1.

PORFIRIO AUXILIO VS NLRC

Facts:
Petitioner, employed by private respondent Baguio Country Club
Corporationas as a houseman and later on a regular employee, was
placed under preventive suspension due to his possible involvement in
the theft. In the polygraph report, it was declared that petitioner offered
no satisfactory explanation for the adverse result of the polygraph test
conducted on him. Petitioner was asked to appear for investigation by
the management. However, no further examination was conducted by
the police or the employer because petitioner could not be found in his
residence and the notices sent to him were rejected by his wife. Thus,
he was terminated for loss of trust and confidence and for giving false
statement during official investigation. Petitioner filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter alleging that he was dismissed
on mere suspicion that he stole the money and that he was denied an
opportunity to defend himself pursuant to the provision of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement between private respondent and the
union of which petitioner was a member.
The results of the Polygraph Examination revealed that petitioner
could not fully explain his answers to vital questions relative to the
missing money. He was again invited to the Police Headquarters for
further investigation but he refused to attend and said that he was not
feeling well when he was under the polygraph examination (Comment
of Solicitor General, p. 3). In the polygraph report on the petitioner
dated February 16, 1982, it was declared that petitioner offered no
satisfactory explanation for the adverse result of the polygraph test
conducted on him. All the other employees subjected to the same
examination showed no indications of deception as they explained
their side satisfactorily that they did not steal the money.
Issue:

WON his dismissal was without basis as his complicity in the theft of
the P15,000.00 was solely based on suspicions and on the polygraph
test conducted on his person?

Ruling: No, his termination was with merit.

Loss of confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an employee.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employer's misconduct is not
required, it being sufficient that there is some basis for the same or
that the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee
is responsible for the misconduct and his participation therein
rendered him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded of his
position.
His erratic reaction to the investigator's questioning narrowed down
the list of suspects to him alone. We agree with the public respondent
that petitioner's continued absence from his residence and
unexplained disappearance despite several notices for further police
investigation implied flight associated with guilt. The requirement that
there be some basis or reasonable ground to believe that the
employee is responsible for the misconduct is sufficiently met in the
case at bar.
Petitioner was afforded due process of law. There is convincing and
sufficient evidence on record to show that private respondent
corporation fully complied with the notice and hearing requirements of
due process. Petitioner was notified and repeatedly invited for further
investigation but he chose to ignore the said notices by his convenient
absence from his residence and the continued refusal by his wife to
receive the notices. Private respondent cannot be faulted as petitioner
had ample opportunity to be heard. Since he unjustifiably rejected the
opportunity, petitioner cannot now complain that he was denied due
process of law.

2. PEOPLE VS. INTINO

Facts:
The victim, Bienvenido was drinking tuba with Benny and the
appellant, Intino one night. Bienvenido went inside his house to eat
supper with his family, leaving Intino and Benny on the porch drinking.
After supper, Bienvenido was left with Norma (his girlfriend) at the
dining table. While they were conversing, Norma saw Inito rise up
from his seat and approached Bienvenido from behind. Bienvenido
was stabbed numerous times with a bolo at the back. Inito then
escaped. Bienvenido died in the hospital that night. He was later
arrested and was charged with murder qualified by treachery. During
the trial, the defense presented the appellant and the victims sister as
witnesses. Their theory was that it was Benny who stabbed
Bienvenido not Inito based on the dying declaration of the victim to his
sister when they were on their way to the hospital.

From the above testimony, the logical conclusion is that the assailant
Benny was facing the victim as he delivered the stabbing blow in the
abdomen of the victim, as the witness would want the court to believe.
However, this is belied by the medical certificate. The fatal wound (that
is, the one inflicted in the abdomen) was described as "Operative
Findings: Wound stab, thru and thru wound of entrance right posterior
lumbar, wound of exit epigastric, penetrating perforating Kidney (nasa
likod yan ng katawan) Right #1, Liver #1, Transverse Colon #2,
Misocolon, Severe hemorrhage." The testimony of Norma Calipayan
that the assailant approached the victim from behind is strengthened
by the victims medical certificate which was never disputed by the
parties and Exh. E-3. which is a sketch demonstrating the seating
arrangement or the positions of those persons present in the house of
the Calipayans that fateful night.

Issue: WON Intino should be convicted for murder.

The dying declaration has no probative value since Bienvenido was

stabbed from behind hence he was in no position to identify his
assailant. Wherefore, the appellant is convicted.

Held: Yes, Intinos testimony is belied by the medical certificate.

3. PEOPLE VS ADOVISO

Q.

FACTS: Pablo Adoviso, allegedly a member of the Citizens Armed

Forces Geographical Unit (CAFGU) and four John Does, were tried for
the MURDER of Rufino Agunos and Emeterio Vazquez. Pablo
Adoviso was positively identified by Bonifacio Agunos, the son of one
of the victims, because the former did not wear a mask in the
perpetration of the crime.

A.
Q.
A.

Q.
A.
Q.
A.

Now while these persons were drinking at around 8.00 oclock

what happened?
Bienvenido Caluser was stabbed by a person called Benny.
What did Benny do to Caluser?
Benny held the shoulder of Bienvenido Caluser and then
stabbed him sir.
Was Bienvenido Calusar hit?
Yes, sir.
Where?
He was hit in the abdomen.

Aside from denial and alibi, the defense also offered in evidence the
testimony of Ernesto A. Lucena, Polygraph Examiner II of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Manila, who conducted a polygraph
test on Adoviso. In Polygraph Report No. 900175, Lucena opined that
Adovisos polygrams revealed that there were no specific reactions

indicative of deception to pertinent questions relevant to the

investigation of the crimes.
The RTC of Camarines Sur found Adoviso guilty.
On the premise that the trial court rendered the judgment of conviction
on the basis of mere conjectures and speculations, appellant argues
that the negative result of the polygraph test should be given weight to
tilt the scales of justice in his favor.
ISSUE: Whether or not the result of the polygraph test should be given
weight and be admitted as evidence?
HELD: NO. A polygraph is an electromechanical instrument that
simultaneously measures and records certain physiological
changes in the human body that are believed to be involuntarily
caused by an examinees conscious attempt to deceive the
questioner. The theory behind a polygraph or lie detector test is that
a person who lies deliberately will have a rising blood pressure and a
subconscious block in breathing, which will be recorded on the
graph. However, American courts almost uniformly reject the
results of polygraph tests when offered in evidence for the
purpose of establishing the guilt or innocence of one accused of
a crime, whether the accused or the prosecution seeks its
introduction, for the reason that polygraph has not as yet attained
scientific acceptance as a reliable and accurate means of ascertaining
truth or deception. The rule is no different in this jurisdiction. Thus, in
People v. Daniel, stating that much faith and credit should not be
vested upon a lie detector test as it is not conclusive. Appellant, in this
case, has not advanced any reason why this rule should not apply to
him.

Appellant was therefore correctly adjudged guilty of two counts of

Murder. Treachery qualified the killings to murder. There is treachery
when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
make. In other words, there is treachery when the attack on an
unarmed victim who has not given the slightest provocation is sudden,
unexpected and without warning. The victims in this case were totally
unaware of an impending assault Rufino was sleeping and Emeterio
was going down the stairs when they were shot. The RTC Judgment is
affirmed.
4. ANTONIA L. DE JESUS VS. CESAR SYQUIA
This action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila by
Antonia Loanco de Jesus against the defendant Syquia to compel the
defendant to recognize Ismael and Pacita as natural children begotten
by him with Antonia.
Cesar Syquias brother-in-law is the owner of a barber shop where
Antonia was taken on as a cashier. They had a relationship and
Antonia became pregnant.
The defendant was a constant visitor at the home of Antonia in the
early months of her pregnancy, and in February, 1931, he wrote and
placed in her hands a note directed to the padre who has expected to
christen the baby. This note was as follows:

Rev. FATHER,

The baby due in June is mine and I should like for my name to be
given to it.
CESAR SYQUIA
The occasion for writing this note was that the defendant was on the
eve of his departure on a trip to China and Japan; and while he was
abroad on this visit he wrote several letters to Antonia showing a
paternal interest in the situation that had developed with her, and
cautioning her to keep in good condition in order that "junior"
(meaning the baby to be, "Syquia, Jr.") might be strong, and promising
to return to them soon.
Issue 1: Whether the note to the padre, quoted above, in connection
with the letters written by the defendant to the mother during
pregnancy, proves an acknowledgment of paternity, within the
meaning of subsection 1 of article 135 of the Civil Code. - Yes
Upon this point we have no hesitancy in holding that the
acknowledgment thus shown is sufficient.
It is a universal rule of jurisprudence that a child, upon being
conceived, becomes a bearer of legal rights and capable of being
dealt with as a living person. The fact that it is yet unborn is no
impediment to the acquisition of rights.
The words of recognition contained in the note to the padre are not
capable of two constructions. They refer to a baby then conceived
which was expected to be born in June and which would thereafter be
presented for christening. Its identity as the child which the defendant
intended to acknowledge is clear.

Any doubt that might arise on this point is removed by the letters
where the defendant makes repeated reference to junior as the baby
which Antonia, was then carrying in her womb.
Issue 2: whether the acknowledgment contemplated in subsection 1
of article 135 of the Civil Code must be made in a single document or
may be made in more than one document, of indubitable authenticity,
written by the recognizing father? - Yes
Held: Upon this point we are of the opinion that the recognition can be
made out by putting together the admissions of more than one
document, supplementing the admission made in one letter by an
admission or admissions made in another.
In the case before us the admission of paternity is contained in the
note to the padre and the other letters suffice to connect that
admission with the child then being carried by Antonia L. de Jesus.
There is no requirement in the law that the writing shall be addressed
to one, or any particular individual. It is merely required that the writing
shall be indubitable.
5. ARNEL L. AGUSTIN VS. COURT OF APPEALS & MARTIN JOSE
PROLLAMENTE
Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless the
modern and scientific ways available are adopted. Fortunately, the
facility and expertise in using DNA test for identification and parentage
testing are now at hand... The kernel of the right is not against all
compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The right against selfincrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the
lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the
evidence sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but as part of
object evidence.

Respondents Fe Angela and her son, Martin sued Martins alleged

biological father, petitioner Agustin, for support and support pendente
lite before the RTC. The respondents alleged that the petitioner
impregnated her and bore a son Martin out of wedlock. The babys
birth certificate was purportedly signed by the petitioner as the father.
Arnel even shouldered the pre- natal and hospital expenses but later
refused Fes repeated requests for Martins support despite his
adequate financial capacity and even suggested to have the child
committed for adoption.
The petitioner denied having sired Martin because his affair and
intimacy with Fe had allegedly ended in 1998, long before Martins
conception. He admitted that their affair started in 1993 but theirs was
an on-and-off relationship. He terminated the affair when he was
unable to bear the prospect of losing his wife and family. Finally, the
petitioner claims that the signature and the community tax certificate
attributed to him in the acknowledgement of Martins birth certificate
were falsified.
The private respondents moved for the issuance of an order directing
the parties to submit themselves to DNA paternity testing pursuant to
Rule 28 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner opposed said motion
invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination and stating
that there was no cause of action, considering that his signature on
the birth certificate was a forgery and that under the law, an
illegitimate child is not entitled to support if not recognized by the
putative father.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint and ordered
the parties to submit themselves to DNA paternity testing at the
expense of the applicants. CA affirmed the trial court.
ISSUES:
1.

Whether or not a complaint for support can be converted to a petition

for recognition
Whether or not DNA paternity testing can be ordered in a proceeding
for support without violating petitioners constitutional rights to privacy
and against self- incrimination.
HELD: The petition is without merit.
Action for Support May be Simultaneously Filed with Petition for
Recognition
The assailed resolution and order did not convert the action for
support into one for recognition but merely allowed the respondents to
prove their cause of action against the petitioner who had been
denying the authenticity of the documentary evidence of
acknowledgement. But even if the assailed resolution and order
effectively integrated an action to compel recognition with an action for
support, such was valid and in accordance with jurisprudence.
Compulsory DNA Testing is Constitutional and Results are Admissible
On the second issue, the petitioner posits that DNA is not recognized
as a conclusive means of proving paternity. He also contends that
compulsory testing violates his constitutional rights to privacy and
against self-incrimination. These contentions have no merit.
In 2001, the Court opened the possibility of admitting DNA as
evidence of parentage, as enunciated in Tijing v. Court of Appeals:
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. The analysis is based on the fact that the DNA of a

child/person has two (2) copies, one copy from the mother and the
other from the father. The DNA from the mother, the alleged father and
child are analyzed to establish parentage. Of course, being a novel
scientific technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is still open to
challenge. Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, courts should
not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was
said, that courts should apply the results of science when competently
obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said result is to
deny progress.
Significantly, the constitutionality of compulsory DNA testing has been
upheld and thereof admitted in evidence. In the case of People vs.
Yatar, DNA samples from semen recovered from a rape victims
vagina were used to positively identify the accused Joel Yatar as the
rapist. Yatar claimed that the compulsory extraction of his blood
sample for DNA testing, as well as the testing itself, violated his right
against self-incrimination, as embodied in both Sections 12 and 17 of
Article III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court addressed this as
follows: The contention is untenable. The kernel of the right is not
against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The right
against self-incrimination is simply against the legal process of
extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does
not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an
incrimination but as part of object evidence.
There is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public
respondent for upholding the orders of the trial court which both
denied the petitioners motion to dismiss and ordered him to submit
himself for DNA testing.
6. ROSENDO HERRERA VS ROSENDO ALBA
In May 1998, Armi Alba, mother of minor Rosendo Alba filed a suit
against Rosendo Herrera in order for the latter to recognize and

support Rosendo as his biological son. Herrera denied Armis

allegations. In the year 2000, the trial court ordered the parties to
undergo a (deoxyribonucleic acid )DNA testing to establish whether or
not Herrera is indeed the biological father of Rosendo Alba. However,
Herrera questioned the validity of the order as he claimed that DNA
testing has not yet garnered widespread acceptance hence any result
therefrom will not be admissible in court; and that the said test is
unconstitutional for it violates his right against self-incrimination.
ISSUE: Whether or not Herrera is correct.
HELD: No. It is true that in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in Pe Lim
vs CA that DNA testing is not yet recognized in the Philippines and at
the time when he questioned the order of the trial court, the prevailing
doctrine was the Pe Lim case; however, in 2002 there is already no
question as to the acceptability of DNA test results as admissible
object evidence in Philippine courts. This was the decisive ruling in the
case of People vs Vallejo (2002).
In the Vallejo Case, the Supreme Court recognized DNA analysis as
admissible evidence. On the other hand, as to determining the weight
and probative value of DNA test results, the Supreme Court provides,
which is now known as the Vallejo Guidelines:
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts
should consider, among other things, the following data:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

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.

The above test is derived from the Daubert Test which is a doctrine
adopted from US jurisprudence (Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) The Daubert Test is a test to be employed by
courts before admitting scientific test results in evidence. More
specifically, the Daubert Test inquires:
a.
b.
c.
d.

Whether the theory or technique can be tested,

Whether the proffered work has been subjected to peer review,
Whether the rate of error is acceptable,
Whether the method at issue enjoys widespread acceptance

In this case, the Supreme Court declared that in filiation cases, before
paternity inclusion can be had, the DNA test result must state that the
there is at least a 99.9% probability that the person is the biological
father. However, a 99.9% probability of paternity (or higher but never
possibly a 100% ) does not immediately result in the DNA test result
being admitted as an overwhelming evidence. It does not
automatically become a conclusive proof that the alleged father, in this
case Herrera, is the biological father of the child (Alba). Such result is
still a disputable or a refutable evidence which can be brought down if
the Vallejo Guidelines are not complied with.
What if the result provides that there is less than 99.9% probability
that the alleged father is the biological father?
Then the evidence is merely corroborative.
Anent the issue of self-incrimination, submitting to DNA testing is not
violative of the right against self-incrimination. The right against selfincrimination 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. There is no testimonial compulsion in the getting of

DNA sample from Herrera, hence, he cannot properly invoke selfincrimination.

7. JENIE SAN JUAN-DELA CRUZ VS. REGISTRAR OF ANTIPOLO
Facts:
For several months in 2005, then 21-year old petitioner Jenie San
Juan Dela Cruz (Jenie) and then 19-year old Christian Dominique Sto.
Tomas Aquino (Dominique) lived together as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage. They resided in the house of
Dominiques parents . On September 4, 2005, Dominique died. After
almost two months Jenie, who continued to live with Dominiques
parents, gave birth to her herein co-petitioner minor child Christian
Dela Cruz Aquino.
Jenie applied for registration of the childs birth, using Dominiques
surname Aquino, with the Office of the City Civil Registrar, Antipolo
City, in support of which she submitted the childs Certificate of Live
Birth, Affidavit to Use the Surname of the Father (AUSF) which she
had executed and signed, and Affidavit of Acknowledgment executed
by Dominiques father Domingo Butch Aquino.
Both affidavits
attested, inter alia, that during the lifetime of Dominique, he had
continuously acknowledged his yet unborn child, and that his paternity
had never been questioned.
Jenie attached to the AUSF a document entitled AUTOBIOGRAPHY
which Dominique, during his lifetime, wrote in his own handwriting, the
pertinent portions of which read:
AS OF NOW I HAVE MY WIFE NAMED JENIE DELA
CRUZ. WE MET EACH OTHER IN OUR HOMETOWN,
TEREZA RIZAL. AT FIRST WE BECAME GOOD
FRIENDS, THEN WE FELL IN LOVE WITH EACH
OTHER, THEN WE BECAME GOOD COUPLES. AND

AS OF NOW SHE IS PREGNANT AND FOR THAT WE

LIVE TOGETHER IN OUR HOUSE NOW. THATS ALL.
The application was denied on the ground that the document was
unsigned by Dominique and that it did not expressly say that he was
the father instead it merely acknowledged her pregnancy, hence this
petition.
Issue: WON the application to use the surname of Dominique should
be granted.
Held: Yes, General Rule: That a father who acknowledges paternity of
a child through a written instrument must affix his signature thereon is
clearly implied in Article 176 of the Family Code. Art. 176 of the FC
should be read with Art. 172 and 175.
HOWERVER, special circumstances exist to hold that Dominiques
Autobiography, though unsigned by him, substantially satisfies the
requirement of the law. First, Dominique died about two months prior
to the childs birth. Second, the relevant matters in the Autobiography,
unquestionably handwritten by Dominique, correspond to the facts
culled from the testimonial evidence Jenie proffered. Third, Jenies
testimony is corroborated by the Affidavit of Acknowledgment of
Dominiques father Domingo Aquino and testimony of his brother
Joseph Butch Aquino whose hereditary rights could be affected by the
registration of the questioned recognition of the child. These
circumstances indicating Dominiques paternity of the child give life to
his statements in his Autobiography that JENIE DELA CRUZ is MY
WIFE as WE FELL IN LOVE WITH EACH OTHER and NOW SHE
IS PREGNANT AND FOR THAT WE LIVE TOGETHER.
In the case at bar, there is no dispute that the earlier quoted
statements in Dominiques Autobiography have been made and
written by him. Taken together with the other relevant facts extant
herein that Dominique, during his lifetime, and Jenie were living

together as common-law spouses for several months in 2005 at his

parents house in Pulang-lupa, Dulumbayan, Teresa, Rizal; she was
pregnant when Dominique died on September 4, 2005; and about two
months after his death, Jenie gave birth to the child they sufficiently
establish that the child of Jenie is Dominiques.
Rules respecting the requirement of affixing the signature of the
acknowledging parent in any private handwritten instrument wherein
an admission of filiation of a legitimate or illegitimate child is made:
1) Where the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of
evidence submitted to prove filiation, there should be strict
compliance with the requirement that the same must be signed by
the acknowledging parent; and
2) Where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other
relevant and competent evidence, it suffices that the claim of
filiation therein be shown to have been made and handwritten by
the acknowledging parent as it is merely corroborative of such
other evidence.
8. H. CO TAO VS. CA
Facts:
Lucita Vallejo, a young girl of 18 entered the services, as maid and
laundress of one Co Bun Kim in Manila. Co Tao alias Jose Co, a
cousin and trusted employee of Co Bun Kim in a store and Chinese
pharmacy also live under the same house. His wife and three children
were then out of the Islands. Co Tao courted Lucita Vallejo and
promised to marry her. And believing that he was single, Lucita
accepted him and in no time they were having carnal relations in the
said house. Vallejo got pregnant To avoid scandal, the defendant
brought her to the house of her uncle, Candido Vallejo. Lucita gave
birth to baby boy with the assistance of midwife Felisa Galang.

Candido then accompanied Felisa to the pharmacy of Co Bun Kim to

inform the defendant Co Tao of the advent of his of spring. Co Tao
gave her 5O pesos for the services. Co Tao also pass by Candido's
house to see Lucita, and his child. The child was baptized with the
name of Manuel Co, acting as sponsor thereof, upon the request of
Co Tao himself, the driver Jose Nabong and his wife. After the
baptism, Lucita continued living in his uncle's house where defendant
continued having marital life with her throughout, and providing here
with money and food. In October, 1949, however, the child feel sick,
and upon suggestion of defendant Co Tao, Lucita and her child went
to live with her parents in Camiling. Co Taos, wife and children had
arrived in the meanwhile, and defendant did not write or send money
to Vallejo so she was forced to work.
She decided to come to Manila and see defendant Co Tao who
refused to give her any help so she filed a case against Co Tao.
Vallejo also previously filed a rape case against him but was
dismissed.
The trial court ordered the experts of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) to test the blood of the defendant Co Tao and the
child Manuel Co, in order to determine whether the former could be
the father of the latter. On October 18, 1951, the NBI expert rendered
a report of the analysis made, with the following findings: "From their
blood groups and types, the defendant, Co Tao, is a possible father of
the child. Co Tao alleged that Vallejo had carnal knowledge with
several men hence it is possible that he is not the father. He alleged
that the idea of rape is incompatible with the concept of love.
Issue: WON Co Tao is the father of Manuel Co.
Held: YES.

NBI expert cannot give assurance that the appellant was the father of
the child; he can only give his opinion that he is a "possible father".
This possibility, coupled with the other facts and circumstances
brought out during the trial, tends to definitely establish that appellant
Co Tao is the father of the child Manuel. While it is admitted that the
complaint for rape filed by the Lucita was dismissed by the Fiscal, this
fact alone should not deprive the her of the right which she seeks to
be protected in the instant case.
9. JANICE MARIE JAO VS. C.A. AND PERICO V. JAO
FACTS:
On 28 October 1968, petitioner Janice Marie Jao, then a minor,
represented by her mother and guardian-ad-litem Arlene Salgado,
filed a case for recognition and support against private respondent
Perico V. Jao. The latter denied paternity so the parties agreed to a
blood grouping test which was in due course conducted by the NBI
upon order of the trial court. The result of the blood grouping test, held
21 January 1969, indicated that Janice could not have been the
possible offspring of Perico V. Jao and Arlene S. Salgado. The trial
court initially found the result of the tests legally conclusive but upon
plaintiffs second motion for reconsideration, it ordered a trial on the
merits, after which, Janice was declared the child of Jao, thus entitling
her to his monthly support.
Jao appealed to the Court of Appeals, questioning the trial courts
failure to appreciate the result of the blood grouping tests. As there
was no showing whatsoever that there was any irregularity or mistake
in the conduct of the tests, Jao argued that the result of the tests
should have been conclusive and indisputable evidence of his nonpaternity. The Court of Appeals upheld Jaos contentions and reversed
the trial courts decision. Hence, this petition for review was filed by
the petitioner.

ISSUE:
W/N the result of the blood grouping test is admissible and conclusive
to prove non-paternity.
HELD:
YES. There is now almost universal scientific agreement that blood
grouping tests are conclusive as to non-paternity, although
inconclusive as to paternity that is, the fact that the blood type of
the child is a possible product of the mother and alleged father does
not conclusively prove that the child is born by such parents; but, if the
blood type of the child is not the possible blood type when the blood of
the mother and that of the alleged father are cross matched, then the
child cannot possibly be that of the alleged father.
In jurisdictions like the United States, the admissibility of blood tests
results to prove non-paternity has already been passed upon in
several cases. In Gilpin v. Gilpin the positive results of blood tests
excluding paternity, in a case in which it was shown that proper
safeguards were drawn around the testing procedures, were
recognized as final on the question of paternity. In Cuneo v.
Cuneo evidence of non-paternity consisting of the result of blood

grouping tests was admitted despite a finding that the alleged father
had cohabited with the mother within the period of gestation. The
Court said that the competent medical testimony was overwhelmingly
in favor of the plaintiff, and to reject such testimony would be
tantamount to rejecting scientific fact. Courts, it was stated, should
apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid of
situations presented, since to reject said result was to deny
progress. This ruling was also echoed in Clark v. Rysedorph, a filiation
proceeding where an uncontradicted blood grouping test evidence,
excluding paternity, was held conclusive. Legislation expressly
recognizing the use of blood tests is also in force in several states.
Accordingly, the Court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals
and holds that the result of the blood grouping tests involved in the
case at bar, are admissible and conclusive on the non-paternity of
respondent Jao vis-a-vis petitioner Janice. No evidence has been
presented showing any defect in the testing methods employed or
failure to provide adequate safeguards for the proper conduct of the
tests. The result of such tests is to be accepted therefore as
accurately reflecting a scientific fact.

10