Herrera vs. Alba
Herrera vs. Alba
*
G.R. No. 148220. June 15, 2005.
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
* FIRST DIVISION.
198
199
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
200
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
1 2
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
1 2
This is a petition for review to set aside the Decision dated 29
November 2000 of the Court of Appeals (“appellate court”) 3in CA-
G.R. SP No. 59766. The appellate court affirmed two Orders issued
by Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (“trial court”) in
SP No. 98-88759. The Order dated 3 February 2000 directed
Rosendo Herrera (“petitioner”) to submit to deoxyribonucleic acid
(“DNA”) paternity testing, while the Order dated 8 June 2000
denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The Facts
_______________
201
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
“In view of the foregoing, the motion of the petitioner is GRANTED and
the relevant individuals, namely: the petitioner, the minor child, and
respondent are directed to undergo DNA paternity testing in a laboratory
of their common choice within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt of
the Order, and to submit the results thereof within a period of ninety (90)
days from completion. The parties are further reminded of the hearing set on
24 February 2000 for the reception of other evidence in support of the
petition.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.” (Emphasis in the original)
_______________
202
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
_______________
7 Ibid., p. 59.
203
jurisdiction. The appellate court also stated that the proposed DNA
paternity testing does not violate his right against self-incrimination
because the right applies only to testimonial compulsion. Finally, the
appellate court pointed out that petitioner can still refute a possible
adverse result of the DNA paternity testing. The dispositive portion
of the appellate court’s decision reads:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
Issues
_______________
8 Ibid., p. 48.
9 Ibid., pp. 51-52.
10 Ibid., p. 22.
11 Ibid., p. 18.
204
maintains that the proposed DNA paternity testing violates his right
12
against self-incrimination.
_______________
12 Ibid., p. 34.
13 See Tecson v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 161434, 3 March 2004, 424
SCRA 277; Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, G.R. Nos.
92191-92, 30 July 1991, 199 SCRA 692; Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela
Rosa, G.R. Nos. 95612-13, 31 May 1991, 197 SCRA 854.
14 See E. Donald Shapiro, Stewart Reifler, and Claudia L. Psome, The DNA
Paternity Test: Legislating the Future Paternity Action, 7 J.L. & Health 1, 7-19
(1993).
205
He denied ever having sexual relations with Armi Alba and stated
that respondent is Armi Alba’s child with another man. Armi Alba
_______________
15 See Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the
Philippines (“Family Code”), Arts. 172-173, 175; Rule 130, Sections 39-40.
16 See Family Code, Art. 166.
17 See Family Code, Arts. 165, 167.
18 See Family Code, Arts. 166-167, 170-171.
19 See Cabatania v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124814, 21 October 2004, 441
SCRA 96.
206
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
207
_______________
208
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
_______________
209
father. We held that the result of the blood grouping test was
conclusive on the non-paternity of the putative father.
The present case asks us to go one step further. We are now asked
whether DNA analysis may be admitted as evidence to prove
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
paternity.
_______________
30 See Maria Corazon A. De Ungria, Ph.D., Forensic DNA Analysis in Criminal and Civil
Cases, 1 Continuing Legal Educ. L.J. 57 (2001).
31 See The UP-NSRI DNA Analysis Laboratory, A Primer on DNA-based Paternity Testing
(2001).
210
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
211
mother. The other half must have been inherited from the biological father.
The alleged father’s profile is then examined to ascertain whether he has the
DNA types in his profile, which match the paternal types in the child. If the
man’s DNA types do not match that of the child, the man is excluded as the
32
father. If the DNA types match, then he is not excluded as the father.
(Emphasis in the original)
Although the term “DNA testing” was mentioned in the 1995 case
33
of People v. Teehankee,
34
Jr., it was only in the 2001 case of Tijing v.
Court of Appeals that more than a passing mention was given to
DNA analysis. In Tijing, we issued a writ of habeas corpus against
respondent who abducted petitioners’ youngest son. Testimonial and
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
Admissibility of
DNA Analysis as Evidence
35
The 2002 case of People v. Vallejo discussed DNA analysis as
evidence. This may be considered a 180 degree turn from
_______________
212
the Court’s wary attitude towards DNA testing in the 1997 Pe Lim
36
case, where we stated that “DNA, being a relatively new science, x
x x has not yet been accorded official recognition by our courts.” In
Vallejo, the DNA profile from the vaginal swabs taken from the rape
victim matched the accused’s DNA profile. We affirmed the
accused’s conviction of rape with homicide and sentenced him to
death. We declared:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
_______________
213
Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the
experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in
this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized,
and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced
from a well recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from
which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained
general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.
_______________
214
43
In 1989, State v. Schwartz modified the Frye standard. Schwartz
was charged with stabbing and murder. Blood-stained articles and
blood samples of the accused and the victim were submitted for
DNA testing to a government facility and a private facility. The
prosecution introduced the private testing facility’s results over
Schwartz’s objection. One of the issues brought before the state
Supreme Court included the admissibility of DNA test results in a
criminal proceeding. The state Supreme Court concluded that:
While we agree with the trial court that forensic DNA typing has gained
general acceptance in the scientific community, we hold that admissibility of
specific test results in a particular case hinges on the laboratory’s
compliance with appropriate standards and controls, and the availability of
44
their testing data and results.
45
In 1993, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. further
modified the Frye-Schwartz standard. Daubert was a product
liability case where both the trial and appellate courts denied the
admissibility of an expert’s testimony because it failed to meet the
Frye standard of “general acceptance.” The United States Supreme
Court ruled that in federal trials, the Federal Rules of Evidence have
superseded the Frye standard. Rule 401 defines relevant evidence,
while Rule 402 provides the foundation for admissibility of
evidence. Thus:
Rule 401. “Relevant evidence” is defined as that which has any “tendency to
make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence.
Rule 402. All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise
provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by
these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Su-
_______________
215
_______________
216
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
50
establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.”
Indeed, it would have been convenient to merely refer petitioner
to our decisions in Tijing, Vallejo and Yatar to illustrate that DNA
analysis is admissible as evidence. In our jurisdiction, the restrictive
tests for admissibility established by Frye-Schwartz and Daubert-
Kumho go into the weight of the evidence.
_______________
47 See People v. Joel Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 504. See
also Pacifico Agabin, Integrating DNA Technology in the Judicial System, 1
Continuing Legal Educ. L.J. 27 (2001); Patricia-Ann T. Prodigalidad, Assimilating
DNA Testing into the Philippine Criminal Justice System: Exorcising the Ghost of the
Innocent Convict, 79 Phil. L.J. 930 (2005).
48 Rule 128, Section 3.
49 Rule 128, Section 4.
50 Rule 128, Section 4.
217
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
Probative Value of
DNA Analysis as Evidence
In [a] paternity test, the forensic scientist looks at a number of these variable
regions in an individual to produce a DNA profile. Comparing next the
DNA profiles of the mother and child, it is possible to determine which half
of the child’s DNA was inherited from the mother. The other half must have
been inherited from the biological father. The alleged father’s profile is then
examined to ascertain whether he has the DNA types in his profile, which
match the paternal types in the child. If the man’s DNA types do not match
that of the child, the man is excluded as the father. If the DNA types match,
52
then he is not excluded as the father.
It is not enough to state that the child’s DNA profile matches that of
the putative father. A complete match between the DNA profile of
the child and the DNA profile of the putative father does not
necessarily establish paternity. For this reason, following the highest
standard adopted in an American
_______________
218
53
jurisdiction, trial courts should require at least 99.9% as a
minimum value of the Probability of Paternity (“W”) prior to a
paternity inclusion. W is a numerical estimate for the likelihood of
paternity of a putative father compared to the probability of a
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
Right Against
Self-Incrimination
_______________
53 The State of Louisiana. See Maria Corazon A. De Ungria, Ph.D., Forensic DNA
Analysis in Criminal and Civil Cases, 1 Continuing Legal Educ. L.J. 57 (2001).
54 Ibid. See also Maria Corazon A. De Ungria, Ph.D., Kristina A. Tabada,
Frederick C. Delfin, Alma M. Frani, Michelle M.F. Magno, Gayvelline C. Calacal,
and Saturnina C. Halos, Resolving Questioned Paternity Issues Using a Philippine
Genetic Database, 14 Science Diliman 8 (January to June 2002).
55 See note 54.
219
_______________
56 Rollo, p. 91.
57 See Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86302, 24 September 1991, 201
SCRA 675.
220
——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/22
3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/22