UP Law F2021 Herrera v Alba

Medical Jurisprudence 148220 2005 Carpio

SUMMARY

Respondent, Minor child Rosendo Alba filed a suit against his father to recognize and support him
as his biological son. RTC ruled for the child and ordered the parties to undergo DNA testing.
Petitioner contests this order and assails that this is a violation of his right against self-
incrimination and that DNA testing is not yet accepted in the Philippines and therefore
inadmissible. Court held that DNA evidence has already been accepted in the Philippine
jurisdiction, subject to the basic principle that in the assessment of its probative value, “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”.

In the establishment of paternity through DNA evidence, the probability of paternity W must at
least be 99.9%. 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 there is refutable
presumption of paternity. This refutable presumption of paternity should be subjected to the
Vallejo standards.

FACTS

 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.
 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
(Associate Professor at De La Salle University where she taught Cell Biology, head of the
University of the Philippines Natural Sciences Research Institute ("UP-NSRI"), a DNA
analysis laboratory, 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.
  In 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.

ISSUES:
1. WON DNA testing should be allowed despite lack of official recognition and presence of
technical and legal constraints to its implementation (YES, DNA analysis has been
accepted as evidence)
2. WON DNA testing is a valid probative tool to determine filiation under Philippine law
(YES, but subject to relevant standards)
3. WON DNA testing violates the right against self-incrimination. (NO)

RATIO

1. DNA testing results are admissible as evidence.

While 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:
1 how the samples were collected,
2 how they were handled,
3 the possibility of contamination of the samples,
4 the procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
5 whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the
tests,
6 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:
1 Whether the theory or technique can be tested,
2 Whether the proffered work has been subjected to peer review,
3 Whether the rate of error is acceptable,
 4 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.

2. Probative Value of DNA Analysis as Evidence

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 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, then he is not excluded as the father.

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 there is
refutable presumption of paternity. This refutable presumption of paternity should be subjected
to the Vallejo standards.

3. DNA testing does NOT violate against the right against self-incrimination
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.

In long form, 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 privilege is applicable only to testimonial evidence.

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 (VillaOor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62),
since the gist of the privilege is the restriction on "testimonial compulsion."

The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the
paternity and Affiliation 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.
 FALLO
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated 29 November 2000 in 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.