SCHLAGENHAUF V.

HOLDER

A trial court may not submit a party to physical and psychological tests based solely on
contentions by opposing counsel. There must be a basis for require these tests in the
pleadings or affidavits.

The "in controversy" and "good cause" requirements of Rule 35 are not met by mere
conclusory allegations of the pleadings--nor by mere relevance to the case--but require an
affirmative showing by the movant that each condition as to which the examination is
sought is really and genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for ordering each
particular examination.

KALAW V FERNANDEZ

it is already settled that the courts must accord weight to expert testimony on the
psychological and mental state of the parties in cases for the declaration of the nullity of
marriages.

the totality of the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts that
manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. If other evidence
showing that a certain condition could possibly result from an assumed state of facts
existed in the record, the expert opinion should be admissible and be weighed as an aid for
the court in interpreting such other evidence on the causation.Indeed, an expert opinion on
psychological incapacity should be considered as conjectural or speculative and without
any probative value only in the absence of other evidence to establish causation.

MOLINA V CA

The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified,
(b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in
the decision. Expert evidence may be given qualified psychiatrist and clinical psychologists.

DEDEL V CA

The well-considered opinion of psychiatrists, psychologists and persons with expertise in

psychological disciplines might be helpful or even desirable.
Chi ming Tsoi Vs. CA

Doctrine: “ The issue of whether or not the appellant is psychologically incapacitated to

discharge a basic marital obligation was resolved upon a review of both the documentary
and testimonial evidence on record. What he [appellant] presented in evidence is his
doctor’s Medical Report that there is no evidence of his impotency and he is capable of
erection.

JIMENEZ VS CANIZARES

The lone testimony of the husband that his wife is physically incapable of sexual
intercourse is insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound them together as
husband and wife. A physical examination is necessary to establish a sufficient ground.
Although her refusal to be examined or failure to appear in court show indifference on her
part, yet from such attitude the presumption arising out of the suppression of evidence
could not arise or be inferred because women of this country are by nature coy, bashful and
shy and would not submit to a physical examination unless compelled to by competent
authority

ESTATE OF JALANDONI V CA

Jalandoni had already been diagnosed as a schizophrenic individual. However, Dr. Manuel
Pardo, an American-trained specialist testified that "even the severest schizophrenics are
not demented". Hence, he concluded that "at the time of the execution of this contract (the
deed of sale), Jalandoni had sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature and effect
of the transaction he was engaged in at that time." We prefer this testimony to the
Psychiatric Evaluation on Jalandoni by Dra. Lourdes V. Lapuz and Dr. Baltazar V. Reyes
because the latter refers to his mental state, seven (7) months after the deed of sale in
question was executed which puts it in no better position than the form.

DUMAGUIN V HARRISON

the better rule is that even in the execution of contracts, in the absence of a statute to the
contrary, the presumption of insanity and mental incapacity is only prima facie and may be
rebutted by evidence; and that a person under guardianship for insanity may still enter into
a valid contract and even convey property, provided it is proven that at the time of entering
into said contract, he was not insane or that his mental defect if mentally deranged did not
interfere with or affect his capacity to appreciate the meaning and significance of the
transaction entered into by him.

URBANO VS IAC

The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical consequence
of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. (People v. Cardenas, supra) And since we
are dealing with a criminal conviction, the proof that the accused caused the victim's death
must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. The medical findings, however,
lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by tetanus was an efficient
intervening cause later or between the time Javier was wounded to the time of his death.
The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.

ORTEGA V SSS

The SSS medical examiners are tasked by law to analyze the extent of personal incapacity
resulting from disease or injury.

Adopting a liberal attitude and exercising sound discretion, the SSC even directed the
conduct of another physical examination on petitioner to judiciously resolve his motion for
reconsideration. Pursuant thereto, Dr. Sison physically examined petitioner in August 2002,
the results of which were reflected in a medical report,

STATE VS SCHWARTZ

While we agree with the trail 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 in the laboratory’s compliance with appropriate standards and controls, and
the availability of their testing data and results

LUCAS V LUCAS

In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA testing order, there must be a show
cause hearing wherein the applicant must first present sufficient evidence to establish a
prima facie case or a reasonable possibility of paternity or “good cause” for the holding of
the test. In these states, a court order for blood testing is considered a “search,” which,
under their Constitutions (as in ours), must be preceded by a finding of probable cause in
order to be valid. Hence, the requirement of a prima facie case, or reasonable possibility,
was imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a finding of probable cause

Herrera vs. Alba

Doctrine: 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. 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.

Tijing vs. Court of Appeals

Doctrine: Court should apply the results of science when completely obtained in aid of
situations presented, since to reject said results 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.

Doctrine: 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 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.

People vs. Vallejo

Doctrine: 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

People vs. Yatar

Doctrine: The kernel of the right [against self-incrimination] 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… Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting,
photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA, as there is no testimonial compulsion involved