1. ROSENDO HERRERA, petitioner, vs.

ROSENDO ALBA, minor, represented by his mother

ARMI A. ALBA, and HON. NIMFA CUESTA-VILCHES, Presiding Judge, Branch 48, Regional
Trial Court, Manila, respondents. (G.R. No. 148220. June 15, 2005)

Facts: On 14 May 1998, then thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba (respondent), represented by his mother
Armi Alba, filed before the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition, support and damages against
petitioner, Rosendo Herrera. On 7 August 1998, petitioner filed his answer with counterclaim where he
denied that he is the biological father of respondent. Petitioner also denied physical contact with
respondent’s mother. Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to
abbreviate the proceedings. To support the motion, respondent presented the testimony of Saturnina C.
Halos, Ph.D In her testimony, Dr. Halos described the process for DNA paternity testing and asserted
that the test had an accuracy rate of 99.9999% in establishing paternity. Petitioner opposed DNA
paternity testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability. Petitioner further argued that DNA
paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination.

Issue: Whether or not a DNA test is a valid probative tool in this jurisdiction to determine filiation.

Ruling: YES. The petition was dismissed.

Filiation proceedings are usually filed not just to adjudicate paternity but also to secure a legal right
associated with paternity, such as citizenship, support (as in the present case), or inheritance. The burden
of proving paternity is on the person who alleges that the putative father is the biological father of the
child. There are four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action which parties have to
face: a prima facie case, affirmative defenses, presumption of legitimacy, and physical resemblance
between the putative father and child.
A prima facie case exists if a woman declares that she had sexual relations with the putative father.
In our jurisdiction, corroborative proof is required to carry the burden forward and shift it to the putative
father.
There are two affirmative defenses available to the putative father. The putative father may show
incapability of sexual relations with the mother, because of either physical absence or impotency.The
putative father may also show that the mother had sexual relations with other men at the time of
conception.
A child born to a husband and wife during a valid marriage is presumed legitimate. The child’s
legitimacy may be impugned only under the strict standards provided by law.
Finally, physical resemblance between the putative father and child may be offered as part of
evidence of paternity. Resemblance is a trial technique unique to a paternity proceeding. However,
although likeness is a function of heredity, there is no mathematical formula that could quantify how
much a child must or must not look like his biological father. This kind of evidence appeals to the
emotions of the trier of fact.
In the present case, the trial court encountered three of the four aspects. Armi Alba, respondents
mother, put forward a prima facie case when she asserted that petitioner is respondents biological father.
Aware that her assertion is not enough to convince the trial court, she offered corroborative proof in the
form of letters and pictures. Petitioner, on the other hand, denied Armi Albas assertion. He denied ever
having sexual relations with Armi Alba and stated that respondent is Armi Albas child with another man.
Armi Alba countered petitioners denial by submitting pictures of respondent and petitioner side by side,
to show how much they resemble each other.
In Pe Lim v. CA, we stated that the issue of paternity still has to be resolved by such conventional
evidence as the relevant incriminating verbal and written acts by the putative father. Under Article 278
of the New Civil Code, voluntary recognition by a parent shall be made in the record of birth, a will, a
statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing. To be effective, the claim of filiation must
be made by the putative father himself and the writing must be the writing of the putative father. So far,
the laws, rules, and jurisprudence seemingly limit evidence of paternity and filiation to incriminating acts
alone. However, advances in science show that sources of evidence of paternity and filiation need not be
limited to incriminating acts. There is now almost universal scientific agreement that blood grouping
tests are conclusive on non-paternity, although inconclusive on paternity.

Page 1 of 10
 The 2002 case of People v. Vallejo discussed DNA analysis as evidence. This may be considered a
180 degree turn from the Courts wary attitude towards DNA testing in the 1997 Pe Lim case, where we
stated that DNA, being a relatively new science, xxx has not yet been accorded official recognition by
our courts. We declared:
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among other
things, the following data: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility
of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the
proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the
analyst who conducted the tests.
This is known as the Vallejo Guidelines. The Vallejo case 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.
The above test is derived from the Daubert Test which is a doctrine adopted from US jurisprudence
(Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) The Daubert Test is a test to be employed by courts
before admitting scientific test results in evidence. More specifically, the Daubert Test inquires: (1)
Whether the theory or technique can be tested; (2) Whether the proffered work has been subjected to peer
review; (3) Whether the rate of error is acceptable; (4) Whether the method at issue enjoys widespread
acceptance.
In this case, the Supreme Court declared that in filiation cases, before paternity inclusion can be had,
the DNA test result must state that there is at least a 99.9% probability that the person is the biological
father. However, a 99.9% probability of paternity (or higher but never possibly a 100%) does not
immediately result in the DNA test result being admitted as an overwhelming evidence. It does not
automatically become a conclusive proof that the alleged father, in this case Herrera, is the biological
father of the child (Alba). Such result is still a disputable or a refutable evidence which can be brought
down if the Vallejo Guidelines are not complied with. If the result provides that there is less than 99.9%
probability that the alleged father is the biological father, then the evidence is merely corroborative.
Anent the issue of self-incrimination, submitting to DNA testing is not violative of the right against
self-incrimination. The right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition on the use of physical or
moral compulsion to extort communication (testimonial evidence) from a defendant, not an exclusion of
evidence taken from his body when it may be material. There is no “testimonial compulsion” in the
getting of DNA sample from Herrera, hence, he cannot properly invoke self-incrimination.
The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity and filiation of
children, especially of illegitimate children, is without prejudice to the right of the putative parent to
claim his or her own defenses. Where the evidence to aid this investigation is obtainable through the
facilities of modern science and technology, such evidence should be considered subject to the limits
established by the law, rules, and jurisprudence.

2. ESTATE OF ROGELIO G. ONG, petitioner, vs. Minor JOANNE RODJIN DIAZ, Represented
by Her Mother and Guardian, JINKY C. DIAZ, respondent. (G.R. No. 171713, December 17, 2007)

Facts: From January 1994 to September 1998, Jinky and Rogelio cohabited and lived together at Fairlane
Subdivision, and later at Capitol Garden, Tarlac City. From this live-in relationship, minor Joanne Rodjin
Diaz was conceived and on 25 February 1998. Rogelio brought Jinky to the hospital and took minor
Joanne and Jinky home after delivery. Rogelio paid all the hospital bills and the baptismal expenses and
provided for all of minor Joannes needs recognizing the child as his.In September 1998, Rogelio
abandoned minor Joanne and Jinky, and stopped supporting minor Joanne, falsely alleging that he is not
the father of the child.Rogelio, despite Jinkys remonstrance, failed and refused and continued failing and
refusing to give support for the child and to acknowledge her as his daughter, thus leading to the filing
of the heretofore adverted complaint. The Estate of Rogelio Ong opposed on the CA order directing the
Estate and Joanne Rodgin Diaz for DNA analysis for determining the paternity of the minor Joanne. Trial
court formerly rendered a decision and declared the minor to be the illegitimate child of Rogelio Ong
with Jinky Diaz, and ordering him to support the child until she reaches the age of majority. Rogelio died
during the pendency of the case with the CA. The Estate filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA.
They contended that a dead person cannot be subject to testing.

Page 2 of 10
Issue: Whether or not a DNA analysis can still be conducted despite the death of Rogelio.

Ruling: YES. The petition was denied.

A child born to a husband and wife during a valid marriage is presumed legitimate. As a guaranty in
favor of the child and to protect his status of legitimacy, the law requires that every reasonable
presumption be made in favor of legitimacy. The presumption of legitimacy of the child, however, is not
conclusive and consequently, may be overthrown by evidence to the contrary.

Petitioners argument is without basis especially as the New Rules on DNA Evidence allows the conduct
of DNA testing, either motu proprio or upon application of any person who has a legal interest in the
matter in litigation, thus:

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) 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.

From the foregoing, it can be said that the death of the petitioner does not ipso facto negate the application
of DNA testing for as long as there exist appropriate biological samples of his DNA.

As defined above, the term biological sample means any organic material originating from a person’s
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.

Thus, even if Rogelio already died, any of the biological samples as enumerated above as may be
available, may be used for DNA testing. In this case, petitioner has not shown the impossibility of
obtaining an appropriate biological sample that can be utilized for the conduct of DNA testing.

And even the death of Rogelio cannot bar the conduct of DNA testing. In People v.
Umanito,[30] citing Tecson v. Commission on Elections, this Court held:

The 2004 case of Tecson v. Commission on Elections [G.R. No. 161434, 3 March 2004,
424 SCRA 277] 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.

As we have declared in the said case of Agustin v. Court of Appeals:

x x x [F]or too long, illegitimate children have been marginalized by fathers who
choose to deny their existence. The growing sophistication of DNA testing technology
finally provides a much needed equalizer for such ostracized and abandoned progeny. We
have long believed in the merits of DNA testing and have repeatedly expressed as much
in the past. This case comes at a perfect time when DNA testing has finally evolved into
a dependable and authoritative form of evidence gathering. We therefore take this
opportunity to forcefully reiterate our stand that DNA testing is a valid means of
determining paternity.
Page 3 of 10
3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RUFINO UMANITO, appellant. (G.R. No.
172607 April 16, 2009)

Facts: The instant case involved a charge of rape. The accused Rufino Umanito was found by the RTC
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. The alleged 1989 rape of the private complainant,
AAA, had resulted in her pregnancy and the birth of a child hereinafter identified as "BBB." In view of
that fact, as well as the defense of alibi raised by Umanito, the Court deemed uncovering whether or not
Umanito is the father of BBB.

With the advance in genetics and the availability of new technology, it can now be determined
with reasonable certainty whether appellant is the father of AAA's child. The DNA test result shall be
simultaneously disclosed to the parties in Court. The NBI is, therefore, enjoined not to disclose to the
parties in advance the DNA test results.

The NBI is further enjoined to observe the confidentiality of the DNA profiles and all results or
other information obtained from DNA testing and is hereby ordered to preserve the evidence until such
time as the accused has been acquitted or served his sentence.

The DNA analysis on the Buccal Swabs and Blood stained on FTA paper taken from AAA, BBB,
and Umanito, to determine whether or not Umanito is the biological father of BBB, showed that there is
a Complete Match in all of the 15 loci tested between the alleles of Umanito and BBB; That based on the
above findings, there is a 99.9999% probability of paternity that Umanito is the biological father of BBB.
The defense admitted that if the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a
disputable presumption of paternity.

Issue: Whether Umanito is the biological father of BBB

Ruling: Court resolved, for the very first time, to apply the then recently promulgated New Rules on
DNA Evidence (DNA Rules). The DNA testing has evinced a contrary conclusion, and that as testified
to by AAA, Umanito had fathered the child she gave birth to on 5 April 1990, nine months after the day
she said she was raped by Umanito. Disputable presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted but may
be contradicted and overcome by other evidence (Rule 131, Section 3).The disputable presumption that
was established as a result of the DNA testing was not contradicted and overcome by other evidence
considering that the accused did not object to the admission of the results of the DNA testing (Exhibits
"A" and "B" inclusive of sub-markings) nor presented evidence to rebut the same.

By filing Motion to Withdraw Appeal, Umanito is deemed to have acceded to the rulings of the
RTC and the Court of Appeals finding him guilty of the crime of rape, and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua and the indemnification of the private complainant in the sum of
P50,000.00.

Given that the results of the Court-ordered DNA testing conforms with the conclusions of the
lower courts, and that no cause is presented for us to deviate from the penalties imposed below, the Court
sees no reason to deny Umanito’s Motion to Withdraw Appeal.

The instant case is now CLOSED and TERMINATED.

4. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GERRICO VALLEJO Y

SAMARTINO alias PUKE, accused-appellant. (G.R. No. 144656, 382 SCRA 192, May 9, 2002)

Facts: On a Saturday afternoon, at around 1:00 pm, Daisy Diolola, a nine-year old, went to Vallejo’s
house asking the latter to assist her in her assignment. After four hours, Daisy’s mother noticed that her
child wasn’t home; so she went to Vallejo’s house but Daisy wasn’t there. When night fell, Daisy was
still nowhere to be found. Daisy was eventually found the next morning tied to a tree near the riverbank.
Apparently, she was raped and died from strangulation. Subsequently, Vallejo was questioned by the
police since he was one of the last persons accompanying Daisy. The police requested for the clothes
that Vallejo wore during Daisy’s disappearance, to which Vallejo complied. The clothes were submitted
for processing. Dr. Buan, a Forensic Biologist of the NBI, processed the clothing, and – at the instance
Page 4 of 10
of the local fiscal - took buccal swabs (mouth/cheek swabs) from Vallejo and a vaginal swab from
Daisy’s body for DNA testing. Buan found bloodstains in Vallejo’s clothes – Blood Type A, similar to
that of the victim, while Vallejo’s Blood Type is O. Buan also found that the vaginal swab from Daisy
contained Vallejo’s DNA profile. Vallejo already executed a sworn statement admitting the crime. But
when trial came, Vallejo insisted that the sworn statement was coerced; that he was threatened by the
cops; that the DNA samples should be inadmissible because the body and the clothing of Daisy were
already soaked in smirchy waters, hence contaminated. Vallejo was convicted by the trial court and was
sentenced to death.

Issue: Whether or not the DNA samples gathered are admissible as evidence

Ruling: YES. The findings of Dr. Buan are conclusive. Even though DNA evidence is merely
circumstantial, it can still convict the accused considering that it corroborates all other circumstantial
evidence gathered in this rape-slay case. The Supreme Court also elucidated on the admissibility of DNA
evidence in this case and for the first time recognized its evidentiary value in the Philippines, thus: DNA
is an organic substance found in a person’s cells which contains his or her genetic code. Except for
identical twins, each person’s DNA profile is distinct and unique.

When a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene of the crime or from the victim’s
body for the suspect’s DNA. This is the evidence sample. The evidence sample is then matched with the
reference sample taken from the suspect and the victim.

The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an association exists between the evidence
sample and the reference sample. The samples collected are subjected to various chemical processes to
establish their profile. The test may yield three possible results:

1. The samples are different and therefore must have originated from different sources (exclusion).
This conclusion is absolute and requires no further analysis or discussion;
2. It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the test, whether the samples have similar
DNA types (inconclusive). This might occur for a variety of reasons including degradation,
contamination, or failure of some aspect of the protocol. Various parts of the analysis might then
be repeated with the same or a different sample, to obtain a more conclusive result; or
3. The samples are similar, and could have originated from the same source (inclusion). In such a
case, the samples are found to be similar, the analyst proceeds to determine the statistical
significance of the Similarity.

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among
others things, the following data: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility
of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper
standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who
conducted the tests.

5. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FEDERICO LUCERO, accused-

appellant. (G.R. No. 188705, March 2, 2011)

Facts: Before this Court on appeal is the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
Before the RTC, the accused was charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide in an Information dated
July 31, 1997
That on or about June 7, 1997, in the Municipality of Tagum, Province of Davao, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and
intimidation, armed with a knife, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge of AAA, an eighteen (18) year old girl, against her will, and on the occasion of said rape, the
said accused, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault
and stab the said AAA, thereby inflicting upon her wounds which caused her death, and further causing
actual, moral and compensatory damages to the heirs of the victim.
Dr. Rodaje, NBI Medico Legal Officer, prepared the autopsy on the body of the victim, and found
several stab wounds and contusions, with one stab wound penetrating the heart, causing her death. His
examination also found hymenal lacerations, after which he performed the vaginal swabbing to see if

Page 5 of 10
there was still seminal fluid in the vaginal canal. He then submitted the swab specimen to Dulay, NBI
Regional Chemist, who found the specimen positive for the presence of seminal stains.
In his appeal, Lucero questions the positive identification made by witnesses Jao and Langgoy.
He insists that the witnesses were unable to see the face of the perpetrator, and identification was made
solely on the basis of the green short pants worn by the suspect. He also claims that Jao did not
immediately report the identity of the perpetrator to the police, and that this casts doubt on the witness
credibility. In his defense, he also claims that a DNA test should have been done to match the
spermatozoa found in the victims body to a sample taken from him, and that since no DNA test was done,
he cannot be linked to the crime.

Issue: Whether or not DNA testing is sufficient to determine that Lucero is the perpetrator.

Ruling: The appeal is without merit.

Even as the circumstances lead to the inevitable conclusion that accused-appellant committed the
crime, he claims that since spermatozoa was found on the deceased, a DNA test should have been
conducted by the prosecution so as to erase all doubts as to the identity of the perpetrator.

It is not for accused-appellant to determine which evidence or testimony the prosecution should
present. In Loguinsa, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (5th Division), the Court stated, Section 5, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure expressly provides that all criminal action shall be prosecuted
under the direction and control of the fiscal and what prosecution evidence should be presented during
the trial depends solely upon the discretion of the prosecutor.[34] The DNA test is not essential, while
there exists other evidence pinning down accused-appellant as the perpetrator. Indeed, if he honestly
thought that the DNA test could have proved his innocence, he could have asked for the conduct of said
test during his trial, instead of belatedly raising it on appeal, and attempting to dictate upon the
prosecution what course of actions it should have undertaken.

In support of his argument, accused-appellant would debunk the identification by witnesses by

citing People v. Faustino, which stated:
“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. x x x”

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.
The prosecution was able to prove that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim, as
per the post-mortem findings of Dr. Rodaje and the vaginal swabbings examined by NBI Regional
Chemist Dulay. Dr. Rodaje found hymenal lacerations from his examination of AAAs body. In People
v. Payot, Jr., it was held, Hymenal lacerations, whether healed or fresh, are the best evidence of forcible
defloration. Dulays findings that there were seminal stains serve to bolster the conclusion that rape was
committed.

6. EDGARDO A. TIJING and BIENVENIDA R. TIJING, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS

(Seventh Division) and ANGELITA DIAMANTE, respondents. (G.R. No. 125901. March 8, 2001]

Facts: For review is the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 6, 1996, in CA-G.R. SP No. 39056,
reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court in a petition for habeas corpus of Edgardo Tijing, Jr.,
allegedly the child of petitioners.

Petitioners are husband and wife. They have six children. According to Bienvenida in August
1989, Angelita went to her house to fetch her for an urgent laundry job. She asked Angelita to wait until
she returned. She also left her four-month old son, Edgardo, Jr., under the care of Angelita as she usually
let Angelita take care of the child while Bienvenida was doing laundry.When Bienvenida returned from

Page 6 of 10
the market, Angelita and Edgardo, Jr., were gone. She returned to Angelitas house after three days, only
to discover that Angelita had moved to another place.

Four years later or in October 1993, Bienvenida read in a tabloid about the death of Tomas Lopez,
allegedly the common-law husband of Angelita, and whose remains were lying in state in Hagonoy,
Bulacan. Bienvenida lost no time in going to Hagonoy, Bulacan, where she allegedly saw her son
Edgardo, Jr., for the first time after four years. She claims that the boy, who was pointed out to her by
Benjamin Lopez, a brother of the late Tomas Lopez, was already named John Thomas Lopez.

Bienvenida and Edgardo filed their petition for habeas corpus with the trial court in order to
recover their son. To substantiate their petition, petitioners presented two witnesses, namely, Lourdes
Vasquez and Benjamin Lopez. The first witness, Vasquez, testified that she assisted in the delivery of
one Edgardo Tijing, Jr. on April 27, 1989 at her clinic in Sta. Ana, Manila. She supported her testimony
with her clinical records.[2] The second witness, Benjamin Lopez, declared that his brother, the late
Tomas Lopez, could not have possibly fathered John Thomas Lopez as the latter was sterile.

For her part, Angelita claimed that she is the natural mother of the child. She asserts that at age
42, she gave birth to John Thomas Lopez on April 27, 1989, at the clinic of midwife Zosima Panganiban
in Singalong, Manila. She added, though, that she has two other children with her real husband, Angel
Sanchez.[4] She said the birth of John Thomas was registered by her common-law husband, Tomas
Lopez, with the local civil registrar of Manila on August 4, 1989.

Issue: Whether or not DNA testing is still required to establish parentage testing.

Ruling: NO. A close scrutiny of the records of this case reveals that the evidence presented by Bienvenida
is sufficient to establish that John Thomas Lopez is actually her missing son, Edgardo Tijing, Jr.

First, there is evidence that Angelita could no longer bear children. From her very lips, she
admitted that after the birth of her second child, she underwent ligation at the Martinez Hospital in 1970.
Second, there is strong evidence which directly proves that Tomas Lopez is no longer capable of siring
a son. Benjamin Lopez declared in court that his brother, Tomas, was sterile because of an accident and
that Tomas admitted to him that John Thomas Lopez was only an adopted son. Third, we find unusual
the fact that the birth certificate of John Thomas Lopez was filed by Tomas Lopez instead of the midwife
and on August 4, 1989, four months after the alleged birth of the child. Under the law, the attending
physician or midwife in attendance at birth should cause the registration of such birth. Only in default of
the physician or midwife, can the parent register the birth of his child. Fourth, the trial court observed
several times that when the child and Bienvenida were both in court, the two had strong similarities in
their faces, eyes, eyebrows and head shapes. Fifth, Lourdes Vasquez testified that she assisted in
Bienvenidas giving birth to Edgardo Tijing, Jr., at her clinic.

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.

7. ANTONIO LEJANO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. (G.R. No.
176389, December 14, 2010)

Facts: Estellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela and Jennifer were brutally slain at their home in
Paranaque City in 1991. Four years later, the NBI announced that it had solved the crime. It presented
star-witness Jessica Alfaro, one of its informers, who claimed that she had witnessed the crime. She
Page 7 of 10
pointed to Hubert Webb, Antonio Lejano, Artemio Ventura, Michael Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez,
Peter Estrada, Miguel Rodriguez and Joy Filart as the culprits. She also tagged police officer, Gerardo
Biong, as an accessory after the fact.
Alfaro categorically pointed to Webb et al. as the perpetrators of the crimes in the Vizconde residence.
Webb denied all the accusations against him with the alibi that during the whole time that the crime had
taken place, he was staying in the United States. He provided documentary evidence of his travel,
including his activities in the U.S.
On April 20, 2010, as a result of its initial deliberation in this case, the Court issued a Resolution granting
the request of Webb to submit for DNA analysis the semen specimen taken from Carmela’s cadaver,
which specimen was then believed still under the safekeeping of the NBI. The Court granted the request
pursuant to section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence6 to give the accused and the prosecution access to
scientific evidence that they might want to avail themselves of, leading to a correct decision in the case.
Unfortunately, on April 27, 2010 the NBI informed the Court that it no longer has custody of the
specimen, the same having been turned over to the trial court. The trial record shows, however, that the
specimen was not among the object evidence that the prosecution offered in evidence in the case.
This outcome prompted accused Webb to file an urgent motion to acquit on the ground that the
government’s failure to preserve such vital evidence has resulted in the denial of his right to due process.
Issue: Whether or not the Court should acquit him outright, given the government’s failure to produce
the semen specimen that the NBI found on Carmela’s cadaver, thus depriving him of evidence that would
prove his innocence.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that if the semen found on Carmela’s body had been preserved, it would
have been easy to compare it with Webb’s DNA. The result would categorically establish the guilt or
innocence of Webb as Carmela’s rapist. However, the DNA specimen was lost. But this does not mean
that the Court should acquit Webb based on this fact. The Court pointed out that during the trial of the
case, DNA testing was not yet recognized as an admissible evidence due to a lack of appropriate
technology in the country. It also pointed out that Webb et al. allowed for the proceeding to continue
without appealing the DNA testing rejection decision from the RTC.
However, Webb et al. were eventually acquitted because the Court believed prosecution was not able to
remove all lingering doubts about their guilt.
8. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFREDO PASCUAL Y
ILDEFONSO (G.R. No. 172326, January 19, 2009)
Facts: The respondent in this case was accused of raping and killing one Lorelyn Bacubas on Dec. 25,
2000 in Mandaluyong, Philippines. Witnesses who found the body of the victim alleged that they saw
and chased the suspect running away from the crime scene.
Postmortem findings showed that the victim suffered from lacerated wounds in the upper lip and right
nipple, contusions in the right cheek, right pectoral region, sternal region, and inguinal region. The
medico-legal finding also found that the hymen has a deep healed lacerations. The findings, however,
concluded that what caused the victim's death is that of asphyxia by smothering.
The RTC convicted the accused even after the NBI expert testified that DNA analysis of the sample taken
from the suspect was not found on the stained vaginal smear and dirty white panty from the victim.
However, the expert witness clarified that the reason for the DNA results could stem from the fact that
the specimen were already tainted and had already undergone serological analysis.
Issue: Whether or not the accused committed the special complex crime of rape with homicide.
Ruling: The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, relying on circumstantial evidence and
witness testimony. The Court found that the witnesses’ testimonies about the chain of events are
consistent, leading it to believe that the accused is guilty of the said offense.
9. FEDIL URIARTE, MANOLITO ACOSTA and JOSE ACOSTA, petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. (G.R. No. 137344. January 30, 2001)
Facts: The petitioners were accused for the death of Reynaldo Lameria. According to the prosecution,
Reynaldo Lameria died after the accused, one by one, mauled him with the use of a piece of wood

Page 8 of 10
which was evidenced by the bruises on the neck part of the victim. However, the defense claimed that
Reynaldo Lameria died when he slipped in the coconut bench he sat on.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are guilty of the death of Reynaldo Lameria.

Ruling: YES. The petitioners are guilty. The medico-legal examination of NBI medico-legal officer, Dr.
Tammy Uy, revealed that the cause of death was a traumatic neck injury.

If the prosecution’s version will be considered, it would be logical to surmise that the first part of his
body to hit the ground would have been his right leg because that was the part of his body that was closest
to the ground. The leg would then act as a buffer, breaking the full force of the impact. The fact that the
bench was merely two (2) feet high, the force of the impact would not be sufficient to kill an adult male.
It was improbable for the "back of his neck, right and lower portion of the right mastoid region (back of
the lower portion of the right ear) to be injured unless, in the language of the private prosecution, he was
able to turn a full 360 degrees before hitting the ground.

10. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO RAMBO LISING,

RODOLFO MANALILI, FELIMON GARCIA, ENRICO DIZON and ROBIN MANGA, accused-
appellants. (G.R. No. 106210-11. January 30, 1998)

Facts: Sometime in March, 1990, Rodolfo Manalili, a businessman asked Felimon Garcia, his townmate,
if he knew somebody who could allegedly effect the arrest of one Robert Herrera, the suspect in the
killing of his brother, Delfin Manalili. Felimon Garcia arrived and introduced Roberto Lising, Enrico
Dizon and another man armed with a service pistol to Manalili. During the meeting, Manalili gave them
P2,000.00 and instructed them to go and see Vic Nabua,* his employee who will point to them the person
tobe arrested. Lising’s group went to Quezon City and met Vic Lisboa. They conducted a surveillance
on the Castaños residence in the hope of seeing Herrera. Failing to do so, the group was aske to come
back the next day. At the 3rd day of their surveillance, the group after allegedly spotting Herrera entering
the Castaños residence.Later, the group saw a man and a woman who happened to be Cochise (UP Law-
new graduate) and Beebom (graduating student UP-mass communication)leave the Castaños residence
in a green box type Lancer car. The group followed the Lancer car with Lising, Dizon and Manga riding
in a black car and Lisboa and Garcia in a motorcycle. The Lancer car went to Dayrit’s Ham and Burger
House on Timog Circle, Quezon City where the couple intended to have dinner. Alighting from the car,
they were accosted by Dizon and Manga who were both carrying firearms. Amidst protestations, Dizon
poked his gun at Cochise, handcuffed him, and shoved him into the car. Beebom protested loudly at the
arrest and was also shoved into the back of the car. On June 21, two security guards told the CAPCOM
that their friends Raul Morales and Jun Medrano, both employees of Roberto Lising, informed them that
Lising killed a man and a woman in their warehouse. On June 23, Raul Morales was picked up and told
his story. On June 25, the body of Cochise was exhumed. The cause of his death was multiple stab
wounds. The next day, Beebom’s body was exhumed from a shallow grave, 2 kilometers from where
Cochise’s body was found. One by one, the men responsible for the killing of Cochise & Beebom fell
into the hands of the authorities. Lising, Garcia & Manalili executed extrajudicial statements. Upon
arraignment, all the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented 2 vital witnesses: Froilan
Olimpia, who witnessed the abduction of the young couple at Dayrit’s Ham and Burger House; & Raul
Morales, the pahinante who testified on the killing of Cochise. In their defense, the accused policemen
allege that there was insufficient evidence to sustain their conviction. Each one also presented an alibi.
*On July 1, 1992, the Court held Manalili, Lising, Garcia, Manga and Dizon guilty of the crime of double
murder qualified with treachery and aggravated by premeditation and abuse of public position by Lising,
Manga and Dizon. The Court also held Lising, Dizon and Manga guilty of the crime of slight illegal Case
Digest for Jan. 4 2014 detention aggravated by use of a motor vehicle. The accused were acquitted of the
crime of kidnapping, since the use of the car was done only to facilitate the commission of the crime of
slight illegal detention.

Issue: Whether extra judicial confessions are admissible.

Ruling: YES. Extrajudicial statements are as a rule, admissible as against their respective declarants,
pursuant to the rule that the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in
evidence against him. This is based upon the presumption that no man would declare anything against
himself, unless such declarations were true. A man’s act, conduct and declarations wherever made,
Page 9 of 10
provided they be voluntary, are admissible against him, for the reason that it is fair to presume that they
correspond with the truth and it is his fault if they are not. There is no question that their respective
extrajudicial statement of Manalili and Garcia were executed voluntarily. They were assisted by their
counsel and properly sworn to before a duly authorized officer. They merely relied on their extra-judicial
statements and did not take the witness stand during the trial. Lising claims that he was coerced and
tortured into executing the extrajudicial statement but nothing appears on record that such extrajudicial
statement was made under compulsion, duress or violence on his person. Lising did not present himself
for physical examination, nor did he file administrative charges against his alleged tormentors which
would necessarily buttress the claim of torture in the absence of such evidence. There are in fact indicia
of voluntariness in the execution of his (Lising) extra-judicial statements, to wit: a) it contains many
details and facts which the investigating officer could not have known and could have supplied, without
the knowledge and information given by Lising himself; b) it bears corrections duly initialed by him; c)
it tends to explain or justify his conduct and shift the blame to his co-accused Manalili. Moreover, the
claim that Lising was not assisted by counsel is belied by the fact that the signature of his counsel Atty.
Yabut appears in all the pages of his extrajudicial statements. The rule that an extrajudicial statement is
evidence only against the person making it, also recognizes various exceptions. One such exception
worth noting is the rule that where several extrajudicial statements had been made by several persons
charged with an offense and there could have been no collusion with reference to said several
confessions, the facts that the statements are in all material respects identical, is confirmatory of the
confession of the co-defendants and is admissible against other persons implicated therein. They are also
admissible as circumstantial evidence against the person implicated therein to show the probability of
the latter’s actual participation in the commission of the crime and may likewise serve as corroborative
evidence if it is clear from other facts and circumstances that other persons had participated in the
perpetration of the crime charged and proved. These are known as “interlocking confessions.

Page 10 of 10