part 7 leg med

8/12/2019 part 7 leg med

1/25

PART SEVENDNA AS EVIDENCE

The focus is nor on DNA testing to prove the guilt or innocence ofthose accused of crimes.

I. hat is DNA test!

It is s"non"mous to DNA t"ping# DNA fingerprinting# DNAprofiling# genetic tests and genetic fingerprinting. Its scientific $asis is$ased on the fact that our differences as individuals are due to differencesin our genetic ma%e&up or genetic composition. The genes comprise achemical su$stance# DNA or deo'"ri$onucleic acid.

People vs. Valle(o# ).R. No. *++,-,# a" /# 0110# 230 SCRA*/0

Repu$lic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTanila

EN 4ANC

G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES# appellee#vs.JOEL YATAR ala! "#A$IT",appellant.

D E C I S I 5 N

PER CURIAM%

5n automatic revie6 is a Decision of the Regional Trial Court of 4ulanao#Ta$u%# 7alinga# 4ranch 0-# sentencing appellant 8oel 9atar alias :7a6it:to Deathfor the special comple' crime of Rape 6ith ;omicide# andordering him to pa" the heirs of the victim# 7ath"l"n D.

That on or a$out the afternoon of 8une 21# *//3 at ?i6an est#Ri@al# 7alinga# and 6ithin the (urisdiction of this ;onora$le Court#the accused# in order to have carnal %no6ledge of a certain7AT;9?9N D. 11 a.m.# Anita ania and fifteen "ear old 4everl" Denestopped $" the house of Isa$el. The" sa6 appellant at the $ac% of house. The" 6ent inside the house through the $ac% door of the %itchenhave a drin% of 6ater. Anita as%ed appellant 6hat he 6as doing there# ahe replied that he 6as getting lum$er to $ring to the house of his mother.

At *0>21 p.m.# 6hile 8udil"n 6as on her 6a" home from Nag$ita"an# ssa6 appellant descend the ladder from the second floor of the houseIsa$el Da6ang and run to6ards the $ac% of the house.,She later notic

appellant# 6ho 6as 6earing a 6hite shirt 6ith collar and $lac% pants# pac$ac% and forth at the $ac% of the house. She did not find this unusualappellant and his 6ife used to live in the house of Isa$el Da6ang.=

At *>21 p.m.# 8udil"n again sa6 appellant 6hen he called her near house. This time# he 6as 6earing a $lac% shirt 6ithout collar and $pants. Appellant told her that he 6ould not $e getting the lum$er he hstac%ed# and that Isa$el could use it. She noticed that appellants e"6ere :reddish and sharp.: Appellant as%ed her 6here her hus$and 6ashe had something important to tell him. 8udil"ns hus$and then arrived aappellant immediatel" left and 6ent to6ards the $ac% of the houseIsa$el.3

In the evening of the same da"# Isa$el Da6ang arrived home and fouthat the lights in her house 6ere off. She called out for her granddaught7ath"l"n


2/25

;ence# this automatic revie6 pursuant to Article += of the Revised PenalCode# as amended. In his 4rief# appellant assigns the follo6ing errors>

I

T;E TRIA? C5


3/25

evidence as $eing sufficient to sustain a conviction $e"ond reasona$ledou$t> *F Appellant and his 6ife 6ere living in the house of Isa$el Da6angtogether 6ith the victim# 7ath"l"n 21 p.m.# 6earing a dirt" 6hite shirt# and again at *>21p.m.# this time 6earing a $lac% shirtH ,F Appellant hurriedl" left 6hen thehus$and of 8udil"n Pas&a 6as approachingH =F Salmalina Tandagan sa6appellant in a dirt" 6hite shirt coming do6n the ladder of the house of

Isa$el on the da" 7ath"l"n *F there is more than one circumstanceH 0F factson 6hich the inferences are derived are provenH and 2F the com$ination ofall the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction $e"ond reasona$ledou$t.2,

In an attempt to e'clude the DNA evidence# the appellant contends that the$lood sample ta%en from him as 6ell as the DNA tests 6ere conducted inviolation of his right to remain silent as 6ell as his right against self&incrimination under Secs. *0 and *= of Art. III of the Constitution.

This contention is untena$le. The %ernel of the right is not against allcompulsion# $ut against testimonial compulsion.2=The right against self&incrimination is simpl" against the legal process of e'tracting from the lipsof the accused an admission of guilt. It does not appl" 6here the evidencesought to $e e'cluded is not an incrimination $ut as part of o$(ect evidence.

e ruled in People v. Rondero23that although accused&appellant insistedthat hair samples 6ere forci$l" ta%en from him and su$mitted to theNational 4ureau of Investigation for forensic e'amination# the hair samplesma" $e admitted in evidence against him# for 6hat is proscri$ed is the useof testimonial compulsion or an" evidence communicative in natureacuired from the accused under duress.

;ence# a person ma" $e compelled to su$mit to fingerprinting#photographing# paraffin# $lood and DNA# as there is no testimonialcompulsion involved.


4/25

Appellant se'uall" assaulted 7ath"l"n *F theappellant had carnal %no6ledge of a 6omanH 0F carnal %no6ledge of a6oman 6as achieved $" means of force# threat or intimidationH and 2F $"reason or on the occasion of such carnal %no6ledge $" means of force#threat or intimidation# appellant %illed the 6oman.-0;o6ever# in rapecommitted $" close %in# such as the victims father# step&father# uncle# orthe common&la6 spouse of her mother# it is not necessar" that actual forceor intimidation $e emplo"ed.-2oral influence or ascendanc" ta%es theplace of violence and intimidation.-+The fact that the victims h"men isintact does not negate a finding that rape 6as committed as mere entr" $"the penis into the lips of the female genital organ# even 6ithout rupture orlaceration of the h"men# suffices for conviction of rape. --The strength anddilata$ilit" of the h"men are invaria$leH it ma" $e so elastic as to stretch6ithout laceration during intercourse. A$sence of h"menal lacerations doesnot disprove se'ual a$use especiall" 6hen the v ictim is of tender age.-,

In the case at $ar# appellant is the hus$and of the victims aunt. ;e isseven "ears older than the victim 7ath"l"n

That on or a$out the afternoon of 8une 21# *//3 at ?i6an eRi@al# 7alinga# and 6ithin the (urisdiction of this ;onora$le Cothe accused# in order to have carnal %no6ledge of a cert7AT;9?9N D. 21 a.m.# 8udil"n Pas&a and her fcousin# seventeen "ear old 7ath"l"n 21 p.m.# 6hile 8udil"n 6as on her 6a" home from Nag$ita"an# ssa6 appellant descend the ladder from the second floor of the houseIsa$el Da6ang and run to6ards the $ac% of the house.,She later noticappellant# 6ho 6as 6earing a 6hite shirt 6ith collar and $lac% pants# pac$ac% and forth at the $ac% of the house. She did not find this unusualappellant and his 6ife used to live in the house of Isa$el Da6ang.=

At *>21 p.m.# 8udil"n again sa6 appellant 6hen he called her near house. This time# he 6as 6earing a $lac% shirt 6ithout collar and $pants. Appellant told her that he 6ould not $e getting the lum$er he hstac%ed# and that Isa$el could use it. She noticed that appellants e"6ere :reddish and sharp.: Appellant as%ed her 6here her hus$and 6ashe had something important to tell him. 8udil"ns hus$and then arrived aappellant immediatel" left and 6ent to6ards the $ac% of the house


5/25

Isa$el.3

In the evening of the same da"# Isa$el Da6ang arrived home and foundthat the lights in her house 6ere off. She called out for her granddaughter#7ath"l"n 11 that evening# SP1+ elchor Banis6a received a report that a dead6oman 6as found in Isa$el Da6angs house. Together 6ith fello6 policeofficers# Banis6a 6ent to the house and found the na%ed $od" of 7ath"l"n21 p.m.

The police discovered the victims panties# $rassiere# denim pants# $ag andsandals $eside her na%ed cadaver at the scene of the crime# and the"found a dirt" 6hite shirt splattered 6ith $lood 6ithin -1 meters from thehouse of Isa$el.

hen uestioned $" the police authorities# appellant denied an" %no6ledgeof 7ath"l"nss death#**ho6ever# he 6as placed under police custod".

5n 8ul" 2# *//3# appellant as%ed the police officers if he could relievehimself. Police 5fficer Cesar A$agan accompanied him to the toilet aroundseven to ten meters a6a" from the police station. The" suddenl" heardsomeone shout in the Ilocano dialect# :Nagtara": ;es running a6a"F.Police 5fficer 5rlando anuel e'ited through the gate of the Police Stationand sa6 appellant running a6a". Appellant 6as appro'imatel" =1 metersa6a" from the station 6hen Police 5fficer A$agan recaptured him. *0;e6as charged 6ith Rape 6ith ;omicide. hen he 6as arraigned on 8ul" 0*#

*//3# appellant pleaded :not guilt".:

After trial# appellant 6as convicted of the crime of Rape with Homicide#defined and penali@ed under Article 0,,&A of the Revised Penal Code# asamended $" R.A. 32-2# other6ise %no6n as the Anti&Rape ?a6 of *//=#and 6as accordingl"# sentenced to Death.

;ence# this automatic revie6 pursuant to Article += of the Revised PenalCode# as amended. In his 4rief# appellant assigns the follo6ing errors>

I

T;E TRIA? C5


6/25

from the victim# crime scene or assailant# DNA can $e compared 6ith%no6n samples to place the suspect at the scene of the crime.03

The


7/25

relevanc" of evidence denotes :something more than a minimum ofpro$ative value#: suggesting that such evidentiar" relevance must contain a:plus value.:+*This ma" $e necessar" to preclude the trial court from $eingsatisfied $" matters of slight value# capa$le of $eing e'aggerated $"pre(udice and hast" conclusions. Evidence 6ithout :plus value: ma" $elogicall" relevant $ut not legall" sufficient to convict. It is incum$ent uponthe trial court to $alance the pro$ative value of such evidence against theli%el" harm that 6ould result from its admission.

The (udgment in a criminal case can $e upheld onl" 6hen there is relevantevidence from 6hich the court can properl" find or infer that the accused isguilt" $e"ond reasona$le dou$t. Proof $e"ond reasona$le dou$t reuiresmoral certaint" of guilt in order to sustain a conviction. oral certaint" isthat degree of certaint" that convinces and directs the understanding andsatisfies the reason and (udgment of those 6ho are $ound to actconscientiousl" upon it. It is certaint" $e"ond reasona$le dou$t.+0Thisreuires that the circumstances# ta%en together# should $e of a conclusivenature and tendenc"H leading# on the 6hole# to a satisfactor" conclusionthat the accused# and no one else# committed the offense charged. +2Invie6 of the totalit" of evidence appreciated thus far# 6e rule that thepresent case passes the test of moral certaint".

;o6ever# as a matter of procedure# and for the purpose of meeting thereuirement of proof $e"ond reasona$le dou$t# motive is essential forconviction 6hen there is dou$t as to the identit" of the culprit.++

Pertinentl"# it must $e noted that 8udil"n Pas&a# first cousin of the victim#testified that she last sa6 the victim alive in the morning of 8une 21# *//3

at the house of Isa$el Da6ang.+-

She 6itnessed the appellant runningdo6n the stairs of Isa$els house and proceeding to the $ac% of the samehouse.+,She also testified that a fe6 da"s $efore the victim 6as raped and%illed# the latter revealed to her that :8oel 9atar attempted to rape her aftershe came from the school.:+=The victim told 8udil"n a$out the incident orattempt of the appellant to rape her five da"s $efore her na%ed and violated$od" 6as found dead in her grandmothers house on 8une 0-# *//3. +3Inaddition# 8udil"n also testified that 6hen her auntie ?u@ Da6ang 9atar# 6ifeof appellant# separated from her hus$and# :this 8oel 9atar threatened to %illour famil".:+/According to 8udil"n# 6ho 6as personall" present during anargument $et6een her aunt and the appellant# the e'act 6ords uttered $"appellant to his 6ife in the Ilocano dialect 6as# :If "ou leave me# I 6ill %ill all"our famil" and "our relatives ' ' '.:-1These statements 6ere notcontradicted $" appellant.

Thus# appellants motive to se'uall" assault and %ill the victim 6as evident

in the instant case. It is a rule in criminal la6 that motive# $eing a state ofmind# is esta$lished $" the testimon" of 6itnesses on the acts orstatements of the accused $efore or immediatel" after the commission ofthe offense# deeds or 6ords that ma" e'press it or from 6hich his motive orreason for committing it ma" $e inferred.-*

Accordingl"# 6e are convinced that the appellant is guilt" $e"ondreasona$le dou$t of the special comple' crime of rape 6ith homicide.Appellant se'uall" assaulted 7ath"l"n *F theappellant had carnal %no6ledge of a 6omanH 0F carnal %no6ledge of a6oman 6as achieved $" means of force# threat or intimidationH and 2F $"

reason or on the occasion of such carnal %no6ledge $" means of force#threat or intimidation# appellant %illed the 6oman.-0;o6ever# in rapecommitted $" close %in# such as the victims father# step&father# uncle# orthe common&la6 spouse of her mother# it is not necessar" that actual forceor intimidation $e emplo"ed.-2oral influence or ascendanc" ta%es theplace of violence and intimidation.-+The fact that the victims h"men isintact does not negate a finding that rape 6as committed as mere entr" $"the penis into the lips of the female genital organ# even 6ithout rupture orlaceration of the h"men# suffices for conviction of rape. --The strength anddilata$ilit" of the h"men are invaria$leH it ma" $e so elastic as to stretch6ithout laceration during intercourse. A$sence of h"menal lacerations doesnot disprove se'ual a$use especiall" 6hen the v ictim is of tender age.-,

In the case at $ar# appellant is the hus$and of the victims aunt. ;e is

seven "ears older than the victim 7ath"l"n


8/25

This is a petition for revie6 J*Kto set aside the Decision J0Kdated 0/Novem$er 0111 of the Court of Appeals Lappellate courtMF in CA&).R. SPNo. -/=,,. The appellate court affirmed t6o 5rdersJ2Kissued $" 4ranch +3of the Regional Trial Court of anila Ltrial courtMF in SP No. /3&33=-/. The5rder dated 2 Be$ruar" 0111 directed Rosendo ;errera LpetitionerMF tosu$mit to deo'"ri$onucleic acid LDNAMF paternit" testing# 6hile the 5rderdated 3 8une 0111 denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.

T+ Fa8!

5n *+ a" *//3# then thirteen&"ear&old Rosendo Al$aLrespondentMF# represented $" his mother Armi Al$a# filed $efore the trialcourt a petition for compulsor" recognition# support and damages againstpetitioner. 5n = August *//3# petitioner filed his ans6er 6ith counterclaim6here he denied that he is the $iological father of respondent. Petitioneralso denied ph"sical contact 6ith respondents mother.

Respondent filed a motion to direct the ta%ing of DNA paternit"testing to a$$reviate the proceedings. To support the motion# respondentpresented the testimon" of Saturnina C. ;alos# Ph.D. hen she testified#Dr. ;alos 6as an Associate Professor at De ?a Salle

I* :+; o + o/+7o*7, + oo* o + +o*+/ ! GRANTE& a*

+ /+l+:a* *:)al!, *a+ly% + +o*+/, + *o/ 8l, a*/+!o*+* a/+ /+8+ o )*+/7o &NA a+/*y +!*7 * ala3o/ao/y o +/ 8oo* 8o8+ ;* a +/o o /y ay!/o /+8+ o + O/+/, a* o !)3 + /+!)l! +/+o ;* a+/o o **+y ay! /o 8ol+o*. T+ a/+! a/+ )/+//+*+ o + +a/*7 !+ o* 24 F+3/)a/y 2000 o/ + /+8+o* oo+/ +:+*8+ * !)o/ o + +o*.

IT IS SO OR&ERE&.'5

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the 2 Be$ruar" 01115rder. ;e asserted that Lunder the present circumstances# the DNA testJheK is compelled to ta%e 6ould $e inconclusive# irrelevant and the coerciveprocess to o$tain the reuisite specimenO# unconstitutional.M

In an 5rder dated 3 8une 0111# the trial court denied petitionersmotion for reconsideration.J,K

5n *3 8ul" 0111# petitioner filed $efore the appellate court a petitionfor certiorariunder Rule ,- of the *//= Rules of Civil Procedure. ;easserted that the trial court rendered the 5rders dated 2 Be$ruar" 0111and 3 8une 0111 Lin e'cess of# or 6ithout (urisdiction andor 6ith gravea$use of discretion amounting to lac% or e'cess of (urisdiction.M Petitionerfurther contended that there is Lno appeal nor an" JotherK plain# adeuateand speed" remed" in the ordinar" course of la6.M Petitioner maintainedhis previous o$(ections to the ta%ing of DNA paternit" testing. ;e su$mittedthe follo6ing grounds to support his o$(ection>

1. P)3l8 /+!o*+* !/+a a* !al+ + /)l*7 *L :!. Co)/ o A+al! .

2. P)3l8 /+!o*+* /)l+ o a88+ &NA +! ;o)8o*!+/*7 + lao*! o*, a* 8o*o*! /+8++*o/ + a!!3ly o &NA +!*7 a* 7*o/*7 +

!+/o)! 8o*!/a*! a+8*7 + /+la3ly o + +! a+ 3y /:a+ /+!o*+*@! +B+/ ;*+!!.

=. S)3D+8 O/+/! la8 l+7al a* a8)al !)o/, ; )3/+!o*+* /+ly*7 o* !8+*8 **7! a* 8o*8l)!o)* o/ D)8al *o8+ a* )*!)o/+ 3y +B+/! * +l a* !8+*8 /+a!+!.

4. U*+/ + /+!+* 8/8)!a*8+! + &NA +!+o*+/ '! 8o+ll+ o a+ ;ll 3+ *8o*8l)!//+l+:a* a* + 8o+/8:+ /o8+!! o o3a* + /+)!!+8+* /o + +o*+/, )*8o*!)o*al.'?

T+ R)l*7 o + Co)/ o A+al!

5n 0/ Novem$er 0111# the appellate court issued a decision den"the petition and affirming the uestioned 5rders of the trial court. Tappellate court stated that petitioner merel" desires to correct the tcourts evaluation of evidence. Thus# appeal is an availa$le remed" forerror of (udgment that the court ma" commit in the e'ercise of

(urisdiction. The appellate court also stated that the proposed Dpaternit" testing does not violate his right against self&incriminat$ecause the right applies onl" to testimonial compulsion. Binall"# appellate court pointed out that petitioner can still refute a possi$le adveresult of the DNA paternit" testing. The dispositive portion of the appellcourts decision reads>

$HEREFORE, o/+7o*7 /+!+! 8o*!+/+, + P+o* +/+3y &ENIE& &UE COURSE, a* o/+/+ !!!+, a* 8all+*7+ o/+/! o + T/al Co)/ AFFIRME&, ; 8o!! P+o*+/.

SO OR&ERE&.'(

Petitioner moved for reconsideration# 6hich the appellate codenied in its Resolution dated 02 a" 011*.J/K

I!!)+!

Petitioner raises the issue of 6hether a DNA test is a valid pro$attool in this (urisdiction to determine filiation. Petitioner as%s for

conditions under 6hich DNA technolog" ma" $e integrated into our (udis"stem and the prereuisites for the admissi$ilit" of DNA test results ipaternit" suit.J*1K

Petitioner further su$mits that the appellate court gravel" a$useddiscretion 6hen it authori@ed the trial court Lto em$ar% in JsicK a nprocedure ''' to determine filiation despite the a$sence of legislationensure its relia$ilit" and integrit"# 6ant of official recognition as made clin ,im vs. (ourt of )ppealsand the presence of technical and leconstraints in respect of JsicK its implementation.MJ**KPetitioner maintathat the proposed DNA paternit" testing violates his right against sincrimination.J*0K

T+ R)l*7 o + Co)/

The petition has no merit.

4efore discussing the issues on DNA paternit" testing# 6e deemappropriate to give an overvie6 of a paternit" suit and appl" it to the faof this case. e shall consider the reuirements of the Bamil" Code andthe Rules of Evidence to esta$lish paternit" and filiation.

An Overview of the Paternity and Filiation Suit

Biliation proceedings are usuall" filed not (ust to ad(udicate patern
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn1


9/25

$ut also to secure a legal right associated 6ith paternit"# such asciti@enship#J*2Ksupport as in the present caseF# or inheritance. The $urdenof proving paternit" is on the person 6ho alleges that the putative father isthe $iological father of the child. There are four significant proceduralaspects of a traditional paternit" action 6hich parties have to face> aprimafacie case# affirmative defenses# presumption of legitimac"# and ph"sicalresem$lance $et6een the putative father and child.J*+K

Aprima facie case e'ists if a 6oman declares that she had se'ualrelations 6ith the putative father. In our (urisdiction# corro$orative proof isreuired to carr" the $urden for6ard and shift it to the putative father.J*-K

There are t6o affirmative defenses availa$le to the putative father.The putative father ma" sho6 incapa$ilit" of se'ual relations 6ith themother# $ecause of either ph"sical a$sence or impotenc". J*,KThe putativefather ma" also sho6 that the mother had se'ual relations 6ith other menat the time of conception.

A child $orn to a hus$and and 6ife during a valid marriage ispresumed legitimate.J*=KThe childs legitimac" ma" $e impugned onl" underthe strict standards provided $" la6.J*3K

Binall"# ph"sical resem$lance $et6een the putative father and childma" $e offered as part of evidence of paternit". Resem$lance is a trialtechniue uniue to a paternit" proceeding. ;o6ever# although li%eness isa function of heredit"# there is no mathematical formula that could uantif"ho6 much a child must or must not loo% li%e his $iological father. J*/KThis%ind of evidence appeals to the emotions of the trier of fact.

In the present case# the trial court encountered three of the fouraspects. Armi Al$a# respondents mother# put for6ard aprima faciecase

6hen she asserted that petitioner is respondents $iological father. A6arethat her assertion is not enough to convince the trial court# she offeredcorro$orative proof in the form of letters and pictures. Petitioner# on theother hand# denied Armi Al$as assertion. ;e denied ever having se'ualrelations 6ith Armi Al$a and stated that respondent is Armi Al$as child 6ithanother man. Armi Al$a countered petitioners denial $" su$mittingpictures of respondent and petitioner side $" side# to sho6 ho6 much the"resem$le each other.

Paternit" and filiation disputes can easil" $ecome credi$ilit"contests. e no6 loo% to the la6# rules# and governing (urisprudence tohelp us determine 6hat evidence of incriminating acts on paternit" andfiliation are allo6ed in this (urisdiction.

Laws, Rules, and JurisprudenceEstablishing Filiation

The relevant provisions of the Bamil" Code provide as follo6s>

ART. 1?5. Ill+7a+ 8l/+* ay +!a3l! +/ ll+7a+ lao** + !a+ ;ay a* o* + !a+ +:+*8+ a! l+7a+ 8l/+*.

BBB

ART. 1?2. T+ lao* o l+7a+ 8l/+* ! +!a3l!+ 3y a*y o+ ollo;*7%

T+ /+8o/ o 3/ a+a/*7 * + 8:l /+7!+/ o/ a*al D)7+* o/

A* a!!o* o l+7a+ lao* * a )3l8o8)+* o/ a /:a+ a*;/+* *!/)+* a*

!7*+ 3y + a/+* 8o*8+/*+.

I* + a3!+*8+ o + o/+7o*7 +:+*8+, + l+7a+ lao* !all3+ /o:+ 3y%

T+ o+* a* 8o**)o)! o!!+!!o* o + !a)!o a l+7a+ 8l o/

A*y o+/ +a*! allo;+ 3y + R)l+! o Co)/ a*!+8al la;!.

The Rules on Evidence include provisions on pedigree. The relevantsections of Rule *21 provide>

SEC. =9. Act or declaration about pedigree!T+ a8 o/ +8la/ao* oa +/!o* +8+a!+, o/ )*a3l+ o +!y, * /+!+8 o + +7/++ oa*o+/ +/!o* /+la+ o 3y 3/ o/ a//a7+, ay 3+ /+8+:+ *

+:+*8+ ;+/+ o88)//+ 3+o/+ + 8o*/o:+/!y, a* /+lao*! 3+;++* + ;o +/!o*! ! !o;* 3y +:+*8+ oa* !)8 a8 o/ +8la/ao*. T+ ;o/ +7/++ *8l)/+lao*!, aly 7+*+alo7y, 3/, a//a7+, +a, + a+! ;a* + la8+! ;+/+ +!+ a8! o88)//+, a* + *a+! o /+la:+!. I +3/a8+! al!o a8! o aly !o/y *a8o**+8+ ; +7/++.

SEC. 40. Fa"ily reputation or tradition regarding pedigree!T/+)ao* o/ /ao* +B!*7 * a aly /+:o)! o + 8o*/o:+/* /+!+8 o + +7/++ o a*y o*+ o ! +3+/!, ay 3+ /+8+:* +:+*8+ + ;*+!! +!y*7 +/+o* 3+ al!o a +3+/ o aly, ++/ 3y 8o*!a*7)*y o/ a*y. E*/+! * aly 33l+!o+/ aly 3oo! o/ 8a/!, +*7/a:*7 o* /*7!, aly o//a! a+ l+, ay 3+ /+8+:+ a! +:+*8+ o +7/++.

This Courts rulings further specif" 6hat incriminating acts accepta$le as evidence to esta$lish filiation. In Pe Li" v #A#J01Ka capetitioner often cites# 6e stated that the issue of paternit" still has to resolved $" such conventional evidence as relevant *8/*a*7ver$al and 6ritten acts $" the putative fathe


10/25

*:)al@! 3loo ! + :+/y &NA * ! o/ +/ !* 8+ll!, a/oll8l+!, )!8l+!, !++*, !al+! /o 3)88al !;a3!, !al:a, o/o+/ 3oy a/!.

T+ 8+8al !/)8)/+ o &NA a! o)/ 3a!+!. T+y a/+ *o;*a! A , G , C a* T . T+ o/+/* ;8 + o)/ 3a!+! a+a/ * a* *:)al@! &NA ++/*+! !o/ +/ y!8al a+). A* !*8+ &NA ! a o)3l+!/a*+ol+8)l+, ! 8oo!+ o ;o !+88 a/+ 3a!+!, AT o/ TA a* GC o/ CG. T+!+ a/+ 8all+ 'genes(

E:+/y genea! a 8+/a* *)3+/ o + a3o:+ 3a!+ a/! !/3)+* a a/8)la/ !+)+*8+. T! 7:+! a +/!o* ! o/ +/ 7+*+8 8o+.So+;+/+ * + &NA /a+;o/, *o*++l+!!, a/+ !+8o*! a

+/. T+y a/+ *o;* a!'poly"orphic loci,(;8 a/+ + a/+a!a*aly+ * &NA y*7 . I* o+/;o/!, &NA y*7 !ly +a*! ++/**7 + 'poly"orphic loci(

Ho; ! &NA y*7 +/o/+ F/o a &NA !al+ o3a*+ o/+B/a8+, a ol+8)la/ 3olo7! ay /o8++ o a*aly+ * !+:+/al;ay!. T+/+ a/+ :+ +8*)+! o 8o*)8 &NA y*7. T+y a/+%+ RFLP )restriction frag"ent length poly"orphis"*+ 'reverse dotblot(o/ HLA &K aP lo8 ;8 ;a! )!+ * 2(? 8a!+! a ;+/+a+ a! +:+*8+ 3y =? 8o)/! * + U.S. a! o No:+3+/ 1994&NA /o8+!! 6NTR a* +o! /+8+* ;8 ! *o;* a! + PCR

Pa/+*a7+ ;ll !ll 3+ /+!ol:+ )!*7 8o*:+*o*al +o! )*l+!! ;+ao + o+/* a* !8+*8 ;ay! a:ala3l+. Fo/)*a+ly, ;+ a:+*o; + a8ly a* +B+/!+ * )!*7 &NA +! o/ +*8ao* a*a/+*a7+ +!*7. T+ U*:+/!y o + Pl*+! Na)/al S8+*8+R+!+a/8 I*!)+ &NA A*aly!! La3o/ao/y a! *o; +8aa3ly o 8o*)8 &NA y*7 )!*7 !o/ a*+ /++a a*aly!!. BBB Fo/ ;a! !a, a 8o)/! !o)l aly + /+!)l! o!8+*8+ ;+* 8ol++ly o3a*+ * a o !)ao*! /+!+*+,!*8+ o /+D+8 !a /+!)l ! o +*y /o7/+!!. To)7 ! *o*+8+!!a/y * ! 8a!+ o /+!o/ o &NA +!*7, * '+ ))/+ ;o)l3+ )!+)l o all 8o*8+/*+ * + /o /+!ol)o* o a/+*a7+ a*+*y !!)+!.

Ad"issibility of%&A Analysis as Evidence

The 0110 case of People v .alle-oJ2-Kdiscussed DNA anal"sisevidence. This ma" $e considered a *31 degree turn from the Courts 6attitude to6ards DNA testing in the *//= PeLi"case#J2,K6here 6e stathat LDNA# $eing a relativel" ne6 science# ''' has not "et $een accordofficial recognition $" our courts.M In .alle-o# the DNA profile from vaginal s6a$s ta%en from the rape victim matched the accuseds Dprofile. e affirmed the accuseds conviction of rape 6ith homicide asentenced him to death. e declared>

I* a!!+!!*7 + /o3a:+ :al)+ o &NA +:+*8+, +/+o/+, 8o)!o)l 8o*!+/, ao*7 o+/ *7!, + ollo;*7 aa% o; !al+! ;+/+ 8oll+8+, o; +y ;+/+ a*l+, + o!!3ly8o*a*ao* o + !al+!, + /o8+)/+ ollo;+ * a*aly*7 !al+!, ;++/ + /o+/ !a*a/! a* /o8+)/+! ;+/+ ollo;* 8o*)8*7 + +!!, a* + )al8ao* o + a*aly! ;8o*)8+ + +!!.'=?

.alle-odiscussed the pro$ative value# not admissi$ilit"# of Devidence. 4" 0110# there 6as no longer an" uestion on the validit" of use of DNA anal"sis as evidence. The Court moved from the issueaccording Lofficial recognitionM to DNA anal"sis as evidence to the issueo$servance of procedures in conducting DNA anal"sis.

In 011+# there 6ere t6o other cases that had a significant impact (urisprudence on DNA testing> People v /atarJ23K and0n re1 $he 2rit3abeas #orpus for Reynaldo de .illa.J2/KIn/atar# a match e'is

$et6een the DNA profile of the semen found in the victim and the DNprofile of the $lood sample given $" appellant in open court. The Cofollo6ing .alle-o4sfootsteps# affirmed the conviction of appellant $ecauthe ph"sical evidence# corro$orated $" circumstantial evidence# sho6appellant guilt" of rape 6ith homicide. In %e .illa# the convict&petitiopresented DNA test results to prove that he is not the father of the chconceived at the time of commission of the rape. The Court ruled thadifference $et6een the DNA profile of the convict&petitioner and the Dprofile of the victims child does not preclude the convict&petitionecommission of rape.

In the present case# the various pleadings filed $" petitioner arespondent refer to t6o Frye v 5J+1Kand %aubert v 6errell %ow Phar"aceuticals.J+*KIn Frye v 5S# trial court convicted Br"e of murder. Br"e appealed his conviction to tSupreme Court of the District of Colum$ia. During trial# Br"es coun

offered an e'pert 6itness to testif" on the result of a s"stolic $lood pressdeception testJ+0Kmade on defendant. The state Supreme Court affirmBr"es conviction and ruled that Lthe s"stolic $lood pressure deception thas not "et gained such standing and scientific recognition amoph"siological and ps"chological authorities as 6ould (ustif" the courtsadmitting e'pert testimon" deduced from the discover"# development# ae'periments thus far made.M The Fryestandard of general acceptastates as follo6s>

J)! ;+* a !8+*8 /*8l+ o/ !8o:+/y 8/o!!+! + l*+ 3+;++ +B+/+*al a* +o*!/a3l+ !a7+! ! 8)l o +*So+;+/+ * ! ;l7 o*+ + +:+*al o/8+ o + /*8)! 3+ /+8o7*+, a* ;l+ 8o)/! ;ll 7o a lo*7 ;ay * a+B+/ +!o*y +)8+ /o a ;+ll /+8o7*+ !8+*8 /*8o/ !8o:+/y, + *7 /o ;8 + +)8o* ! a+ )! !)8+*ly +!a3l!+ o a:+ 7a*+ 7+*+/al a88+a*8+ * a/8)la/ +l * ;8 3+lo*7!.

In */3/# State v Schwart7J+2Kmodifiedthe Fryestandard. Sch6a6as charged 6ith sta$$ing and murder. 4loodstained articles and $losamples of the accused and the victim 6ere su$mitted for DNA testing tgovernment facilit" and a private facilit". The prosecution introduced private testing facilit"s results over Sch6art@s o$(ection. 5ne of issues $rought $efore the state Supreme Court included the admissi$ilit"DNA test results in a criminal proceeding. The state Supreme Coconcluded that>

$l+ ;+ a7/++ ; + /al 8o)/ a o/+*!8 &NA y*7 7a*+ 7+*+/al a88+a*8+ * + !8+*8 8o)*y, ;+ ol a!!3ly o !+88 +! /+!)l! * a a/8)la/ 8a!+ *7+! o* la3o/ao/y@! 8ola*8+ ; a/o/a+ !a*a/! a* 8o*/ol!, a+ a:ala3ly o +/ +!*7 aa a* /+!)l!.'44
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/150224.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/150224.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/150224.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/158802.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/158802.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/158802.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/mar2001/125901.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/may2004/150224.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/158802.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/nov2004/158802.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn44


11/25

In *//2#%aubert v 6errell %ow Phar"aceuticals, 0nc.J+-Kfurthermodified the Frye8Schwart7standard. %aubert6as a product lia$ilit"case 6here $oth the trial and appellate courts denied the admissi$ilit" of ane'perts testimon" $ecause it failed to meet the Fryestandard of Lgeneralacceptance.M The

I !8+*8, +8*8al, o/ o+/ !+8al+ *o;l+7+ ;ll a!!! +/+/ o a8 o )*+/!a* + +:+*8+ o/ o ++/*+ a a8 * !!)+,a ;*+!! )al+ a! a* +B+/ 3y *o;l+7+, !ll, +B+/+*8+,/a**7, o/ +)8ao*, ay +!y +/+o * + o/ o a* o*o* o/o+/;!+.

%aubertcautions that departure from the Fryestandard of generalacceptance does not mean that the Bederal Rules do not place limits on

the admissi$ilit" of scientific evidence. Rather# the (udge must ensure thatthe testimon"s reasoning or method is scientificall" valid and is relevant tothe issue. Admissi$ilit" 6ould depend on factors such as *F 6hether thetheor" or techniue can $e or has $een testedH 0F 6hether the theor" ortechniue has $een su$(ected to peer revie6 and pu$licationH 2F the%no6n or potential rate of errorH +F the e'istence and maintenance ofstandards controlling the techniues operationH and -F 6hether the theor"or techniue is generall" accepted in the scientific communit".

Another product lia$ilit" case# 9u"ho $ires #o v #ar"ichael#J+,Kfurther modified the %aubertstandard. This led to the amendment of Rule=10 in 0111 and 6hich no6 reads as follo6s>

I !8+*8, +8*8al o/ o+/ !+8al+ *o;l+7+ ;ll a!!! +/+/ o a8 o )*+/!a* + +:+*8+ o/ o ++/*+ a a8 * !!)+,a ;*+!! )al+ a! a* +B+/ 3y *o;l+7+, !ll, +B+/+*8+,/a**7, o/ +)8ao*, ay +!y +/+o * + o/ o a* o*o* o/

o+/;!+, + +!o*y ! 3a!+ )o* !)8+* a8! o/ aa, + +!o*y ! + /o)8 o /+la3l+ /*8l+! a* +o!,a* + ;*+!! a! al+ + /*8l+! a* +o! /+la3ly o+ a8! o + 8a!+.

e no6 determine the applica$ilit" in this (urisdiction of theseAmerican cases. 5$viousl"# neither the Frye8Schwart7standard northe %aubert89u"hostandard is controlling in the Philippines. J+=KAt $est#American (urisprudence merel" has a persuasive effect on our decisions.;ere# evidence is admissi$le 6hen it is relevant to the fact in issue and isnot other6ise e'cluded $" statute or the Rules of Court. J+3KEvidence isrelevant 6hen it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce $elief inits e'istence or non&e'istence.J+/KSection +/ of Rule *21# 6hich governs theadmissi$ilit" of e'pert testimon"# provides as follo6s>

T+ o*o* o a ;*+!! o* a a+/ /+)/*7 !+8al *o;l+7+,!ll, +B+/+*8+ o/ /a**7 ;8 + ! !o;* o o!!+!! ay 3+

/+8+:+ * +:+*8+.

This Rule does not pose an" legal o$stacle to the admissi$ilit" of DNAanal"sis as evidence. Indeed# even evidence on collateral matters isallo6ed L6hen it tends in an" reasona$le degree to esta$lish the pro$a$ilit"or impro$a$ilit" of the fact in issue.MJ-1K

Indeed# it 6ould have $een convenient to merel" refer petitioner toour decisions in $i-ing, .alle-oand /atarto illustrate that DNA anal"sis isadmissi$le as evidence. In our (urisdiction# the restrictive tests foradmissi$ilit" esta$lished $" Frye8Schwart7and %aubert89u"hogo intothe 6eight of the evidence.

Probative .alue of

%&A Analysis as Evidence

Despite our relativel" li$eral rules on admissi$ilit"# trial courts sho$e cautious in giving credence to DNA anal"sis as evidence. e reiterour statement in .alle-o>

I* a!!+!!*7 + /o3a:+ :al)+ o &NA +:+*8+, +/+o/+, 8o)!o)l 8o*!+/, ao*7 o+/ *7!, + ollo;*7 aa% o; !al+! ;+/+ 8oll+8+, o; +y ;+/+ a*l+, + o!!3ly8o*a*ao* o + !al+!, + /o8+)/+ ollo;+ * a*aly*7 !al+!, ;++/ + /o+/ !a*a/! a* /o8+)/+! ;+/+ ollo;* 8o*)8*7 + +!!, a* + )al8ao* o + a*aly! ;

8o*)8+ + +!!.'51

e also repeat the trial courts e'planation of DNA anal"sis usedpaternit" cases>

I* 'a a+/*y +!, + o/+*!8 !8+*! loo! a a *)3+/ o +:a/a3l+ /+7o*! * a* *:)al o /o)8+ a &NA /ol+. Coa/*+B + &NA /ol+! o + o+/ a* 8l, ! o!!3l+++/*+ ;8 al o + 8l@! &NA ;a! *+/+ /o o+/. T+ o+/ al )! a:+ 3++* *+/+ /o + 3olo7a+/. T+ all+7+ a+/@! /ol+ ! +* +Ba*+ o a!8+/;++/ + a! + &NA y+! * ! /ol+, ;8 a8 + a+/y+! * + 8l. I + a*@! &NA y+! o *o a8 a o 8l, + a* ! +B8l)+ a! + a+/. I + &NA y+! a8, + ! *o +B8l)+ a! + a+/.'52

It is not enough to state that the childs DNA profile matches that of t

putative father. A complete match $et6een the DNA profile of the child athe DNA profile of the putative father does not necessaril" esta$paternit". Bor this reason# follo6ing the highest standard adopted in

American (urisdiction#J-2Ktrial courts should reuire at least //./ asminimum value of the Pro$a$ilit" of Paternit" LMF prior to a paterninclusion. is a numerical estimate for the li%elihood of paternit" oputative father compared to the pro$a$ilit" of a random match of tunrelated individuals. An appropriate reference population data$ase# sas the Philippine population data$ase# is reuired to compute for . Dto the pro$a$ilistic nature of paternit" inclusions# 6ill never eua*11. ;o6ever# the accurac" of estimates is higher 6hen the putafather# mother and child are su$(ected to DNA anal"sis compared to thoconducted $et6een the putative father and child alone.J-+K

DNA anal"sis that e'cludes the putative father from paternit" sho$e conclusive proof of non&paternit". If the value of is less than //./the results of the DNA anal"sis should $e considered as corro$orat

evidence. If the value of is //./ or higher# then this /+)a3l+presumption of paternit".J--KThis refuta$le presumption paternit" should $e su$(ected to the.alle-ostandards.

Right AgainstSelf80ncri"ination

Section *=# Article 2 of the */3= Constitution provides that person shall $e compelled to $e a 6itness against himself.M Petitioasserts that o$taining samples from him for DNA testing violates his riagainst self&incrimination. Petitioner ignores our earlier pronouncemethat the privilege is applica$le onl" to testimonial evidence. Again# uote relevant portions of the trial courts 2 Be$ruar" 0111 5rder 6

approval>

O3a**7 &NA !al+! /o a* a88)!+ * a 8/*al 8a!+ o/ /+ /+!o*+* * a a+/*y 8a!+, 8o*/a/y o + 3+l+ /+!o*+* * ! a8o*, ;ll *o :ola+ + /7 a7a*! !*8/*ao*. T! /:l+7+ al+! o*ly o +:+*8+ ! 'co""unicative(* +!!+*8+ a+* )*+/ )/+!! . T+ S)/++ Co)/ a! /)l+ a + /7a7a*! !+l*8/*ao* ! D)! a /o3o* o* + )!+ o y!o/ o/al 8o)l!o* o +Bo/ 8o)*8ao*


12/25

a* o/+/ 3y + D)7+ o/ +;*+!! o ) o* a/ o a*! o/ !+ ;a! allo;+ a* + 8o)/ 8a* 8o+l a ;oa* a88)!+ oa)l+/y o !)3 o/ /+7*a*8y +! , !*8+ + 7! o + /:l+7+ ! + /+!/8o* o* 'testi"onialco"pulsion('5

The polic" of the Bamil" Code to li$erali@e the rule on theinvestigation of the paternit" and filiation of children# especiall" ofillegitimate children# is 6ithout pre(udice to the right of the putative parent toclaim his or her o6n defenses.J-=K here the evidence to aid thisinvestigation is o$taina$le through the facilities of modern science andtechnolog"# such evidence should $e considered su$(ect to the limits

esta$lished $" the la6# rules# and (urisprudence.

$HEREFORE# 6e DISISS the petition. e ABBIR the Decisionof the Court of Appeals dated 0/ Novem$er 0111 in CA&).R. SP No.-/=,,. e also ABBIR the 5rders dated 2 Be$ruar" 0111 and 3 8une0111 issued $" 4ranch +3 of the Regional Trial Court of anila in CivilCase No. SP&/3&33=-/.

SO OR&ERE&.

Davide !r. (.!. (hairman $uisumbing %nares-&antiago and)'cuna !!. concur.

II. Initial reaction of the Court to DNA Evidence

Pe ?im vs. Court of Appeals# 22, Phil. =+* *//=F

SEC5ND DIVISI5N

'G.R. No. 112229. Ma/8 1(, 199?

RAYMON& PE LIM,petitioner, vsCOURT OF APPEALS, JOANNAROSE C. PE LIM, M*o/ /+/+!+*+ 3y +/ Na)/al Mo+/a* G)a/a*, MARI-EL CRU y TAYAG, respondents.

& E C I S I O N

ROMERO, J.%

All too often# immature men 6ho allo6 their emotions to hold s6a"over their rational minds come to grief 6hen their passions cool off# $ut not$efore inflicting irrepara$le ps"chic and spiritual damage on their victimsand the fruits of their 6anton acts. As the" so6 the prover$ial :6ild oats#:the" are heedless of the dire conseuences the" heap on their heads.hen the inevita$le confrontation e'plodes and the" are helpless toe'tricate themselves from the mess" situation arising from their6rongdoing# eventuall" the" invo%e the help of the courts as their finalar$iter.

4efore us is one of those cases 6here a man 6oos a maid# succeedsin seducing and impregnating her# onl" to disclaim the paternit" of the child6hen made to account for his misdeeds.

DNA#J*K$eing a relativel" ne6 science# it has not as "et $eenaccorded official recognition $" our courts. Paternit" 6ill still have to $eresolved $" such conventional evidence as the relevant incriminating acts#ver$al and 6ritten# $" the putative father.

This petition for revie6 on certiorarisprang from a complaint filed $"ari$el Cru@ for child support on $ehalf of her daughter# private respondent8oanna Rose C. Pe ?im# against petitioner Ra"mond Pe ?im 6ho# ari$elclaims# is 8oannas father.

ari$els stor" unfolds# thus>

ari$el 6as si'teen "ears old in */=3 and a part&time student. She also6or%ed as a receptionist at Tonights Clu$ and Resthouse along Ro'as4lvd.# anila. She met petitioner during her first night on the(o$. Petitioner 6ooed her and ari$el reciprocated his love. The" soon

lived together# 6ith petitioner pa"ing the rentals in a successionapartments in Cu$ao# Gue@on Cit"# Tam$o# ParaQaue and a%ati# eanila. ari$el left for 8apan in 8ul" */3*# alread" pregnant# and returnto anila in 5cto$er of the same "ear.

The couple never married $ecause petitioner claimed that he 6as financiall" sta$le. 5n 8anuar" *=# */30# ari$el gave $irth to their daughat the Cardinal Santos emorial ;ospital. The $ills for ari$els three&dconfinement at the hospital 6ere paid for $" Ra"mond and he also causthe registration of the name 8oanna Rose C. Pe ?im on the childs $certificate. After 8oanna Roses $irth# the love affair $et6een ari$el apetitioner continued.

To6ards the latter part of */32# ari$el noted that petitioners feelinto6ard her started to 6ane. ;e su$seuentl" a$andoned her and 8oanRose. ari$el tried to support herself $" accepting various (o$s and 6occasional help from relatives# $ut it 6as never enough. She aspetitioner for support $ut# despite promises to do so# it 6as never givari$el then filed a complaint against petitioner $efore the Regional TCourt of anila for support.

Petitioner# on the other hand# has a different version> ;e claims that*/=3# he 6ent to Tonights Clu$ and Resthouse along Ro'as 4oulevaanila to rela' after a hard da"s 6or%. There he met ari$el# a prett" aaggressive hospitalit" girl. Ra"mond o$served that 6hile she hadpleasing personalit"# she seemed to $e uite e'perienced $ecause sstarted to %iss him on the chee%s and nec%# 6hispering to him that thcould go an"6here and rest. Ra"mond declined to ta%e ari$el up on h

offer sa"ing that he onl" 6anted someone to tal% to. The" $ecame frienafter that first meeting# and 6hile he often sa6 her# there 6as no intima$et6een them. ;e did admit giving ari$el si@ea$le tips $ecause sconfided in him that she needed mone".

Ra"mond alleged that he 6as not ari$els onl" customer at the clu$.*/31# she left for 8apan to 6or% as an entertainer. In */3*# she returnedanila pregnant# and appealed to Ra"mond for help $ecause she claimthat she could not face her relatives in her condition. Ra"mond got her apartment and paid its rentals until she gave $irth to a $a$" girl on 8anu*=# */30. Ra"mond admits pa"ing the hospital $ills $ut claims that ari6as supposed to pa" him $ac% for it. hen she failed to do so# Ra"mostopped seeing her.

Ra"mond denies $eing the father of ari$els child# claiming tthe" 6ere onl" friends and nothing more.

The trial court rendered a decision on 8une *1# */=*# the dispositportion of 6hich states>

:;EREB5RE# (udgment is here$" rendered in favor of the plaintiff aagainst the defendant ordering herein defendant# Ra"mond Pe ?im to gsupport to his natural daughter# minor 8oanna Rose Pe ?im in the amoof Ten Thousand Pesos P*1#111.11F. Philippine Currenc"# per month the support# maintenance# education and 6ell&$eing of said child# the sato $e paid on or $efore the -th da" of each month and monthl" thereafstarting 8une# *//*# until the said minor 8oanna Rose Pe ?im# shall hareached the age of ma(orit".

The defendant is further ordered to pa" the plaintiff the sum of SevThousand Bive ;undred P=#-11.11F Pesos# Philippine Currenc"# attorne"s fees and other litigation e'penses.

No costs.

S5 5RDERED.:

Petitioner then elevated his case to the Court of Appeals 6haffirmed the trial courts findings.

Petitioner no6 argues $efore the Court that there is no clear aconvincing evidence on record to sho6 that there 6as actual coha$itat$et6een him and ari$el. In fact# petitioner infers that ari$el $ecapregnant onl" 6hen she 6ent to 8apan. In short# he denies that he is father of 8oanna Rose. ;e further uestions the a6arded supp
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/112229.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/112229.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/112229.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/148220.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/112229.htm#_edn1


13/25

of P*1#111.11 per month# sa"ing that the same is $e"ond his means#considering that he has a famil" to support.

e find no merit in this petition.

In Al$erto v. Court of Appeals#J0K6e said>

:hen a putative father manifests openl" through 6ords and deeds hisrecognition of a child# the courts can do no less than confirm saidac%no6ledgment. As the immortal $ard Sha%espeare perspicaciousl" said>?et "our o6n discretion $e "our tutorH suit the action to the 6ord# the 6ordto the action.:

The evidence in the instant case sho6s that petitioner consideredhimself to $e the father of 8oanna Rose as sho6n $" the hand&6ritten letterhe 6rote to ari$el>

:;i ?ove#

I 6rote "ou this letter $ecause I 6ould li%e to erase from "our mind thethought of 6h" I can not ever JsicK "ou marriage right no6 is $ecause I haveno longer love or care for $oth 8oanna "ou.

?ast night 6hen 6e tal%ed things over# I 6as in a stage 6herein ever"thing6as happening so fast that I 6as running out of time 6or%s sicF to ma%e"ou understand me through this letter I 6ould li%e to e'plain m" side in amore detailed 6a" and I hope "ou could understand.

9ou %no6 love# the main root of the pro$lem of 6h" marriage is impossi$lefor us right no6 is not 6hat m" parents or m" famil" circle 6ill sa" a$out"ou# $ut the financial side of it. 5%a"# let sa" I did marr" "ou right no6disregarding m" financial sta$ilit". Sooner or later the" 6ill come to %no6 ofit and I am sure that the" 6ill not consent it. I have no alternative $ut toleave them to stic% it up 6ith "ou. This is 6here the financial side comesin. I cant allo6 m"self 6al%ing a6a" from m" famil" ma%ing them thin% thatI can stand on m" o6n t6o feet $ut the truth of the matter is not and seeing$oth of "ou suffer for onl" one stupid mista%e 6hich is I 6as not "etfinanciall" read" to face the conseuence.

" plan is that if "ou could onl" stic% it out 6ith me until I am read" to face6hatever conseuence that might occur during our life or relation ashus$and and 6ife. 9ou have alread" tried it $efore# 6h" cant "ou stress it alittle longer. In return# I promise to $e a loving caring husband father to

$oth of "ou.

?ove# I reall" dont 6ant "ou to $e ta%en a6a" from me $" an"one# 6hetherhe $e single or married. This is the reason 6h" I am still tr"ing to convince"ou. 4ut if "ou reall" have decided things up and reall" determined to pushthrough 6ith it. I guess I (ust have to respect "our decision. 8ust remem$erI 6ish "ou the $est of luc% and ta%e e'tra&care of "ourself 8oanna.

Remem$er# if the time comes 6hen things get rough for "ou and "ou haveno one to turn to# dont hesitate to call on me. I am ver" much 6illing to $eat "our side to help "ou. I love "ou ver" much

?ove#

Ra"mond:

:Aug. **# */3*

;i ?ove#

Do "ou %no6 ho6 glad I 6as to receive a letter from "ou "esterda"!least no6 Im a little $it at ease to %no6 that ever"thing is fine 6ith "ou.

?ove# in "our letter "ou seem so much concern sicF a$out m" situatonce here. I reall" appreciate it# $ut please dont give too much thoua$out it $ecause Im ph"sicall" o.%. here. The important thing is that dothin% too much and have a lot of rest during "our spare time especiall"the situation "oure in no6. If "ou are feeling homesic% (ust go out 6ith "friends and tr" to en(o" "ourself to the fullest 6hile "ou are there

?ove# "ou said in "our letter that "ou regret ver" much "our going there6ishes sicF that "ou have not left an"more. I understand "our feelings

6hat had happened after "ou told me a$out it in the telephone.

''' ''' '''

?ove# I miss "ou so much that I al6a"s re&read those letters "ou had seme ver" often. At night I al6a"s thin% of "ou and the times 6ere toget$efore going to sleep.

''' ''' ''':


14/25

SEC5ND DIVISI5N

'G.R. No. 125901. Ma/8 (, 2001

E&GAR&O A. TIJING a* -IEN6ENI&A R. TIJING,petitioners,vsCOURT OF APPEALS a* ANGELITA&IAMANTE, respondents

& E C I S I O N

KUISUM-ING, J.%

Bor revie6 is the decision of the Court of Appeals dated arch ,#*//,# in CA&).R. SP No. 2/1-,# reversing the decision of the RegionalTrial Court in a petition for habeas corpusof Edgardo Ti(ing# 8r.# allegedl"the child of petitioners.

Petitioners are hus$and and 6ife. The" have si' children. The"oungest is Edgardo Ti(ing# 8r.# 6ho 6as $orn on April 0=# */3/# at theclinic of mid6ife and registered nurse ?ourdes Vasue@ in Sta. Ana#anila. Petitioner 4ienvenida served as the laundr"6oman of privaterespondent Angelita Diamante# then a resident of Tondo# anila.

According to 4ienvenida in August */3/# Angelita 6ent to her houseto fetch her for an urgent laundr" (o$. Since 4ienvenida 6as on her 6a" todo some mar%eting# she as%ed Angelita to 6ait until she returned. She alsoleft her four&month old son# Edgardo# 8r.# under the care of Angelita as sheusuall" let Angelita ta%e care of the child 6hile 4ienvenida 6as doinglaundr".

hen 4ienvenida returned from the mar%et# Angelita and Edgardo#8r.# 6ere gone. 4ienvenida forth6ith proceeded to Angelitas house inTondo# anila# $ut did not find them there. Angelitas maid told 4ienvenidathat her emplo"er 6ent out for a stroll and told 4ienvenida to come $ac%later. She returned to Angelitas house after three da"s# onl" to discoverthat Angelita had moved to another place. 4ienvenida then complained toher $aranga" chairman and also to the police 6ho seemed unmoved $" herpleas for assistance.

Although estranged from her hus$and# 4ienvenida could not imagineho6 her spouse 6ould react to the disappearance of their "oungest childand this made her pro$lem even more serious. As fate 6ould have it#4ienvenida and her hus$and reconciled and together# this time# the" loo%edfor their missing son in other places. Not6ithstanding their serious efforts#the" sa6 no traces of his 6herea$outs.

Bour "ears later or in 5cto$er *//2# 4ienvenida read in a ta$loida$out the death of Tomas ?ope@# allegedl" the common&la6 hus$and ofAngelita# and 6hose remains 6ere l"ing in state in ;agono"#4ulacan. 4ienvenida lost no time in going to ;agono"# 4ulacan# 6here sheallegedl" sa6 her son Edgardo# 8r.# for the first time after four "ears. Sheclaims that the $o"# 6ho 6as pointed out to her $" 4en(amin ?ope@# a$rother of the late Tomas ?ope@# 6as alread" named 8ohn Thomas [email protected]*KShe avers that Angelita refused to return to her the $o" despite herdemand to do so.

4ienvenida and Edgardo filed their petition for habeas corpus6iththe trial court in order to recover their son. To su$stantiate their petition#petitioners presented t6o 6itnesses# namel"# ?ourdes Vasue@ and4en(amin ?ope@. The first 6itness# Vasue@# testified that she assisted inthe deliver" of one Edgardo Ti(ing# 8r. on April 0=# */3/ at her clinic in Sta.Ana# anila. She supported her testimon" 6ith her clinical records.J0KThesecond 6itness# 4en(amin ?ope@# declared that his $rother# the late Tomas?ope@# could not have possi$l" fathered 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ as the latter6as sterile. ;e recalled that Tomas met an accident and $umped hisprivate part against the edge of a $anca causing him e'cruciating pain andeventual loss of his child&$earing capacit". 4en(amin further declared thatTomas admitted to him that 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ 6as onl" an adopted sonand that he and Angelita 6ere not $lessed 6ith children.J2K

Bor her part# Angelita claimed that she is the natural mother of thechild. She asserts that at age +0# she gave $irth to 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ onApril 0=# */3/# at the clinic of mid6ife osima Pangani$an in Singalong#

anila. She added# though# that she has t6o other children 6ith her rhus$and# Angel [email protected]+KShe said the $irth of 8ohn Thomas 6registered $" her common&la6 hus$and# Tomas ?ope@# 6ith the local cregistrar of anila on August +# */3/.

5n arch *1# *//-# the trial court concluded that since Angelita aher common&la6 hus$and could not have children# the alleged $irth of 8oThomas ?ope@ is an impossi$ilit".J-KThe trial court also held that the miand 4ienvenida sho6ed strong facial similarit". Accordingl"# it ruled tEdgardo Ti(ing# 8r.# and 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ are one and the same pers6ho is the natural child of petitioners. The trial court decreed>

;EREB5RE# PREISES C5NSIDERED# (udgment is here$" rende

)RANTIN) the petition for ;a$eas Corpus# as such# respondent AngeDiamante is ordered to immediatel" release from her personal custominor 8ohn Thomas D. ?ope@# and turn him over andor surrender person to petitioners# Spouses Edgardo A. Ti(ing and 4ienvenida R. Ti(iimmediatel" upon receipt hereof.

4ranch Sheriff of this Court# Carlos 4a(ar# is here$" commandedimplement the decision of this Court $" assisting herein petitioners in recover" of the person of their minor son# Edgardo Ti(ing 8r.# the samperson as 8ohn Thomas D. ?ope@.

S5 5RDERED.J,K

Angelita seasona$l" filed her notice of appeal.J=KNonetheless# August 2# *//+# the sheriff implemented the order of the trial court $" ta%

custod" of the minor. In his report# the sheriff stated that Angepeacefull" surrendered the minor and he turned over the custod" of schild to petitioner Edgardo Ti(ing.J3K

5n appeal# the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decisrendered $" the trial court. The appellate court e'pressed its dou$ts on propriet" of the habeas corpus. In its vie6# the evidence adduced 4ienvenida 6as not sufficient to esta$lish that she 6as the mother of minor. It ruled that the lo6er court erred in declaring that Edgardo Ti(i8r.# and 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ are one and the same person# J/Kand disposof the case# thus>

IN VIE 5B T;E B5RE)5IN)# the decision of the lo6er court daarch *1# *//- is here$" REVERSED# and a ne6 one entered dismissthe petition in Spec. Proc. No. /+&=*,1,# and directing the custod" of tminor 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ to $e returned to respondent Ange

Diamante# said minor having $een under the care of said respondent at time of the filing of the petition herein.

S5 5RDERED.J*1K

Petitioners sought reconsideration of the a$oveuoted decision 6h6as denied. ;ence# the instant petition alleging>

I

T;AT T;E RESP5NDENT C5


15/25

0F hether or not Edgardo Ti(ing# 8r.# and 8ohn Thomas?ope@ are one and the same person and is the son ofpetitioners!

e shall discuss the t6o issues together since the" are closel"related.

The 6rit of habeas corpuse'tends to all cases of illegal confinementor detention $" 6hich an" person is deprived of his li$ert"# or $" 6hich therightful custod" of an" person is 6ithheld from the person entitled thereto.J*0KThus# it is the proper legal remed" to ena$le parents to regain thecustod" of a minor child even if the latter $e in the custod" of a third personof his o6n free 6ill. It ma" even $e said that in custod" cases involvingminors# the uestion of illegal and involuntar" restraint of li$ert" is not theunderl"ing rationale for the availa$ilit" of the 6rit as a remed". Rather# it isprosecuted for the purpose of determining the right of custod" over a child.J*2KIt must $e stressed too that in habeas corpusproceedings# the uestionof identit" is relevant and material# su$(ect to the usual presumptionsincluding those as to identit" of the person.

In this case# the minors identit" is crucial in determining the propriet"of the 6rit sought. Thus# it must $e resolved first 6hether the EdgardoTi(ing# 8r.# claimed $" 4ienvenida to $e her son# is the same minor named8ohn Thomas ?ope@# 6hom Angelita insists to $e her offspring. e mustfirst determine 6ho $et6een 4ienvenida and Angelita is the minors$iological mother. Evidence must necessaril" $e adduced to prove that t6opersons# initiall" thought of to $e distinct and separate from each other# areindeed one and the same.J*+KPetitioners must convincingl" esta$lish thatthe minor in 6hose $ehalf the application for the 6rit is made is the personupon 6hom the" have rightful custod". If there is dou$t on the identit" of

the minor in 6hose $ehalf the application for the 6rit is made# petitionerscannot invo%e 6ith certaint" their right of custod" over the said minor.

True# it is not the function of this Court to e'amine and evaluate thepro$ative value of all evidence presented to the concerned tri$unal 6hichformed the $asis of its impugned decision# resolution or order.J*-K4ut sincethe conclusions of the Court of Appeals contradict those of the trial court#this Court ma" scrutini@e the evidence on the record to determine 6hichfindings should $e preferred as more conforma$le to the evidentiar" facts.

A close scrutin" of the records of this case reveals that the evidencepresented $" 4ienvenida is sufficient to esta$lish that 8ohn Thomas ?ope@is actuall" her missing son# Edgardo Ti (ing# 8r.

Birst# there is evidence that Angelita could no longer $earchildren. Brom her ver" lips# she admitted that after the $irth of her secondchild# she under6ent ligation at the artine@ ;ospital in */=1# $efore shelived 6ith Tomas ?ope@ 6ithout the $enefit of marriage in */=+. Assumingshe had that ligation removed in */=3# as she claimed# she offered noevidence she gave $irth to a child $et6een */=3 to */33 or for a period often "ears. The mid6ife 6ho allegedl" delivered the child 6as not presentedin court. No clinical records# log $oo% or discharge order from the clinic6ere ever su$mitted.

Second# there is strong evidence 6hich directl" proves that Tomas?ope@ is no longer capa$le of siring a son. 4en(amin ?ope@ declared incourt that his $rother# Tomas# 6as sterile $ecause of the accident and thatTomas admitted to him that 8ohn Thomas ?ope@ 6as onl" an adopted son.oreover# Tomas ?ope@ and his legal 6ife# aria Rapatan ?ope@# had nochildren after almost fifteen "ears together. Though Tomas ?ope@ hadlived 6ith private respondent for fourteen "ears# the" also $ore no offspring.

Third# 6e find unusual the fact that the $irth certificate of 8ohnThomas ?ope@ 6as filed $" Tomas ?ope@ instead of the mid6ife and onAugust +# */3/# four months after the alleged $irth of the child.


16/25

The information filed on August 2*# */3= alleged>

That on or a$out the 0+th da" of arch */3,# at a$out *1>11 ocloc% in theevening at 4aranga" ateo# unicipalit" of 7idapa6an# Province ofCota$ato# Philippines# and 6ithin the (urisdiction of this ;onora$le Court#the a$ove&named accused 85E? 8ANS5N# RIC79 PINANTA5 alias5)C5 in compan" 6ith alias A4D


17/25

thus>

;EREB5RE# prescinding from all of the foregoing considerations# theCourt here$" pronounces the accused Ric%" Pinantao alias 5gco and 8oel8anson guilt" of the crime of Ro$$er" 6ith Rape $e"ond reasona$le dou$tand accordingl"# sentences Ric%" Pinantao and 8oel 8anson each toundergo a prison term of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnif" aritesAlcantara the sum of P21#111.11H to indemnif" Cesario Alcantara the sumof P*1#111.11. No a6ard of other damages in the a$sence of proofthereof.

S5 5RDERED.J*3K

4oth appellants filed their notices of appeal and su$mitted separateappellants $riefs. Appellant Ric%" Pinantao averred that>

I

T;E TRIA? C5


18/25

A> Sir# it is ver" hard to name names during that time 6hen astatement 6as ta%en on me. /ut when this !oel !ansonwas first apprehended it was confirmed b1 his statementto the policeman. sicFJ21K

' ' '

G> &o when !oel !anson was apprehended that was the time1ou confirmed that he was the perpetrator2

A> ''' %es sir.

' ' '

G> Therefore# "ou failed to recogni@e 8oel 8anson during saidtime of the incident!

A> I %ne6 him through his $od" $uilt.

' ' '

G> &o 1ou merel1 assumed that !oel !anson is one of thosepersons who robbed 1ou because of the aforesaidstatement that his alleged statement in the police2

A> %es sir.

' ' '

G>)ccording to 1ou 1ou have confirmed 1our suspicion of this!oel !anson after he was apprehended2

A> %es sir.

G> In the same manner "ou confirmed "our suspicion of Ric%"Pinantao after he 6as apprehended!

A> ;e himself revealed. Aside from that I alread" suspected$ecause of his cut 6rist and his mustache. J2*KemphasisoursF

hile courts generall" $rush aside inconseuential contradictions$et6een declarations of the affiant in her s6orn statements and those incourt# the rule is other6ise 6here the discrepancies touch on su$stantialand irreconcila$le facts such as those omissions in the affidavit concerningimportant details 6hich the affiant 6ould not have failed to mention and6hich omission could 6ell affect the credi$ilit" of the affiant. J20KIf indeed# thevictim recogni@ed one of her assailants as Ric%" Pinantao $ecause of hisamputated hand# she should have mentioned such glaring trait the first timeshe gave her statement to the investigating officers. 4ut she nevermentioned an"thing. 5n the contrar"# she admitted that she did notrecogni@e an" of her assailants. She also admitted that it 6asonl" after8oel 8anson 6as apprehended and Uconfessed to the crime#implicating Ric%" Pinantao# that she confirmed her suspicion.

The testimon" of Teresa Alcantara is also riddled 6ith uncertainties>

G> ;o6 man" da" had lapsed sicF $efore "ou reported theincident to the police!

A> Three months after the incident.

' ' '

G> ill "ou please e'plain 6h" "ou reported the incident afterthree months!

A> 0t was onl1 upon hearing through radio D34D the name ofthis person !oel !anson who was reported to haverobbed the corn of a certain )tt1. !alipa that 0 reportedto the police.

G> That 6as the onl" reason 6h" "ou reported to the policeafter three months alread"!

A> It is li%e this> After hearing that# I 6ent to the police right thenand there. I sa6 this 8oel 8anson 6ho 6as the personamong those 6ho raped m" daughter and entered ourhouse.

G> If "ou %ne6 alread" that 8oel 8anson 6as among thosepersons 6ho ro$$ed "ou# 6h" did "ou not report to thepolice immediatel"!

A> The follo6ing morning# I immediatel" reported# sir.

G> And "ou gave s6orn statement $efore the police on thefollo6ing morning!

A> Not "et# sir.

G> 5f course this !oel !anson was unmas6ed when those sixmen came to 1our house2

A> +his !oel !anson and Ric61 Pinantao were the one sicwearing mas6.

G> In other 6ords# during the incident "ou failed to recogni@e

outright 6ho 6ere those persons mas%ed!

A> 0 identified them through their bod1 built and voice becausethe1 were spea6ing Manobo.

G> 4ut "ou identified them $ecause of their voice!

A> Voice and $od"$uilt.

G> 4ut of course# "ou did not actuall" see the face of 8oel8anson!

A> How can 0 see when he is mas6ed.

' ' '

G> %ou onl1 mentioned his !oel !anson7s name to the policeafter 1ou heard his name over the D34D2

A> %es...J22Kemphasis oursF

hat stands out in the testimonies of the victims is that the" 6uncertain of the identities of the mas%ed men 6ho committed the ro$$and rape that night and anchored their suspicion on the alleged confessof 8oel 8anson. This confession# ho6ever# is itself inadmissi$le for failingmeet the constitutional reuirements for admissi$ilit".

The la6"er 6ho allegedl" assisted 8oel 8anson in the 6aiver of right to counsel# Att". errudo# testified>

G> In other 6ords# this s6orn statement mar%ed E'hi$it L4M 6asalread" t"pe6ritten and prepared 6hen it 6as $rought to"ou $" the police!

A> 9es# sir# that is correct.J2+K

' ' '

G> 4ut $efore he 6as $rought to "our office allegedl" to assisthim in his 6aiving of his right# he 6as alread" su$(ectedto investigation as this s6orn statement 6as alread"prepared!

A> That is true# $ut not signed.

G> 5f course he 6as not assisted $ecause he 6as alread"su$(ected to police investigation in his 6aiving of hisconstitutional rights!

A> a" $e# I am not sure a$out that. That 6as ma" $e# that6as alread" prepared 6hen the" came to m" office $utonl" unsigned.

G> hat 6as prepared# the 6hole investigation or this entire

part or that part of 6aiving his rights!

A> As far as 0 can remember it was alread1 prepared %ourHonor.J2-K

' ' '

G>)tt1. 8errudo we are clear to the fact that this documentwas alread1 prepared before when it was brought to 1ouroffice2

A> %es sir.J2,Kemphasis oursF

The investigating police officer# PSgt. Pedro Idpan# also admittedopen court that the s6orn statement of appellant 8oel 8anson 6as ta%6ithout the presence of counsel and that this statement together 6ith
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn36


19/25

6aiver of his right to counsel# 6as alread" prepared 6hen it 6as presentedto Att". errudo for signing.

As sho6n $" the transcript>

G> 4ut the accused during the investigation 6as not assisted$" counsel# is that right!

A> At the time 6hen I conducted the investigation# the counselis not "et present.

G> In other 6ords# during the conduct of the investigation there6as no counsel $eing present assisting the accused 8oel8anson!

A> None# sir.

G> So in all the s6orn statement of the accused 8oel 8ansonmade earlier 6as made 6ithout the assistance ofcounsel! sicF

A> hen I prepared the investigation I advised him to get acounsel of his o6n choice $ut the counsel 6as not "etpresent.

G> ;e 6as not assisted $" counsel during the conduct of theinvestigation!

A> 9es# sir.

Court > hat do "ou mean# Sergeant# Att". errudo 6as not"et present!

A> 9hen 0 conducted the investigation )tt1. 8errudo was notpresent.

' ' '

Court> He signed it after the investigation2

A> +he prepared testimon1.

Court>)fter the investigation2

A>)fter the investigation.J2=Kemphasis oursF

Clearl"# the alleged e'tra(udicial confession of appellant 8oel 8ansoncannot $e admitted in evidence. The manner $" 6hich it 6as o$tainedviolated accuseds constitutional right to counsel.

It is 6ell&settled that the Constitution a$hors an uncounselledconfession or admission and 6hatever information is derived therefromshall $e regarded as inadmissi$le in evidence against the confessant.J23K

As provided for in Article III# Section *0 of the */3= Constitution#

*F An" person under investigation for the commission of an offense shallhave the right to $e informed of his right to remain silent and to havecompetent and independent counsel prefera$l" of his o6n choice. If theperson cannot afford the services of counsel# he must $e provided 6ithone. These rights cannot $e 6aived e'cept in 6riting and in the presenceof counsel.

' ' '

2F An" confession or admission o$tained in violation of this or thepreceding section shall $e inadmissi$le against him.

In People v. !avarJ2/Kthis Court 6as clear in pronouncing that an"statement o$tained in violation of the Constitution# 6hether e'culpator" orinculpator"# in 6hole or in part# shall $e inadmissi$le in evidence. Even ifthe confession contains a grain of truth# if it 6as made 6ithout theassistance of counsel# it $ecomes inadmissi$le in evidence# regardless ofthe a$sence of coercion or even if it had $een voluntaril" given.J+1K InPeople v. Gome'#J+*Kciting People v. Rodrigue'a#J+0Kthis Court heldthat Section *0*F# Article III of the Constitution reuires the assistance ofcounsel to a person under custod" even 6hen he 6aives the right tocounsel.


20/25

should $e for conviction. 5nl" 6hen there is proof $e"ond reasona$ledou$t can 6e $e certain that# after trial# onl" those responsi$le should $emade ans6era$le.J-2KThe evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall onits o6n merit and cannot $e allo6ed to dra6 strength from the 6ea%ness ofthe evidence for the defense.J-+KIn this e'acting standard# the prosecutionfailed. It follo6s that the (udgment of the lo6er court convicting appellantsought to $e set aside for failure to meet the uantum of evidenceconstitutionall" reuired.

$HEREFORE# the decision of the Regional Trial Court of7idapa6an# Cota$ato# 4ranch VII# in Criminal Case No. 01*, is here$"REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellants 8oel 8anson and Ric%" Pinantaoare ACG *F 6hether a complfor support can $e converted to a petition for recognition and 0F 6hetDNA paternit" testing can $e ordered in a proceeding for support 6ithviolating petitioners constitutional right to privac" and right against sincrimination.J*-K

The petition is 6ithout merit.

Birst of all# the trial court properl" denied the petitioners motiondismiss $ecause the private respondents complaint on its face sho6ed tthe" had a cause of action against the petitioner. The elements of a cauof action are> *F the plaintiffs primar" right and the defendacorresponding primar" dut"# and 0F the delict or 6rongful act or omissof the defendant# $" 6hich the primar" right and dut" have $een violat

The cause of action is determined not $" the pra"er of the complaint $utthe facts alleged.J*,K

In the complaint# private respondents alleged that Be had amororelations 6ith the petitioner# as a result of 6hich she gave $irth to artin of 6edloc%. In his ans6er# petitioner admitted that he had se'ual relatio6ith Be $ut denied that he fathered artin# claiming that he had ended relationship long $efore the childs conception and $irth. It is undispuand even admitted $" the parties that there e'isted a se'ual relations$et6een Arnel and Be. The onl" remaining uestion is 6hether suse'ual relationship produced the child# artin. If it did# as respondents haalleged# then artin should $e supported $" his father Arnel. If npetitioner and artin are strangers to each other and artin has no righdemand and petitioner has no o$ligation to give support.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/apr2003/125938.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/jun2005/162571.htm#_ftn16


21/25

Preliminaries aside# 6e no6 tac%le the main issues.

Petitioner refuses to recogni@e artin as his o6n child and denies thegenuineness and authenticit" of the childs $irth certificate 6hich hepurportedl" signed as the father. ;e also claims that the order andresolution of the trial court# as affirmed $" the Court of Appeals# effectivel"converted the complaint for support to a petition for recognition# 6hich issupposedl" proscri$ed $" la6. According to petitioner# artin# as anunrecogni@ed child# has no right to as% for support and must first esta$lishhis filiation in a separate suit under Article 032J*=Kin relation to Article0,-J*3Kof the Civil Code and Section *# Rule *1-J*/Kof the Rules of Court.

The petitioners contentions are 6ithout merit.

The assailed resolution and order did not convert the action forsupport into one for recognition $ut merel" allo6ed the respondents toprove their cause of action against petitioner 6ho had $een den"ing theauthenticit" of the documentar" evidence of ac%no6ledgement. 4ut even ifthe assailed resolution and order effectivel" integrated an action to compelrecognition 6ith an action for support# such 6as valid and in accordance6ith (urisprudence. In +a1ag v. (ourt of )ppealsJ01K6e allo6ed theintegration of an action to compel recognition 6ith an action to claim onesinheritance>

OIn Paulino# 6e held that an illegitimate child# to $e entitled to support andsuccessional rights from the putative or presumed parent# must prove hisfiliation to the latter. e also said that it is necessar" to allege in thecomplaint that the putative father had ac%no6ledged and recogni@ed theillegitimate child $ecause such ac%no6ledgment is essential to and is the$asis of the right to inherit. There $eing no allegation of such

ac%no6ledgment# the action $ecomes one to compel recognition 6hichcannot $e $rought after the death of the putative father. The ratiodecidendiin Paulino# therefore# is not the a$sence of a cause of action forfailure of the petitioner to allege the fact of ac%no6ledgment in thecomplaint# $ut the prescription of the action.

Appl"ing the foregoing principles to the case at $ar# although petitionercontends that the complaint filed $" herein private respondent merel"alleges that the minor Chad Cu"ugan is an illegitimate child of thedeceased and is actuall" a claim for inheritance# from the allegationstherein the same ma" $e considered as one to compel recognition.Burther# a + ;o 8a)!+! o a8o*, o*+ o 8o+l /+8o7*o* a*+ o+/ o 8la *+/a*8+, ay 3+ Do*+ * o*+ 8ola* ! *o*+; * o)/ D)/!/)+*8+.

As earl" as J*/00K 6e had occasion to rule thereon in /ri' vs. /ri' etal.+2 Phil. =,2 J*/00KF 6herein 6e said>

The uestion 6hether a person in the position of the present plaintiff can inan" event maintain a comple' action to compel recognition as a naturalchild and at the same time to o$tain ulterior relief in the character of heir# isone 6hich in the opinion of this court must $e ans6ered in the affirmative#provided al6a"s that the conditions (ustif"ing the (oinder of the t6o distinctcauses of action are present in the particular case. I* o+/ ;o/!, +/+! *o a3!ol)+ *+8+!!y /+)/*7 a + a8o* o 8o+la8*o;l+7+* !o)l a:+ 3++* *!)+ a* /o!+8)+ o a!)88+!!)l 8o*8l)!o* /o/ o + a8o* * ;8 a !a+ la*!++! ao*al /+l+ * + 8a/a8+/ o +/. Certainl"# there isnothing so peculiar to the action to compel ac%no6ledgment as to reuirethat a rule should $e here applied different from that generall" applica$le inother cases. ' ' '

The conclusion a$ove stated# though not heretofore e'plicitl" formulated $"this court# is undou$tedl" to some e'tent supported $" our prior decisions.Thus# ;+ a:+ +l * *)+/o)! 8a!+!, a* + o8/*+ )! 3+8o*!+/+ ;+ll !+l+, a a *a)/al 8l a:*7 a /7 o 8o+la8*o;l+7+*, 3) ;o a! *o 3++* * a8 l+7ally a8*o;l+7+,ay a*a* a/o* /o8++*7! o/ + :!o* o + *+/a*8+a7a*! ! 8o+/! B B BH and the same person ma" intervene inproceedings for the distri$ution of the estate of his deceased natural father#or mother ' ' '. In neither of these situations has it $een thoughtnecessar" for the plaintiff to sho6 a prior decree compellingac%no6ledgment. The o$vious reason is that in partition suits anddistri$ution proceedings the other persons 6ho might ta%e $" inheritanceare $efore the courtH and the declaration of heirship is appropriate to suchproceedings.


22/25

oreover# in our en bancdecision inPeople v. %atarJ0=K6e affirmedthe conviction of the accused for rape 6ith homicide# the principal evidencefor 6hich included DNA test results. e did a length" discussion of DNA#the process of DNA testing and the reasons for its admissi$ilit" in theconte't of our o6n Rules of Evidence>

Deo'"ri$onucleic Acid# or DNA# is a molecule that encodes the geneticinformation in all living organisms. A persons DNA is the same in each celland it does not change throughout a persons lifetimeH the DNA in apersons $lood is the same as the DNA found in his saliva# s6eat# $one# theroot and shaft of hair# ear6a'# mucus# urine# s%in tissue# and vaginal andrectal cells. ost importantl"# $ecause of pol"morphisms in human geneticstructure# no t6o individuals have the same DNA# 6ith the nota$lee'ception of identical t6ins.

''' ''' '''

In assessing the pro$ative value of DNA evidence# courts shouldconsider# inter alia# the follo6ing factors> ho6 the samples 6ere collected#ho6 the" 6ere handled# the possi$ilit" of contamination of the samples# theprocedure follo6ed in anal"@ing the samples# 6hether proper standardsand procedures 6ere follo6ed in conducting the tests# and the ualificationof the anal"st 6ho conducted the tests.

In the case at $ar# Dr. aria Cora@on A$ogado de


23/25

; ! a/8l+. Neither signators legal o$ligations# including theo$ligation for child support arising from the ac%no6ledgment# ma" $esuspended during the challenge to the ac%no6ledgment e'cept for goodcause as the court ma" find. If a part" petitions to rescind anac%no6ledgment and if the court determines that the alleged father is notthe father of the child# or if the court finds that an ac%no6ledgment is invalid$ecause it 6as e'ecuted on the $asis of fraud# duress# or material mista%eof fact# the court shall vacate the ac%no6ledgment of paternit" and shallimmediatel" provide a cop" of the order to the registrar of the district in6hich the childs $irth certificate is filed and also to the putative fatherregistr" operated $" the department of social services pursuant to sectionthree hundred sevent"&t6o&c of the social services la6. In addition# if themother of the child 6ho is the su$(ect of the ac%no6ledgment is in receipt

of child support services pursuant to title si'&A of article three of the socialservices la6# the court shall immediatel" provide a cop" of the order to thechild support enforcement unit of the social services district that providesthe mother 6ith such services.

cF A determination of paternit" made $" an" other state# 6hetheresta$lished through the parents ac%no6ledgment of paternit" or throughan administrative or (udicial process# must $e accorded full faith and credit#if and onl" if such ac%no6ledgment meets the reuirements set forth insection +-0aF=F of the social securit" act.emphasis suppliedF

DNA testing also appears else6here in the Ne6 9or% Bamil" CourtAct>J+0K

-20. )enetic mar%er and DNA testsH admissi$ilit" of records or reports of

test resultsH costs of tests.

aF The court shall advise the parties of their right to one or more geneticmar%er tests or DNA tests and# on the courts o6n motion or the motion ofan" part"# shall order the mother# her child and the alleged father to su$mitto one or more genetic mar%er or DNA tests of a t"pe generall"ac%no6ledged as relia$le $" an accreditation $od" designated $" thesecretar" of the federal department of health and human services andperformed $" a la$orator" approved $" such an accreditation $od" and $"the commissioner of health or $" a dul" ualified ph"sician to aid in thedetermination of 6hether the alleged father is or is not the father of thechild. No !)8 +! !all 3+ o/+/+, o;+:+/, )o* a ;/+* **73y + 8o)/ a ! *o * + 3+! *+/+!! o + 8l o* + 3a!!o /+! D)8aa, +)a3l+ +!o+l, o/ + /+!)o* o l+7a8y oa 8l 3o/* o a a//+ ;oa*. The record or report of the results ofan" such genetic mar%er or DNA test ordered pursuant to this section or

pursuant to section one hundred eleven&% of the social services la6 shall$e received in evidence $" the court pursuant to su$division eF of rulefort"&five hundred eighteen of the civil practice la6 and rules 6here notimel" o$(ection in 6riting has $een made thereto and that if such timel"o$(ections are not made# the" shall $e deemed 6aived and shall not $eheard $" the court. I + /+8o/ o/ /+o/ o + /+!)l! o a*y !)87+*+8 a/+/ o/ &NA +! o/ +!! *8a+ a l+a! a **+y:++/8+* /o3a3ly o a+/*y, + a!!o* o !)8 /+8o/ o//+o/ !all 8/+a+ a /+3)a3l+ /+!)o* o a+/*y, a* !all+!a3l!, )*/+3)+, + a+/*y o a* la3ly o/ + !)o/ oa 8l )/!)a* o ! a/8l+ a* a/8l+ o)/ o ! a8.

$F henever the court directs a genetic mar%er or DNA test pursua

part 7 leg med

Documents