DNA AS EVIDENCE

Mapping the Evolution and Use of DNA Evidence in the Philippines

ATTY. JESS ZACHAEL B. ESPEJO, LL.M.1

OUTLINE

I. INTRODUCTION

II. DEFINITION AND NATURE OF DNA EVIDENCE

III. INTERNATIONAL FIRSTS

IV. USES OF DNA EVIDENCE

V. DNA EVIDENCE IN PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE PRIOR TO

THE PROMULGATION OF THE RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE

VI. POST-PROMULGATION CASES

VII. SUGGESTED DEVELOPMENTS

VIII. CONCLUSION

oooooooo

I. INTRODUCTION

We all know King Solomon, the biblical king who has been
regarded as the epitome of wisdom. The most widely known story of his
wisdom is about two women who each lay claim to being the mother of
the same child.2 After hearing the womens arguments, Solomon called
for a sword to be brought before him and commanded the child to be cut
in half and shared between the two. After hearing this terrible verdict,
one woman promptly renounces her claim, evincing that she would
rather give up the child than see him killed. Conversely, the other woman
consented to the strange verdict handed down by the king. Solomon
declares the woman who showed compassion to be the true mother
entitled to the child, as a true, loving mother would rather surrender her
baby to another than see him get hurt.

1
Atty. Jess Zachael B. Espejo is the Dean of the College of Legal Education of the University of Mindanao.
He is also a part-time faculty member of the Ateneo de Davao University, College of Law. His teaching
career has spanned 14 years, which saw him teach subjects such as Sales, Credit Transactions, Torts and
Damages, Public International Law, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Civil Law Review and Remedial Law
Review. He is also a pre-bar reviewer at Ateneo Pre-Bar Review Center (Civil Law) and Magnificus Juris
(Bar Techniques). Some of his works have been published in the Mindanao Law Journal and the journal of
the San Beda College Graduate School of Law, where he obtained his Masters Degree in Law in July
2015.
2
1 Kings 3:16-28.
 Whether this biblical story is interpreted as a historical scene or a
mere symbolic story, one thing remains clear. In settling disputes, justice
ought to be dispensed with wisdom and fairness.

Here and now, in the 21 st century, the factual backdrops of cases

have been reversed from that story of the Judgment of Solomon. Instead
of putative mothers disputing the right to a child, 3 a lot of cases now deal
with putative fathers denying paternity to avoid parental responsibility.
Jurisprudence is replete with paternity suits. This type of suits now
seems to be a staple in Family Courts throughout the country.

Here and now, Philippine society is likewise beset by crimes

replicating those committed by Cain against Abel 4 and by Shechem
against Dinah.5 Murders and intentional homicides occur in the
Philippines at a rate of 6.44 per 100,000 people. 6 Also, based on
statistics compiled by the Philippine Commission on Women from 2004
to 2013, there were 9,452 reported cases of rape. 7 Many of these cases
remain unsolved.

Ironically, rape and paternity suits have a hybrid offspring in the

form of criminal paternity issues, where those accused of rape attempt to
escape liability by positing that, if a child allegedly born out of the rape is
not that of the accused, then he must be acquitted.

Here and now, Solomonic wisdom is scarce, especially in tribunals

where it is most needed. The Supreme Court itself, despite being the
highest court in the land, has alluded to its own fallibility. 8 Indeed, the
Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible; it is infallible because
it is final.9 The Supreme Court likewise admits to the judiciarys lack of
expertise in certain fields10 that may have implications in its ability to
produce a fair verdict and must therefore defer to the knowledge and
expertise of others in determining matters of fact.11

Given the foregoing premises, with emphasis on crimes and

paternity suits, the Supreme Court, on October 2, 2007, issued its own
bit of Solomonic wisdom in the form of A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC or the Rule
on DNA Evidence. The issuance, which took effect on October 15, 2007,
was an explicit recognition that DNA testing can be used to obtain
objective proof in identifying perpetrators of crimes and as a reliable and
3
See SOMBONG vs. COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. No. 111876, January 31, 1996) for an example of two
women claiming to be the legitimate parent of the same child.
4
Genesis 4:8.
5
Genesis 34:1-2.
6
As per 2008 data gathered in the United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal
Justice Systems.
7
http://www.pcw.gov.ph/statistics/201405/statistics-violence-against-filipino-women; last visited on
01/18/2016.
8
Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in League of Cities vs. COMELEC, June 28,,
2011.
9
Concurring Opinion of Justice Robert Jackson, Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 [1953].
10
DELA LLANA vs. BIONG, G.R. No. 182356, December 4, 2013.
11
CRUZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 122445 November 18, 1997.
effective method of settling paternity disputes. The rule is an express
recognition that the use of science and scientifically quantifiable data
plays a role in the judiciarys ability to dispense justice. A verdict can
now be had, not by splitting a baby in half but by means akin to
splitting an atom or, more appropriately, by splitting and analyzing
genetic material.

DEFINITION AND NATURE OF DNA EVIDENCE

Under the Rule, DNA means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the

chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of the body. The totality
of an individuals DNA is unique for the individual, except identical
twins.12 DNA evidence, on the other hand, constitutes the totality of the
DNA profiles, results and other genetic information directly generated
from DNA testing of biological samples. 13 A biological sample is any
organic material originating from a persons body, even if found in
inanimate objects, that is susceptible to DNA testing. This includes
blood, saliva and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones.14

DNA evidence, under the Rules of Court, is classified as object

evidence as it is addressed to the senses of the court.

ADVANTAGES OF DNA OVER OTHER BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES

THE RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE

A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, 2 October 2007

JURISPRUDENCE: DNA EVIDENCE IN THE PHILIPPINES

Initial mentions of DNA as evidence

Vallejo and Yatar
Frye-Schwartz and Daubert Tests
Brady and Youngblood
Civil Suits for Paternity
Criminal Cases
Necessity of DNA Testing versus Totality of Evidence

LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES

SUGGESTED DEVELOPMENTS

Amend the Family Code/Civil Code to elevate DNA Evidence as primary

evidence to prove filiation and compel recognition of illegitimate children

SEE:

G.R. No. 160172 February 13, 2008

12
A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, Section 3(b).
13
Ibid., Section 3(c).
14
Ibid., Section 3(a).
REINEL ANTHONY B. DE CASTRO, petitioner,
vs.
ANNABELLE ASSIDAO-DE CASTRO, respondent.

Creation of DNA database considering that the Supreme Court has

already ruled that it does not violate the rights against self-incrimination
and to privacy (However, note the case of OPLE versus TORRES, G.R. No.
127685 July 23, 1998, EN BANC)

Amending the Rule to provide a more detailed chain of custody

requirement similar to RA 9165

Too much discretion is given to trial courts on whether or not DNA

Testing is to be done

Make DNA Testing mandatory in certain types of cases in the same

way that expert evidence is mandated in determining psychological
incapacity in Article 36 cases

Too expensive

Mandatory DNA Testing

Kuwait has become the first country in the world to make DNA Testing
Mandatory. Maybe it is possible for the Philippines to make DNA Testing
mandatory, especially in cases where the death penalty is imposable.

DNA Database

DNA Law as substantive, rather than procedural, law

Post-conviction DNA Testing statute

Creating specific rules of admissibility of DNA Evidence