The Legalese

In the Philippines, evidence is defined as the

means of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding
the truth respecting a matter of fact.

Stated simply, it is used to prove or disprove

the truth of something under investigation

US- the use of matching techniques

for DNA as courtroom evidence first
gained prominence.
After the first results of DNA testing
were released in 1985, it progressed
to general acceptance in less than a
decade.

It is now widely used for:

1.

2.

identifying the perpetrator

in criminal suits &
determining paternity in
civil suits

The SC had commented in passing on

DNA testing as early as 1995 but it was
only in 2004 that the Court actually
gave it probative value.

Rule 130 Sec 49 of the Revised Rules on

Evidence:
the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience, or
training which he is shown to possess, may be
received in evidence

ORDINARY WITNESS

EXPERT WITNESS

- MUST STATE FACTS FOR

PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE ONLY

-- MAY FORM CONCLUSIONS AND

GIVE OPINIONS

- MAY NOT GIVE OPINONS OR

CONCLUSIONS

- THERE IS AN ASSUMPTION THAT

THE EXPERTS OPINON WILL
HAVE A RELIABLE BASIS IN THE
KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE
OF HIS DISCIPLINE

EXAMPLE: I observed that the

deceased had wounds on his arms.

The deceased had self-defense

wounds. this is a conclusion that the
expert witness may make

Evidence is admissible in court if RELEVANT

and COMPETENT

IF THERE IS A LOGICAL RELATION

BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE and THE FACT
IN ISSUE AND IF IT INDUCES BELIEF IN ITS
EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE

If not excluded by the

Constitution, statute or the Rules
of Court

Lets go to the case of PEOPLE VS YATAR

What happened here?

Whether the theory/ technique can be or

has been tested
Whether the theory/technique has been
subjected to peer review and publication
The known or potential rate of error
The existence & maintenance of standards
controlling the techniques operation
Whether the theory/technique is generally
accepted in the scientific community

The SC also requires that it be presented in a

timely manner
The case of Gan vs Reyes, 382 SCRA 357 (2002)

YES. Yatar case:

The Court ruled that this does not transgress
the right against self-incrimination as
embodied in the constitution.
Right against self-incrimination is:

The right against self-incrimination

applies to testimonial compulsion or the
extraction of an admission of guilt from
the lips of the accused.

In other words, the accused may be

compelled to submit to a physical
examination or test to determine his
involvement in an offense of which he
is accused.

NO. The case of Agustin vs Court of Appeals

MOST
CASES
HAVE
BEEN
DECIDED BASED ON SUBJECTIVE
TESTS
LIKE
EYEWITNESS
EXAMINATIONS
DNA evidence can link the accused
to the crime or exonerate him if
found to be wrongly accused

When collected from the crime

scene, it is helpful in proving
that there was physical contact
between the assailant and the
victim

DNA evidence can be used to pinpoint the

accused as perpetrator of the crime when there
is direct contact between the perpetrator & the
victim, as in a vio

Semen or blood samples from the

accused can be compared from those
taken from the vagina of the victim

Because of the nature of rape where

there is direct physical contact
during the commission of the crime,
the probability of the transfer of
biological material is high.

The SC has sustained the reliability

of physical evidence over the biased
& uncorroborated testimonies of
witnesses.
In criminal cases such as murder or
rape, the SC has, in many occasions,
relied principally on physical
evidence in ascertaining he truth.

Where the physical evidence on

record runs counter to the
testimonial evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, the SC
has ruled that physical evidence
should PREVAIL.

People vs Yatar
In re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo
de Villa

PEOPLE VS YATAR

IN RE: DE VILLA

DNA match existed between the

Rape Case where victim got pregnant
semen found in the victim & the blood
sample given by the accused in open
Accused presented DNA test results to
court
prove he was not the father of the
child born of the rape.
SC affirmed conviction because aside
from the physical evidence, there was SC ruled that the conviction was not
circumstantial evidence to prove he
based solely on a finding of paternity
was guilty of rape with homicide
of the child but also on the testimony
of hte victim.
Pregnancy is not an element of rape;
so even if he proved that he was not
the father of the child, it was
IRRELEVANT;
The fact of rape was still proven by the
victims testimony

DNA analysis can be helpful in child

support, disputed parentage, & paternal
identification cases
In comparative analysis of the DNA
prints of the putative father & the alleged
child, he cannot be deemed the father if
profile shows none of the half of the
DNA prints child should have inherited
from him.

DNA testing was not yet accepted as

a source of evidence to prove
paternity
The case was Pe Lim vs Court of
Appeals

DNA, being a relatively new science,

it has not yet been accorded official
recognition by our courts. Paternity
will still have to be resolved by such
conventional evidence as the relevant
incriminating acts, verbal and written,
by the putative father.

The SC still continued to give weight

to the highly subjective tests of
physical resemblance & similarity of
features
However, the possibility of admitting
DNA as evidence for parentage was
also suggested in this case

Resemblance
between a minor
and his alleged
parent is
competent and
material evidence
to establish
parentage.

 Parentage will still be resolved using

conventional methods unless we adopt the
modern and scientific ways available
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

SC
reversed
the
decision of the CA
which
ruled
that
paternity
was
adequately proved by
testimony of mother &
personal appearance
of child

In this age of genetic profiling

and DNA analysis, the extremely
subjective test of physical
resemblance or similarity of
features will not suffice as
evidence to prove paternity &
filiation before the courts of law.

2 decisions of the SC
categorically held DNA testing
to be valid means of
determining paternity and
filiation

Both cases: petitions

for
compulsory
recognition
The SC directed the
parties to submit
themselves to DNA
paternity-testing

The Court ruled that had the specimen been

available, DNA testing would have been
done and the accused may have been
proven innocent.
Rules
on
DNA
promulgated

Evidence

already

(However, in this case, the

specimen was lost so they were
not able to conduct DNA testing)
But failure of the State to provide
the specimen could not lead to
the acquittal of the accused.

Hubert Webb and company were

acquitted based on reasonable
doubt. The court gave weight to
their alibi.

DNA testing used to overturn

rulings that are years old. A lot of
accused have been released on the
basis of DNA testing.

Rafferty
vs
Perkinsstrong
presumption that a child born
during marriage is the legitimate
child of the father
US SC decided: DNA test results
were
enough
to
rebut
the
presumption

Eerie County Dept of Social Services vs

Greg
M.A.S vs Mississippi Dept of Human
Services
-previous ruling: respondent was the
biological father of the child
- After several years, both cases overturned
the ruling after they underwent DNA
testing

Requirement is only 99% or higher

DNA identification to prove
paternity
Available technology is already
99.999999%

A significant number of criminal

cases in the US involving DNA
testing concerned convictions for
heinous crimes
DNA test results are major part of
general basis for imposition of death
penalty

If properly obtained, DNA evidence

carries great weight & probative
value
But even without DNA test, accused
can be convicted by conventional
means like credible testimony of
victim and positive identification by
witness.

DNA TESTING IS NOT

INDISPENSABLE FOR CONVICTION

how samples were collected

how they were handled

possibility of contamination of the samples

procedure followed in analyzing the samples

whether the proper standards & procedures were

followed in conducting the tests

qualification of the analyst who conducted the

tests.
People vs Vallejo

DNA testing provides solid physical

evidence that can support existing
evidence to prove the guilt or innocence
of the accused in criminal cases.
It is also a valid probative tool to
determine paternity and filiation.

The unique traits of DNA make it a useful

and valuable tool in judicial proceedings
anywhere.

Every person is entitled to enjoy the

benefits and application of scientific
progress.
The promotion of the use of DNA not
only protects the rights of the people. It
also leads to improvement of the
administration of justice.

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.

Tijing vs Court of Appeals