43.

People vs Andal
Doctrine:
“Indeed, we have ruled that 'a witness' testimony ought to be entitled to great weight when the accusing words are
directed against a close relative."
Note: gikan sa may 26, 1999 decision sa sc ani na case before sila ni file ug MR..
“The issue of "DNA tests" as a more accurate and authoritative means of identification than eye-witness
identification need not be belabored. The accused were all properly and duly identified by the prosecution's
principal witness. Olimpio Corales, a brother in law of accused Jurry and Ricardo Andal. DNA testing proposed by
petitioners to have an objective and scientific basis of identification of "semen samples to compare with those
taken from the vagina of the victim" are thus unnecessary or are forgotten evidence too late to consider now.”

Facts:
Submitted for the Court's consideration is petitioners' Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and Stay of Execution
due to Ongoing Legislative and NBI Investigation of the case if Jurry Andal, Ricardo Andal and Edwin Mendoza.
The Omnibus Motion raises the following issues:
1. That the House of Representatives subcommittee on the enhancement or protection of
human rights as requested by Director Opinion of the National Bureau of Investigation is
investigating the crimes committed on other women of San Luis, Batangas, which appear similar
to the crime involved in the case at bar and that the committee needs to locate the "star
witness" for the prosecution Olimpio Corrales in order to aid the committee in better
appreciating the case and in coming up with legislation on the matter.
2. That it is not too late to conduct a DNA testing;
3. That pre-trial identification of the accused-petitioners violated their constitutional right;
and
4. That the failure of the trial counsel of the accused-petitioners to present relevant
evidence in their defense violated their right to counsel.
Issue:
WON it is not too late to conduct a DNA testing
Ruling:
The proposed DNA testing of the semen found on the victim Nancy Siscar is not ground to re-open the final
judgment in the case at bar. It is not only late and the probability that it will bring about the acquittal of appellants
is at best, arguable. The conviction of the accused is based on nothing less than the testimony of an aye-witness
whose credibility has been passed upon by the trial court and this Court.
Indeed, we have ruled that 'a witness' testimony ought to be entitled to great weight when the accusing words are
directed against a close relative."2 [Antonio vs. Court of Appeals, 273 SCRA 328.] And in the case at bar, witness
Olimpio Corales is a brother-in-law of two of the accused.