Herrera vs. Alba

3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460
VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 197

Herrera vs. Alba
*
G.R. No. 148220. June 15, 2005.
ROSENDO HERRERA, petitioner, vs. ROSENDO ALBA, minor,

represented by his mother ARMI A. ALBA, and HON. NIMFA
CUESTA-VILCHES, Presiding Judge, Branch 48, Regional Trial
Court, Manila, respondents.
Civil Law; Contracts; Marriages; Family Code; Filiation; Paternity;

The burden of proving paternity is on the person who alleges that the
putative father is the biological father of the child.—Filiation proceedings
are usually filed not just to adjudicate paternity but also to secure a legal
right associated with paternity, such as citizenship, support (as in the present
case), or inheritance. The burden of proving paternity is on the person who
alleges that the putative father is the biological father of the child. There are
four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action which
parties have to face: a prima facie case, affirmative defenses, presumption
of legitimacy, and physical resemblance between the putative father and
child.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Stages; There are four (4)
significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action which parties
have to face: a prima facie case, affirmative defenses, presumption of
legitimacy, and physical resemblance between the putative father and the
child.—A prima facie case exists if a woman declares that she had sexual
relations with the putative father. In our jurisdiction, corroborative proof is
required to carry the burden forward and shift it to the putative father. There
are two affirmative defenses available to the putative father. The putative
father may show incapability of sexual relations with the mother, because of
either physical absence or impotency. The putative father may also show
that the mother had sexual relations with other men at the time of
conception. A child born to a husband and wife during a valid marriage is
presumed legitimate. The child’s legitimacy may be impugned only under
the strict standards provided by law. Finally, physical resemblance between
the putative father and child may be offered as part of evidence of paternity.
Resemblance is a trial tech-
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000170991d3f8cf6d1b234003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/22
* FIRST DIVISION.
198
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Herrera vs. Alba
nique unique to a paternity proceeding. However, although likeness is a

function of heredity, there is no mathematical formula that could quantify
how much a child must or must not look like his biological father. This kind
of evidence appeals to the emotions of the trier of fact.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; To be effective, the claim of
filiation must be made by the putative father himself and the writing must be
the writing of the putative father.—Under Article 278 of the New Civil
Code, voluntary recognition by a parent shall be made in the record of birth,
a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing. To
be effective, the claim of filiation must be made by the putative father
himself and the writing must be the writing of the putative father. A notarial
agreement to support a child whose filiation is admitted by the putative
father was considered acceptable evidence. Letters to the mother vowing to
be a good father to the child and pictures of the putative father cuddling the
child on various occasions, together with the certificate of live birth, proved
filiation. However, a student permanent record, a written consent to a
father’s operation, or a marriage contract where the putative father gave
consent, cannot be taken as authentic writing. Standing alone, neither a
certificate of baptism nor family pictures are sufficient to establish filiation.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; DNA Testing; In assessing the
probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among
other things, the following data.—In assessing the probative value of DNA
evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among other things, the
following data: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the
possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in
analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were
followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who
conducted the tests.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Self-Incrimination; The
Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination is just a
prohibition on the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication (testimonial evidence) from a defendant.—The Supreme
Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition
on the use of physical or
199
VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 199
Herrera vs. Alba
moral compulsion to extort communication (testimonial evidence) from a

defendant, not an exclusion of evidence taken from his body when it may be
material. As such, a defendant can be required to submit to a test to extract
virus from his body (as cited in People vs. Olvis, Supra); the substance
emitting from the body of the accused was received as evidence for acts of
lasciviousness (US vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145); morphine forced out of the
mouth was received as proof (US vs. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735); an order
by the judge for the witness to put on pair of pants for size was allowed
(People vs. Otadora, 86 Phil. 244); and the court can compel a woman
accused of adultery to submit for pregnancy test (Villaflor vs. Summers, 41
Phil. 62), since the gist of the privilege is the restriction on “testimonial
compulsion.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The policy of the Family Code
to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity and filiation of
children, especially illegitimate children, is without prejudice to the right of
the putative parent to claim his or her own defenses.—The policy of the
Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity and
filiation of children, especially of illegitimate children, is without prejudice
to the right of the putative parent to claim his or her own defenses. Where
the evidence to aid this investigation is obtainable through the facilities of
modern science and technology, such evidence should be considered subject
to the limits established by the law, rules, and jurisprudence.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Virgilio C. Manguera & Associates and Benito P. Fabie for
petitioner.
Ramon U. Ampil for respondents.
200

Herrera vs. Alba
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
1 2
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
On 14 May 1998, then thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba

(“respondent”), represented by his mother Armi Alba, filed before
the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition, support and
damages against petitioner. On 7 August 1998, petitioner filed his
answer with counterclaim where he denied that he is the biological
father of respondent. Petitioner also denied physical contact with
respondent’s mother.
Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity
testing to abbreviate the proceedings. To support the motion,
respondent presented the testimony of Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D.
When she testified, Dr. Halos was an Associate Professor at De La
Salle University where she taught Cell Biology. She was also head
of the University of the Philippines Natural Sciences Research
Institute (“UP-NSRI”), a DNA analysis laboratory. She was a former
professor at the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon
City, where
_______________
1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., with Associate Justices
Buenaventura J. Guerrero and Eliezer R. De Los Santos, concurring.
3 Penned by Judge Nimfa Cuesta-Vilches.
201
VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 201

Herrera vs. Alba
she developed the Molecular Biology Program and taught Molecular

Biology. In her testimony, Dr. Halos described the process for DNA
paternity testing and asserted that 4the test had an accuracy rate of
99.9999% in establishing paternity.
Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it
has not gained acceptability. Petitioner further argued that DNA
paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination.
The Ruling of the Trial Court
In an Order dated 3 February 2000, the trial court granted

respondent’s motion to conduct DNA paternity testing on petitioner,
respondent and Armi Alba. Thus:
“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)
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the 3 February 2000

Order. He asserted that “under the present circumstances, the DNA
test [he] is compelled to take would be inconclusive, irrelevant and
the coercive process to obtain the requisite specimen . . .,
unconstitutional.”
In an Order dated 8 June 2000, the trial court denied petitioner’s
6
motion for reconsideration.
_______________
4 Rollo, pp. 318-325, 332-338.

5 Ibid., p. 92.
6 Ibid., p. 93.
202

Herrera vs. Alba
On 18 July 2000, petitioner filed before the appellate court a petition

for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
He asserted that the trial court rendered the Orders dated 3 February
2000 and 8 June 2000 “in excess of, or without jurisdiction and/or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.” Petitioner further contended that there is “no appeal
nor any [other] plain, adequate and speedy remedy in the ordinary
course of law.” Petitioner maintained his previous objections to the
taking of DNA paternity testing. He submitted the following
grounds to support his objection:
1. Public respondent misread and misapplied the ruling in Lim

vs. Court of Appeals (270 SCRA 2).
2. Public respondent ruled to accept DNA test without
considering the limitations on, and conditions precedent for
the admissibility of DNA testing and ignoring the serious
constraints affecting the reliability of the test as admitted by
private respondent’s “expert” witness.
3. Subject Orders lack legal and factual support, with public
respondent relying on scientific findings and conclusions
unfit for judicial notice and unsupported by experts in the
field and scientific treatises.
4. Under the present circumstances the DNA testing petitioner
[is] compelled to take will be inconclusive, irrelevant and
the coercive process to obtain 7the requisite specimen from
the petitioner, unconstitutional.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On 29 November 2000, the appellate court issued a decision denying

the petition and affirming the questioned Orders of the trial court.
The appellate court stated that petitioner merely desires to correct
the trial court’s evaluation of evidence. Thus, appeal is an available
remedy for an error of judgment that the court may commit in the
exercise of its
_______________
7 Ibid., p. 59.
203
VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 203

Herrera vs. Alba
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:
“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Petition is hereby

DENIED DUE COURSE, and ordered dismissed, and the challenged orders
of the Trial Court AFFIRMED, with costs to Petitioner.
8
SO ORDERED.”
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the appellate court

9
denied in its Resolution dated 23 May 2001.
Issues
Petitioner raises the issue of whether a DNA test is a valid probative

tool in this jurisdiction to determine filiation. Petitioner asks for the
conditions under which DNA technology may be integrated into our
judicial system and the prerequisites for the admissibility of DNA
10
test results in a paternity suit.
Petitioner further submits that the appellate court gravely abused
its discretion when it authorized the trial court “to embark in [sic] a
new procedure x x x to determine filiation despite the absence of
legislation to ensure its reliability and integrity, want of official
recognition as made clear in Lim vs. Court of Appeals and the
presence of technical and legal constraints in respect of [sic] its
11
implementation.” Petitioner
_______________
8 Ibid., p. 48.
9 Ibid., pp. 51-52.
10 Ibid., p. 22.
11 Ibid., p. 18.
204

Herrera vs. Alba
maintains that the proposed DNA paternity testing violates his right
12
against self-incrimination.
The Ruling of the Court
The petition has no merit.

Before discussing the issues on DNA paternity testing, we deem
it appropriate to give an overview of a paternity suit and apply it to
the facts of this case. We shall consider the requirements of the
Family Code and of the Rules of Evidence to establish paternity and
filiation.
An Overview of the Paternity and Filiation Suit
Filiation proceedings are usually filed not just to adjudicate paternity

but also to secure a legal right associated with paternity, such as
13
citizenship, support (as in the present case), or inheritance. The
burden of proving paternity is on the person who alleges that the

putative father is the biological father of the child. There are four
significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity action which
parties have to face: a prima facie case, affirmative defenses,
presumption of legitimacy, and physical resemblance between the
14
putative father and child.
A prima facie case exists if a woman declares that she had sexual
relations with the putative father. In our jurisdiction,
_______________
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
VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 205

Herrera vs. Alba
corroborative proof is required to carry the burden forward and shift

15
it to the putative father.
There are two affirmative defenses available to the putative
father. The putative father may show incapability of sexual relations
16
with the mother, because of either physical absence or impotency.
The putative father may also show that the mother had sexual
relations with other men at the time of conception.
A child born to a husband and wife during a valid marriage is
17
presumed legitimate. The child’s legitimacy may be impugned only
18
under the strict standards provided by law.
Finally, physical resemblance between the putative father and
child may be offered as part of evidence of paternity. Resemblance
is a trial technique unique to a paternity proceeding. However,
although likeness is a function of heredity, there is no mathematical
formula that could quantify how much a child must or must not look
19
like his biological father. This kind of evidence appeals to the
emotions of the trier of fact.
In the present case, the trial court encountered three of the four
aspects. Armi Alba, respondent’s mother, put forward a prima facie
case when she asserted that petitioner is respondent’s biological
father. Aware that her assertion is not enough to convince the trial
court, she offered corroborative proof in the form of letters and
pictures. Petitioner, on the other hand, denied Armi Alba’s assertion.
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

Herrera vs. Alba
countered petitioner’s denial by submitting pictures of respondent

and petitioner side by side, to show how much they resemble each
other.
Paternity and filiation disputes can easily become credibility
contests. We now look to the law, rules, and governing jurisprudence
to help us determine what evidence of incriminating acts on
paternity and filiation are allowed in this jurisdiction.
Laws, Rules, and Jurisprudence

Establishing Filiation
The relevant provisions of the Family Code provide as follows:
ART. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in

the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.
xxx
ART. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the
following:
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final

judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a
private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be

proved by:
(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate

child; or
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
The Rules on Evidence include provisions on pedigree. The relevant

sections of Rule 130 provide:
207
VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 207

Herrera vs. Alba
SEC. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree.—The act or declaration of a

person deceased, or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another
person related to him by birth or marriage, may be received in evidence
where it occurred before the controversy, and the relationship between the
two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. The
word “pedigree” includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage,
death, the dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and the
names of the relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately
connected with pedigree.
SEC. 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree.—The
reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in
respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in
evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family,
either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family
books or charts, engraving on rings, family portraits and the like, may be
received as evidence of pedigree.
This Court’s rulings further specify what incriminating acts 20

are
acceptable as evidence to establish filiation. In Pe Lim v. CA, a case
petitioner often cites, we stated that the issue of paternity still has to
be resolved by such conventional evidence as the relevant
incriminating verbal and written acts by the putative father. Under
Article 278 of the New Civil Code, voluntary recognition by a
parent shall be made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before
a court of record, or in any authentic writing. To be effective, the
claim of filiation must be made by the putative father himself and
21
the writing must be the writing of the putative father. A notarial
agreement to support a child whose filiation is admitted by the
22
putative father was considered acceptable evidence. Letters to the
mother vowing to be a good father to the child and pictures of the
putative father cuddling the child on vari-
_______________
20 336 Phil. 741; 270 SCRA 1 (1997).

21 Heirs of Raymundo C. Bañas v. Heirs of Bibiano Bañas, L-25715, 31 January
1985, 134 SCRA 260.
22 Marcayda v. Naz, 210 Phil. 386; 125 SCRA 466 (1983).
208

Herrera vs. Alba
ous occasions, together with the certificate of live birth, proved

23
filiation. However, a student permanent record, a written consent to
a father’s operation, or a marriage contract where the putative father
24
gave consent, cannot be taken as authentic writing. Standing alone,
25 26
neither a certificate of baptism nor family pictures are sufficient to
establish filiation.
So far, the laws, rules, and jurisprudence seemingly limit
evidence of paternity and filiation to incriminating acts alone.
However, advances in science show that sources of evidence of
paternity and filiation need not be limited to incriminating acts.
There is now almost universal scientific agreement that blood
grouping tests are conclusive on non-paternity, although
27
inconclusive on paternity.
28
In Co Tao v. Court of Appeals, the result of the blood grouping
test showed that the putative father was a “possible father” of the
child. Paternity was imputed to the putative father after the
possibility of paternity was proven on presentation during trial of
facts and circumstances other than the results of the blood grouping
test.
29
In Jao v. Court of Appeals, the child, the mother, and the
putative father agreed to submit themselves to a blood grouping test.
The National Bureau of Investigation (“NBI”) conducted the test,
which indicated that the child could not have been the possible
offspring of the mother and the putative
_______________
23 Supra note 20.

24 Reyes, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 220 Phil. 116; 135 SCRA 439 (1985).
25 Ibid.
26 Colorado v. Court of Appeals, No. L-39948, 28 February 1985, 135 SCRA 47.
27 Jao v. Court of Appeals, No. L-49162, 28 July 1987, 152 SCRA 359.
28 101 Phil. 188 (1957).
29 Supra note 27.
209
VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 209

Herrera vs. Alba
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
paternity.
DNA Analysis as Evidence
DNA is the fundamental building block of a person’s entire genetic

make-up. DNA is found in all human cells and is the same in every
cell of the same person. Genetic identity is unique. Hence, a person’s
30
DNA profile can determine his identity.
DNA analysis is a procedure in which DNA extracted from a
biological sample obtained from an individual is examined. The
DNA is processed to generate a pattern, or a DNA profile, for the
individual from whom the sample is taken. This DNA profile is
31
unique for each person, except for identical twins. We quote
relevant portions of the trial court’s 3 February 2000 Order with
approval:
Everyone is born with a distinct genetic blueprint called DNA

(deoxyribonucleic acid). It is exclusive to an individual (except in the rare
occurrence of identical twins that share a single, fertilized egg), and DNA is
unchanging throughout life. Being a component of every cell in the human
body, the DNA of an individual’s blood is the very DNA in his or her skin
cells, hair follicles, muscles, semen, samples from buccal swabs, saliva, or
other body parts.
The chemical structure of DNA has four bases. They are known as A
(adenine), G (guanine), C (cystosine) and T (thymine). The order in which
the four bases appear in an individual’s DNA determines his or her physical
makeup. And since DNA is a double-
_______________
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

Herrera vs. Alba
stranded molecule, it is composed of two specific paired bases, A-T or T-A

and G-C or C-G. These are called “genes.”
Every gene has a certain number of the above base pairs distributed in a
particular sequence. This gives a person his or her genetic code. Somewhere
in the DNA framework, nonetheless, are sections that differ. They are
known as “polymorphic loci,” which are the areas analyzed in DNA typing
(profiling, tests, fingerprinting, or analysis/DNA fingerprinting/genetic tests
or fingerprinting). In other words, DNA typing simply means determining

the “polymorphic loci.”
How is DNA typing performed? From a DNA sample obtained or
extracted, a molecular biologist may proceed to analyze it in several ways.
There are five (5) techniques to conduct DNA typing. They are: the RFLP
(restriction fragment length polymorphism); “reverse dot blot” or HLA DQ
a/Pm loci which was used in 287 cases that were admitted as evidence by 37
courts in the U.S. as of November 1994; mtDNA process; VNTR (variable
number tandem repeats); and the most recent which is known as the PCR-
([polymerase] chain reaction) based STR (short tandem repeats) method
which, as of 1996, was availed of by most forensic laboratories in the world.
PCR is the process of replicating or copying DNA in an evidence sample a
million times through repeated cycling of a reaction involving the so-called
DNA polymerize enzyme. STR, on the other hand, takes measurements in
13 separate places and can match two (2) samples with a reported
theoretical error rate of less than one (1) in a trillion.
Just like in fingerprint analysis, in DNA typing, “matches” are
determined. To illustrate, when DNA or fingerprint tests are done to identify
a suspect in a criminal case, the evidence collected from the crime scene is
compared with the “known” print. If a substantial amount of the identifying
features are the same, the DNA or finger-print is deemed to be a match. But
then, even if only one feature of the DNA or fingerprint is different, it is
deemed not to have come from the suspect.
As earlier stated, certain regions of human DNA show variations
between people. In each of these regions, a person possesses two genetic
types called “allele,” one inherited from each parent. 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
211
VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 211

Herrera vs. Alba
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
documentary evidence and physical resemblance were used to

establish parentage. However, we observed that:
Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless we adopt

the modern and scientific ways available. Fortunately, we have now the
facility and expertise in using DNA test for identification and parentage
testing. The University of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute
(UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the capability to conduct
DNA typing using short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. x x x For it was said,
that courts should apply the results of science when completely obtained in
aid of situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny progress.
Though it is not necessary in this case to resort to DNA testing, in [the]
future it would be useful to all concerned in the prompt resolution of
parentage and identity issues.
Admissibility of
35
The 2002 case of People v. Vallejo discussed DNA analysis as
evidence. This may be considered a 180 degree turn from
_______________
32 Rollo, pp. 89-90.

33 People v. Teehankee, Jr., 319 Phil. 128; 249 SCRA 54 (1995).
34 G.R. No. 125901, 8 March 2001, 354 SCRA 17.
35 431 Phil. 798; 382 SCRA 192 (2002).
212

Herrera vs. Alba
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:
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should

consider, among other things, the following data: how the samples were
collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the
samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the
proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and
37
the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
Vallejo discussed the probative value, not admissibility, of DNA

evidence. By 2002, there was no longer any question on the validity
of the use of DNA analysis as evidence. The Court moved from the
issue of according “official recognition” to DNA analysis as
evidence to the issue of observance of procedures in conducting
DNA analysis.
In 2004, there were two other cases that had a significant impact
38
on jurisprudence on DNA testing: People v. Yatar and In re: The
39
Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa. In Yatar, a match
existed between the DNA profile of the semen found in the victim
and the DNA profile of the blood sample given by appellant in open
court. The Court, following Vallejo’s footsteps, affirmed the
conviction of appellant because the physical evidence, corroborated
by circumstantial evidence, showed appellant guilty of rape with
homicide. In De Villa, the convict-petitioner presented DNA test
results to prove that he is not the father of the child conceived at the
_______________
36 Supra note 20.

37 Supra note 35.
38 G.R. No. 150224, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 504.
39 G.R. No. 158802, 17 November 2004, 442 SCRA 706.
213
VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 213

Herrera vs. Alba
time of commission of the rape. The Court ruled that a difference

between the DNA profile of the convict-petitioner and the DNA
profile of the victim’s child does not preclude the convict-
petitioner’s commission of rape.
In the present case, the various pleadings filed by petitioner and
respondent refer to two United States cases to support their
respective positions on the admissibility of DNA analysis as
40
evidence: Frye v. U.S. and Daubert v. Merrell Dow
41
Pharmaceuticals. In Frye v. U.S., the trial court convicted Frye of
murder. Frye appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia. During trial, Frye’s counsel offered an expert
witness to testify on the result of a systolic blood pressure deception
42
test made on defendant. The state Supreme Court affirmed Frye’s
conviction and ruled that “the systolic blood pressure deception test
has not yet gained such standing and scientific recognition among
physiological and psychological authorities as would justify the
courts in admitting expert testimony deduced from the discovery,
development, and experiments thus far made.” The Frye standard of
general acceptance states as follows:
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.
_______________
40 54 App.D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923).

41 509 US 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
42 This form of lie detector test asserts that “blood pressure is influenced by
change in the emotions of the witness, and that the systolic blood pressure rises are
brought about by nervous impulses sent to the sympathetic branch of the nervous
system.”
214

Herrera vs. Alba
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
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-
_______________
43 447 N.W.2d 422 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 1989).

44 Ibid.
45 Supra note 41.
215
VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 215

Herrera vs. Alba
preme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant

is not admissible.
Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governing expert

testimony provides:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of

fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
Daubert cautions that departure from the Frye standard of general

acceptance does not mean that the Federal Rules do not place limits
on the admissibility of scientific evidence. Rather, the judge must
ensure that the testimony’s reasoning or method is scientifically
valid and is relevant to the issue. Admissibility would depend on
factors such as (1) whether the theory or technique can be or has
been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected
to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of
error; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the
technique’s operation; and (5) whether the theory or technique is
generally accepted in the scientific community.
46
Another product liability case, Kumho Tires Co. v. Carmichael,
further modified the Daubert standard. This led to the amendment of
Rule 702 in 2000 and which now reads as follows:
If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of

fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1)
the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the
product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied
the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
_______________
46 526 U.S. 137, 119 S. Ct. 1167 (1999).
216

Herrera vs. Alba
We now determine the applicability in this jurisdiction of these

American cases. Obviously, neither the Frye-Schwartz standard nor
47
the Daubert-Kumho standard is controlling in the Philippines. At
best, American jurisprudence merely has a persuasive effect on our
decisions. Here, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact
in issue and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of
48
Court. Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in
49
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Section
49 of Rule 130, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony,
provides as follows:
The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,

experience or training which he is shown to possess may be received in
evidence.
This Rule does not pose any legal obstacle to the admissibility of
DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed, even evidence on collateral
matters is allowed “when it tends in any reasonable degree to
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.
217
VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 217
Herrera vs. Alba
Probative Value of
Despite our relatively liberal rules on admissibility, trial courts

should be cautious in giving credence to DNA analysis as evidence.
We reiterate our statement in Vallejo:
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should

consider, among other things, the following data: how the samples were
collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the
samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the
proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and
51
the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
We also repeat the trial court’s explanation of DNA analysis used in

paternity cases:
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
_______________
51 Supra note 35.

52 Rollo, p. 90.
218

Herrera vs. Alba
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
random match of two unrelated individuals. An appropriate

reference population database, such as the Philippine population
database, is required to compute for W. Due to the probabilistic
nature of paternity inclusions, W will never equal to 100%.
However, the accuracy of W estimates is higher when the putative
father, mother and child are subjected to DNA analysis compared to
54
those conducted between the putative father and child alone.
DNA analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity
should be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of W is less
than 99.9%, the results of the DNA analysis should be considered as
corroborative evidence. If the value of W is 99.9% or higher, then
55
there is refutable presumption of paternity. This refutable
presumption of paternity should be subjected to the Vallejo
standards.
Right Against
Self-Incrimination
Section 17, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no

person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
Petitioner asserts that obtaining samples from him for DNA testing
violates his right against self-incrimination. Petitioner ignores our
earlier pronouncements that the privi-
_______________
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
VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 219

Herrera vs. Alba
lege is applicable only to testimonial evidence. Again, we quote

relevant portions of the trial court’s 3 February 2000 Order with
approval:
Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the

respondent in a paternity case, contrary to the belief of respondent in this
action, will not violate the right against self-incrimination. This privilege
applies only to evidence that is “communicative” in essence taken under
duress (People vs. Olvis, 154 SCRA 513, 1987). The Supreme Court has
ruled that the right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition on the use
of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication (testimonial

evidence) from a defendant, not an exclusion of evidence taken from his
body when it may be material. As such, a defendant can be required to
submit to a test to extract virus from his body (as cited in People vs. Olvis,
Supra); the substance emitting from the body of the accused was received as
evidence for acts of lasciviousness (US vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145);
morphine forced out of the mouth was received as proof (US vs. Ong Siu
Hong, 36 Phil. 735); an order by the judge for the witness to put on pair of
pants for size was allowed (People vs. Otadora, 86 Phil. 244); and the court
can compel a woman accused of adultery to submit for pregnancy test
(Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62), since the gist of the privilege is the
56
restriction on “testimonial compulsion.”
The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the

investigation of the paternity and filiation of children, especially of
illegitimate children, is without prejudice to the right of the putative
57
parent to claim his or her own defenses. Where the evidence to aid
this investigation is obtainable through the facilities of modern
science and technology, such evidence should be considered subject
to the limits established by the law, rules, and jurisprudence.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. We AFFIRM the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 November 2000 in
_______________
56 Rollo, p. 91.
57 See Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86302, 24 September 1991, 201
SCRA 675.
220

New City Builders, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
CA-G.R. SP No. 59766. We also AFFIRM the Orders dated 3

February 2000 and 8 June 2000 issued by Branch 48 of the Regional
Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. SP-98-88759.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago

and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Petition dismissed, judgment affirmed.
Note.—Filiation is a serious matter that must be resolved

according to the requirements of the law. (Go Kim Huy vs. Go Kim
Huy, 365 SCRA 490 [2001])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Herrera vs. Alba

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Herrera vs. Alba

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 460

VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 197

ROSENDO HERRERA, petitioner, vs. ROSENDO ALBA, minor,

Civil Law; Contracts; Marriages; Family Code; Filiation; Paternity;

198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Herrera vs. Alba

nique unique to a paternity proceeding. However, although likeness is a

VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 199

Herrera vs. Alba

moral compulsion to extort communication (testimonial evidence) from a

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On 14 May 1998, then thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba

1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 201

she developed the Molecular Biology Program and taught Molecular

The Ruling of the Trial Court

In an Order dated 3 February 2000, the trial court granted

Petitioner ﬁled a motion for reconsideration of the 3 February 2000

4 Rollo, pp. 318-325, 332-338.

202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

On 18 July 2000, petitioner ﬁled before the appellate court a petition

1. Public respondent misread and misapplied the ruling in Lim

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On 29 November 2000, the appellate court issued a decision denying

VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 203

“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Petition is hereby

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the appellate court

Petitioner raises the issue of whether a DNA test is a valid probative

204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Ruling of the Court

The petition has no merit.

An Overview of the Paternity and Filiation Suit

Filiation proceedings are usually ﬁled not just to adjudicate paternity

burden of proving paternity is on the person who alleges that the

VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 205

corroborative proof is required to carry the burden forward and shift

206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

countered petitioner’s denial by submitting pictures of respondent

Laws, Rules, and Jurisprudence

The relevant provisions of the Family Code provide as follows:

ART. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate ﬁliation in

(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a ﬁnal

In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate ﬁliation shall be

(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate

The Rules on Evidence include provisions on pedigree. The relevant

VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 207

SEC. 39. Act or declaration about pedigree.—The act or declaration of a

This Court’s rulings further specify what incriminating acts 20

20 336 Phil. 741; 270 SCRA 1 (1997).

208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ous occasions, together with the certiﬁcate of live birth, proved

23 Supra note 20.

VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 209

DNA Analysis as Evidence

DNA is the fundamental building block of a person’s entire genetic

Everyone is born with a distinct genetic blueprint called DNA

210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

stranded molecule, it is composed of two speciﬁc paired bases, A-T or T-A

or ﬁngerprinting). In other words, DNA typing simply means determining

VOL. 460, JUNE 15, 2005 211

documentary evidence and physical resemblance were used to