DNA EVIDENCE 1. People v. Umanito G.R. No. 172607 (Resolution), April 16, 2009 Topic: Rule on DNA Evidence Doctrine: Section 6. A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC provides that: "If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity. FACTS: The instant case involved a charge of rape. The accused Rufino Umanito (Umanito) was found by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union, Branch 67 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. Umanito was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the private complainant in the sum of P50,000.00. On appeal, the Court of Appeals offered the judgment of the trial court. Umanito appealed the decision of the appellate court to this court. HIAESC In its 2007 Resolution, the Court acknowledged "many incongruent assertions of the prosecution and the defense." At the same time, the alleged 1989 rape of the private complainant, AAA, had resulted in her pregnancy and the birth of a child, a girl hereinafter identified as "BBB". In view of that fact, a well as the defense of alibi raised by Umanito, the Court deemed uncovering of whether or not Umanito is the father of BBB greatly determinative of the resolution of the appeal. The Court then observed: . . . 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. If he is not, his acquittal may be ordained. We have pronounced that if it can be conclusively determined that the accused did not sire the alleged victim's child, this may cast the shadow of reasonable doubt and allow his acquittal on this basis. If he is found not to be the father, the finding will at least weigh heavily in the ultimate decision in this case. Thus, we are directing appellant, AAA and her child to submit themselves to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing under the aegis of the New Rule on DNA Evidence (the Rules), which took effect on 15 October 2007, subject to guidelines prescribed herein.
The RTC of Bauang, La Union, Branch 67, set the case for hearing on 27 November 2007 to ascertain the feasibility of DNA testing with due regard to the standards set in Sections 4 (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the DNA Rules. Both AAA and BBB (now 17 years old) testified during the hearing. They also manifested their willingness to undergo DNA examination to determine whether Umanito is the father of BBB. The RTC issued an Order on even date directing that biological samples be taken from AAA, BBB and Umanito on 9 January 2008 at the courtroom. DNA samples were thus extracted from AAA and BBB in the presence of Judge Fe, the prosecutor, the counsel for the defense, and DCA de la Cruz. On 8 February 2008, DNA samples were extracted from Umanito at the New Bilibid Prisons by NBI chemist Aranas, as witnessed by Judge Fe, the prosecutor, the defense counsel, DCA de la Cruz, and other personnel of the Court and the New Bilibid Prisons. The RTC ordered the NBI to submit the result of the DNA examination within thirty (30) days after the extraction of biological samples of Umanito, and directed its duly authorized representatives to attend a hearing on the admissibility of such DNA evidence scheduled for 10 March 2008. That considering that under Section 9, A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, if the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity, the instant case was set for reception of evidence for the accused on April 29, 2008 to controvert the presumption that he is the biological father of [BBB].
(This part talks about the procedure of DNA testing. You may skip this) The DNA samples were collected by the forensic chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation whose qualifications as an expert was properly established adopting the following procedure: a) The subject sources were asked to gargle and to fill out the reference sample form. Thereafter, the chemists informed them that buccal swabs will be taken from their mouth and five (5) droplets of blood will also be taken from the ring finger of their inactive hand;
b) Pictures of the subject sources were taken by the NBI Chemist; c) Buccal swabs were taken from the subject sources three (3) times; d) Subject sources were made to sign three (3) pieces of paper to serve as label of the three buccal swabs placed inside two (2) separate envelopes that bear their names; e) Blood samples were taken from the ring finger of the left hand of the subject sources; f) Subject sources were made to sign the FTA card of their blood samples. The buccal swabs and the FTA cards were placed in a brown envelope for air drying for at least one hour. g) Finger prints of the subject sources were taken for additional identification; h) The subject sources were made to sign their finger prints. i) Atty. Ramon J. Gomez, Deputy Court Administrator Reuben dela Cruz and Prosecutor Maria Nenita A. Oplana, in that order, were made to sign as witnesses to the reference sample forms and the finger prints of the subject sources. j) After one hour of air drying, the Buccal Swabs and the FTA papers were placed inside a white envelope and sealed with a tape by the NBI Chemists; k) The witnesses, Atty. Ramon J. Gomez, Deputy Court Administrator Reuben dela Cruz, Prosecutor Maria Nenita A. Opiana including the NBI Chemist, affixed their signatures on the sealed white envelope; ISCcAT l) The subjects sources were made to sign and affix their finger prints on the sealed white envelope;
Mary Ann Aranas, the Forensic Chemist, in her testimony explained that the DNA found in all cells of a human being come in pairs except the mature red blood cells. These cells are rolled up into minute bodies called "chromosomes", which contain the DNA of a person. A human has 23 pairs of chromosomes. For each pair of chromosome, one was found to have originated from the mother, the other must have came from the father. Using the Powerplex 16 System Results, the variable portions of the DNA called "loci", which were used as the basis for DNA analysis or typing showed the following: under "loci" D3S1358, the genotype of the locus of [AAA] is 15, 16, the genotype of [BBB] is 15, 16, one of the pair of alleles must have originated and the others from the father. The color for the allele of the mother is red while the father is blue. On matching the allele which came from the mother was first determined [AAA], has alleles of 15 or 16 but in the geno type of [BBB], 15 was colored blue because that is the only allele which contain the genotype of the accused Rufino Umanito, the 16 originated from the mother, [AAA]. In this marker [BBB] has a genotype of 15, 16, 16 is from the mother and 15 is from the father. The whole process involved the determination which of those alleles originated from the mother and the rest would entail looking on the genotype or the profile of the father to determine if they matched with those of the child. ASaTCE In the analysis of the 16 loci by the Forensic Chemists, amel on the 13th row was not included because this is the marker that determines the gender of the source of the loci. The pair XX represents a female and XY for a male. Rufino Umanito has XY amel and [BBB] and [AAA] have XX amel. For matching paternity purposes only 15 loci were examined. Of the 15 loci, there was a complete match between the alleles of the loci of [BBB] and Rufino (Exhibits "A" and "B"). To ensure reliable results, the Standard Operating Procedure of the Forensic Chemistry Division of the NBI in paternity cases is to use buccal swabs taken from the parties and blood as a back up source.
m) The chemists affixed their signatures on the sealed envelope and placed it in a separate brown envelope; n) The subjects sources were made to affix their finger prints on their identification places and reference forms.
The said Standard Operating Procedure was adopted in the instant case. The accused did not object to the admission of Exhibits "A" and "B" inclusive of their sub-markings. He did not also present evidence to controvert the results of the DNA analysis. HAIDcE
ISSUE: Whether the DNA analysis or testing proved the paternity of Umanito and BBB, which proves his guilt of the crime of rape.
the Court of Appeals dated 15 February 2006 would otherwise be deemed final if the appeal is not withdrawn.
RULING
2. HERERA VS. ALBA
Section 6. A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC provides that: "If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.
“Action to impugn Legitimacy: Biological or other scientific grounds”
There is a COMPLETE MATCH in all the fifteen (15) loci tested between the alleles of Rufino Umanito y Millares and [BBB]. REMARKS: Based on the above findings, there is a 99.9999% Probability of Paternity that Rufino Umanito y Millares is the biological Father of [BBB]" Disputable presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence (Rule 131, Section 3, Rules of Court). 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. Umanito's defense of alibi, together with his specific assertion that while he had courted AAA they were not sweethearts, lead to a general theory on his part that he did not engage in sexual relations with the complainant. 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. Still, Umanito filed a Motion to Withdraw Appeal dated 16 February 2009. By filing such motion, 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. Consequently, the assailed Decision of
FACTS: 14 May 1998, then thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba, represented by his mother Armi Alba before the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition, support and damages against petitioner (Rosendo Herrera) Rosendo Herrera 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. respondent presented the testimony of Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D who testified that the test is 99.99% accurate 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 trial court and CA granted the motion to conduct DNA paternity testing ISSUE: Whether or not DNA test is a valid probative tool in this jurisdiction to determine filiation. If yes, what are the conditions under which DNA technology may be integrated into our judicial system and the prerequisites for the admissibility of DNA test results in a paternity suit HELD: 1. Yes. 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 - People v. Vallejo
2. It all boils down to evidence and it’s admissibility Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of Court.[48] Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence.[49] Section 49 of Rule 130, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, provides as follows 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 This Rule does not pose any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed, even evidence on collateral matters is allowed ―when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue 3. The court goes on to discuss the Vallejo case on the caution with the method employed in the actual testing DNA. 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 4. Nevertheless, the petition is dismissed 3. JESSE U. LUCAS v. JESUS S. LUCAS G.R. No. 190710, June 6, 2011, SECOND DIVISION (Nachura, J.) Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is still applicable, and a proper showing of sufficient justification under the particular factual circumstances of the case must be made before a court may order a compulsory blood test. FACTS: Jesse U. Lucas (Jesse), filed a Petition to Establish Filiation with a Motion for the Submission of Parties to DNA Testing before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC). Jesse narrated his mother’s account of her history with Jesus S. Lucas (Jesus) and attached several copies of his personal documents. Though Jesus was not summoned and was not served a copy of the petition, he nevertheless learned of it and obtained for himself a copy. He then filed a Special Appearance and Comment manifesting among others that the petition was adversarial in nature and therefore summons should be served on him as respondent. Unbeknownst to Jesus on the day before he filed his Comment, Jesse filed a Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case which the RTC found to be sufficient in form and hence set the case for hearing. After learning of the RTC’s order, Jesus filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that DNA testing cannot be had on the basis of a mere allegation pointing to him as Jesse’s father. Acting on Jesus’ Motion for Reconsideration, the RTC dismissed the case and held that Jesse failed to establish compliance with the four procedural aspects for a paternity action enumerated in the case of Herrera v. Alba. This prompted Jesse to file a Motion for Reconsideration of his own which the RTC granted. A new hearing was scheduled where the RTC held that ruling on the grounds relied upon by Jesse for filing the instant petition is premature considering that a full-blown trial has not yet taken place. Jesus filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the RTC. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA ruled in favor of Jesus, it noted that Jesse failed to show that the four significant aspects of a traditional paternity action had been met and held that DNA testing should not be allowed when the petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case. ISSUE: Whether or not a prima facie showing is necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing order. HELD: Petition GRANTED. Misapplication of Herrera v. Alba by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals. The statement in Herrera v. Alba that there are four significant procedural aspects in a traditional paternity case which parties have to face has been widely misunderstood and misapplied in this case. A party is confronted by these so-called procedural aspects during trial, when the parties have presented their respective evidence. They are matters of evidence that cannot be determined at
this initial stage of the proceedings, when only the petition to establish filiation has been filed. The CA’s observation that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case—the first procedural aspect in a paternity case—is therefore misplaced. A prima facie case is built by a party’s evidence and not by mere allegations in the initiatory pleading. Section 4 of the Rule on DNA evidence. The Rule on DNA Evidence was enacted to guide the Bench and the Bar for the introduction and use of DNA evidence in the judicial system. It provides the “prescribed parameters on the requisite elements for reliability and validity (i.e., the proper procedures, protocols, necessary laboratory reports, etc.), the possible sources of error, the available objections to the admission of DNA test results as evidence as well as the probative value of DNA evidence.” It seeks “to ensure that the evidence gathered, using various methods of DNA analysis, is utilized effectively and properly, [and] shall not be misused and/or abused and, more importantly, shall continue to ensure that DNA analysis serves justice and protects, rather than prejudice the public.” Not surprisingly, Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence merely provides for conditions that are aimed to safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the DNA testing. Section 4 states: 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. This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced. This does not mean, however, that a DNA testing order will be issued as a matter of right if, during the hearing, the said conditions are established.
4. ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 176389 December 14, 2010 FACTS: On June 30, 1991, Estrellita Vizconde and her daughters Carmela and Jennifer were brutally slain at their home in Parañaque City. The police officers arrested a group of suspects, some of whom gave detailed confessions. But the trial court smelled a frame-up and eventually ordered them discharged. Thus, the suspects of the crime became a mystery to the public since this case was sensationalized and commonly known to as the “Vizconde Massacre” Four years later, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) presented star-witness Jessica M. Alfaro, who claimed that she witnessed the crime. She alleged Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Artemio Ventura, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Peter Estrada, Miguel Rodriguez, and Joey Filart as the culprits of the crime. She also pointed police officer, Gerardo Biong, as an accessory. Thereafter, the public prosecutors filed information for rape with homicide against all of the accused. The prosecution presented Alfaro as its main witness along with the medico-legal officer who autopsied the bodies of the victims, the security guards of Pitong Daan Subdivision, the former laundrywoman of the Webb’s household, police officer Biong’s former girlfriend, and Lauro G. Vizconde, Estrellita’s husband. While some of the accused denied being part of the crime, Webb’s alibi appeared the strongest since he claimed that he was in the United States of America when the crime eventuated. He presented some necessary documents and evidence to prove this. In addition, the defense presented witnesses to show Alfaro's bad reputation for truth and the incredible nature of her testimony. The Regional Trial Court of Paranaque City, Branch 274 found Alfaro a credible witness. It noted her categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and frank testimony, undamaged by grueling crossexaminations. Thus, on January 4, 2000, the trial court rendered judgment, finding all the accused guilty of the crime. This was also affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) when the decision of the trial court was appealed. The CA said that they did not agree that the trial judge was biased on rendering a decision co-sympathizing with the public. When motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA, this resorted the accused to appeal this before the Supreme Court
On April 20, 2010, the Court granted the request of Webb to submit for DNA analysis the semen specimen taken from Carmela’s cadaver. The Court granted the request pursuant to section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence to give the accused and the prosecution access to scientific evidence which could lead 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. Because of this, Webb filed an urgent motion to acquit on the ground that the government failed to preserve such vital evidence which resulted a denial of his right to due process. ISSUES: Whether or not the all of the accused should be acquitted due to the failure of the government to preserve the semen specimen found on Carmela’s body; Whether or not Alfaro’s testimony as eyewitness is credible and entitled to belief; and Whether or not Webb presented sufficient evidence to prove his alibi and rebut Alfaro’s testimony. RULING: With regard to Webb’s raising of the DNA issue, the country did not yet have the technology for conducting the test and no Philippine precedent had as yet recognized its admissibility as evidence. Consequently, the idea of keeping the specimen secure even after the trial court rejected the motion for DNA testing did not come up. Indeed, neither Webb nor his co-accused brought up the matter of preserving the specimen in the meantime. Seemingly, Webb raised such DNA issue before the CA as a mere error committed by the trial court in rendering its decision. None of the accused filed a motion to have the DNA test done pending adjudication of their appeal in the CA. This, even when the Supreme Court had in the meantime passed the rules allowing such test. Considering the accused’s lack of interest in having such test done, the State cannot be deemed required to produce the semen specimen at some future time. Alfaro had been hanging around at the NBI since November or December 1994 as an "asset." She supplied her handlers with information and some of these led to the capture of notorious drug pushers. Because of her talent, the task force gave her "very special treatment" and she became its "darling”. When Alfaro became unproductive as an asset, she was teased about it. One day, she unexpectedly told Atty. Artemio
Sacaguing, a former high rung employee of the NBI that she knew someone who witnessed the Vizconde massacre. When Sacaguing showed interest, Alfaro promised to bring that someone to the NBI. When this did not happen, Alfaro told Sacaguing that she is willing to assume the role of her informant. To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence that (a) he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime. Among the accused, Webb presented the strongest alibi through presenting the necessary documents of his travel to the United States when the crime eventuated. Thus, the Court was impressed and gave credence to his alibi. Moreover, Webb’s documented alibi altogether impeaches Alfaro's testimony, not only with respect to him, but also the other people who was accused. This is because Webb’s participation is the anchor of Alfaro’s story and thus would equate that Alfaro’s testimony is not true. Conclusion: In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt. For, it would be a serious mistake to send an innocent man to jail where such kind of doubt hangs on to one’s inner being, like a piece of meat lodged immovable between teeth. 5. IN RE: THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR REYNALDO DE VILLA (detained at the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City) REYNALDO DE VILLA, petitioner, JUNE DE VILLA, petitionerrelator, vs. THE DIRECTOR, NEW BILIBID PRISONS, respondent. G.R. No. 158802. November 17, 2004 CRIME INVOLVED: Qualified Rape FACTS: At about 10 in the morning, 12-year old Aileen Mendoza woke up to find De Villa on top of her. She was unable to call for help because De Villa covered her mouth with a pillow and threatened to kill her. He then proceeded to rape her – and eventually Aileen became pregnant. Her mother noticed the pregnancy and confronted her about it, and Aileen eventually admitted that she was raped by De Villa. A criminal complaint was then filed against the petitioner by Aileen’s parents. Aileen was examined by Dr. Cosidon, who confirmed her pregnancy (she was already 8 months pregnant at that
time), and found healed lacerations in her hymen. During the trial, De Villa pleaded not guilty because at the time of the alleged rape, he was already 67 years old, and was incapable of an erection. He also interposed an alibi that he was not in the scene of the crime at the time of the rape. De Villa was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the trial court for the rape of Aileen Mendoza, his niece by affinity, and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, as well as the payment of civil indemnity, moral damages, costs of the suit, and support for Leahlyn Corales Mendoza – the putative child born of the rape. Three years after the decision, June (the son of Reynaldo) alleged that during the trial of the case, he was unaware that there was a scientific test that could determine whether Reynaldo was Leahlyn’s father. They sought for DNA testing to resolve the issue of paternity, but the same was denied. At the petitioner’s insistence, they gathered samples from Leahlyn, from the grandchildren of Reynaldo, and from Reynaldo himself and was submitted to the DNA Laboratory. The DNA Laboratory rendered a preliminary report showing that there was no match between the DNA samples. ISSUE: Was the DNA result a valid basis for habeas corpus, new trial, and acquittal? RULING: NO TO ALL COUNTS. (1) As to Habeas Corpus: The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, therefore, is that the individual seeking such relief be illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or placed under some form of illegal restraint. If an individual's liberty is restrained via some legal process, the writ of habeas corpus is unavailing. In the recent case of Feria v. Court of Appeals, the court ruled that review of a judgment of conviction is allowed in a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus only in very specific instances, such as when, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, (a) there has been a deprivation of a constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (b) the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (c) an excessive penalty has been imposed, as such sentence is void as to such excess. This Court stated the general rule that the writ of habeas corpus is not a writ of error, and should not be thus used. As to new trial: A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted only if the following requisites are met: (a) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) that said evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with
the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) that the evidence is of such weight that, if admitted, it would probably change the judgment. Petitioner-relator's claim that he was "unaware" of the existence of DNA testing until the trial was concluded carries no weight with this Court. Lack of knowledge of the existence of DNA testing speaks of negligence, either on the part of petitioner, or on the part of petitioner's counsel. In either instance, however, this negligence is binding upon petitioner. As to acquittal: Even with all of the compelling and persuasive scientific evidence presented by petitioner and his counsel, we are not convinced that Reynaldo de Villa is entitled to outright acquittal. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, even if it is conclusively proven that Reynaldo de Villa is not the father of Leahlyn Mendoza, his conviction could, in theory, still stand, with Aileen Mendoza’s testimony and positive identification as its bases. The Solicitor General reiterates, and correctly so, that the pregnancy of the victim has never been an element of the crime of rape. Therefore, the DNA evidence has failed to conclusively prove to this Court that Reynaldo de Villa should be discharged. Although petitioner claims that conviction was based solely on a finding of paternity of the child Leahlyn, this is not the case. The court’s conviction was based on the clear and convincing testimonial evidence of the victim, which, given credence by the trial court, was affirmed on appeal. 6. People of the Philippines v. Gerrico Vallejo (May 9, 2002) FACTS: On July 10, 1999 (Rosario, Cavite), at about 1pm, 9-year old Daisy Diolola went to her neighbor’s house to seek help in an assignment. It was a Saturday. Gerrico Vallejo, the neighbor, helped Daisy in her assignment. At 5pm of the same day, Daisy’s mom noticed that her child wasn’t home yet. She went to Vallejo’s house and Daisy wasn’t there. 7pm, still no word of Daisy’s whereabouts. The next morning, Daisy’s body was found tied to a tree near a river bank. Apparently, she was raped and thereafter strangled to death. In the afternoon of July 11, the police went to Vallejo’s house to question the latter as he was one of the last persons with the victim. But prior to that, some neighbors have already told the police that Vallejo was acting strangely during the afternoon of July 10. The police requested for the clothes that Vallejo wore the day Daisy
disappeared. Vallejo complied and the clothes were submitted for processing. The person who processed the clothing was Pet Byron Buan, a Forensic Biologist of the NBI. At the instance of the local fiscal, he also took buccal swabs (mouth/cheek swabs) from Vallejo and a vaginal swab from Daisy’s body for DNA testing. Dr. Buan found that there were bloodstains in Vallejo’s clothing – 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. Meanwhile, 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 (including his clothing – which in effect is an admission placing him in the crime scene – though not discussed in the case) were already soaked in smirchy waters, hence contaminated. Vallejo was convicted and was sentenced to death by the trial court. ISSUE: Whether or not the DNA samples gathered are admissible as evidence. HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the findings of Dr. Buan are conclusive. The court reiterated that 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.32 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.