne proceeded to the room which she was sharing with
her sister Arlene. There she saw Arlene, who suffered stab wounds,
already dead. After investigation, the police found no forcible entry
into the house; no valuables were missing; and no bloodstains in
other parts of the house except Arlenes room. They likewise
discovered, on top of the kitchen table, Salvadors underwear (briefs),
gray t-shirt and short pants.[7] They further found hair strands on
Arlenes bed. These pieces of evidence were brought to the
laboratory for examination.

The NBI Forensic Biologist examined Salvadors briefs, t-shirt

and short pants, and found that the briefs and shirt were positive of
type O human blood, Arlenes blood type. [10] The NBI Forensic
Chemist, subsequently, conducted DNA Analysis on
One (1) dirty
white Hanford brief[s] which yeiled a negative result for the presence
of human DNA; One (1) light gray t-shirt with DKNY print in front,
several strands of hair allegedly recovered in the bedroom of [the]
victim, and Buccal swabs taken from the victims parents and from
Salvador, all of which yielded positive results.
Salvador was thus charged with Homicide and was found
guilty of the same by the Regional Trial Court.
On appeal, the CA affirmed petitioners conviction and further
held that THE MOST CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF THE
PROSECUTION IS THE RESULT OF THE DNA ANALYSIS
CONDUCTED BY THE NBI FORENSIC CHEMIST.
ISSUE: Whether or not Salvador is guilty of the
crime of Homicide.
RULING: Yes. All the circumstances must be consistent with
one another, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty,
and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is
innocent. Thus, conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be
upheld, provided that the circumstances proven constitute an
unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion
that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty
person.[20]
In the present case, both the trial and appellate courts
considered these pieces of evidence in finding petitioners guilt: 1)
the non-employment of force in entering the scene of the crime; 2) no
missing personal belongings; 3) the absence of bloodstains in other
parts of the house except Arlenes room; 4) petitioners ownership of
a balisong, the same weapon used in stabbing the victim; 5) the
presence of type O human blood on petitioners T-shirt and briefs;
6) the positive result of the DNA analysis using the bloodstains found
in petitioners shirt and briefs; and 7) petitioners unusual behavior
after the discovery of the victims lifeless body.[21]
The DNA analysis made by the NBI expert placed the
petitioner at the scene of the crime. Such evidence was considered,
together with the other circumstances discussed earlier. The
individual pieces of evidence may not be sufficient to point to the
accused as the author of the crime. However, when taken together,
they are more than enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
petitioner committed the crime of homicide. We would like to
emphasize at this point that the peculiarity of circumstantial evidence
is that the guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing
just one particular piece of evidence. It is more like a puzzle which,
when put together, reveals a remarkable picture pointing towards the
conclusion that the accused is the author of the crime. [29]
The prosecutions evidence, especially the testimonies of
the witnesses who happen to be the victims relatives, was not
weakened by the fact of such relationship. The Court notes that
petitioner himself is a relative of the witnesses, albeit by affinity,
being the husband of the victims sister. It is unnatural for a relative,
who is interested in vindicating the crime, to accuse somebody else
other than the real culprit. For her/him to do so is to let the guilty go
free.[30] Where there is nothing to indicate that witnesses were
actuated by improper motives on the witness stand, their positive
declarations made under solemn oath deserve full faith and credence.
[31]