PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT

FACTS:
Appellant Yatar was charged and convicted of Rape with Homicide by the trial court. The basis of the
conviction rest on circumstantial evidence gathered from the testimony of various witnesses, to: (1) the
presence of the accused at the crime scene within the timeframe of the approximate time of death of the
victim; (2) at one point prior to the commission accused was seen wearing a white shirt with collar; (3)
latter on he was seen wearing a dirty white shirt with collar; (4) when the body of the victim was found, a
dirty white shirt was seen beside her; (5) the dirty white shirt with collar found at the crime scene was
stained by blood; (6) when the blood stain and accused’s blood was subjected to DNA testing, it was
found that it contained the same DNA; (7) that when semen found inside the victim’s body was subjected
to DNA testing, it was found to be identical to that of accused’s DNA.
In an attempt to exclude the DNA evidence, the appellant contends that the blood sample taken from him
as well as the DNA tests were conducted in violation of his right to remain silent as well as his right
against selfincrimination under Secs. 12 and 17 of Art. III of the Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether or not, taking of accused’s blood sample and subjecting the same to DNA testing is
inadmissible in evidence as it amounts to violation of his right against self-incrimination.

HELD:
Accused’s contention is untenable. The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but against
testimonial compulsion. The right against self- incrimination is simply against the legal process of
extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought
to be excluded is not an
incrimination but as part of object evidence.
It was held in People v. Rondero that although accused-appellant insisted that hair samples were forcibly
taken
from him and submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for forensic examination, the hair samples
may
be admitted in evidence against him, for what is proscribed is the use of testimonial compulsion or any
evidence
communicative in nature acquired from the accused under duress. Hence, a person may be compelled to
submit

to fingerprinting, photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA, as there is no testimonial compulsion involved.
Under
People v. Gallarde, where immediately after the incident, the police authorities took pictures of the
accused
without the presence of counsel, we ruled that there was no violation of the right against self-
incrimination. The
accused may be compelled to submit to a physical examination to determine his involvement in an
offense of
which he is accused.
It must also be noted that appellant in this case submitted himself for blood sampling which was
conducted in
open court on March 30, 2000, in the presence of counsel.