Rosendo Herrera vs.

Rosendo Alba
G.R. No. 148220, 15 June 2005

TOPICS:
 Object Evidence
 DNA Evidence
 Daubert Test
 Vallejo Guidelines

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.

Rosendo Alba filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings. To
support the motion, Alba 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 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 the test had an accuracy rate of 99.9999% in establishing paternity.

The trial court ordered the parties to undergo a DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) 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 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, the courts should consider, among other things, the
following data (Vallejo Guidelines):

o how the samples were collected,

o how they were handled,
o the possibility of contamination of the samples,
o the procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
o whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests,
o 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:

o Whether the theory or technique can be tested,

o Whether the proffered work has been subjected to peer review,
o Whether the rate of error is acceptable,
o 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 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. There is no “testimonial compulsion” in the getting of DNA
sample from Herrera, hence, he cannot properly invoke self-incrimination.