DNA EVIDENCE a. EDGARDO A. TIJING and BIENVENIDA R. TIJING vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ANGELITA DIAMANTE GR No.

125901; 354 SCRA 17; March 8, 2001 Statement of the Facts: Petitioners are spouses with six children. The youngest is Edgardo Tijing, Jr., who was born on April 27, 1989, at the clinic of midwife and registered nurse Lourdes Vasquez in Sta. Ana, Manila. Petitioner Bienvenida served as the laundrywoman of Angelita Diamante, then a resident of Tondo, Manila. In August 1989, went to her house to fetch her for an urgent laundry job. Since Bienvenida was on her way to the market, she asked Angelita to wait until she returned. She also left her four-month old son, Edgardo, Jr., under the care of Angelita. When Bienvenida returned from the market, Angelita and Edgardo, Jr., were gone. Three days later, she learned that Angelita moved to another place. After four years, the petitioners discovered that their son is actually in Hagonoy, Bulacan so they went their immediately, however, Angelita still refused to return the child as she claimed that Edgardo Jr, whom she named John Thomas is her natural child with Tomas Lopez. Bienvenida and Edgardo filed their petition for habeas corpus with the trial court in order to recover their son. To substantiate their petition, petitioners presented two witnesses, namely, Lourdes Vasquez and Benjamin Lopez. Vasques testified that she assisted in the delivery of one Edgardo Tijing, Jr. on April 27, 1989 at her clinic in Sta. Ana, Manila. She supported her testimony with her clinical records. The second witness, Benjamin Lopez, declared that his brother, the late Tomas Lopez, could not have possibly fathered John Thomas Lopez as the latter was sterile. The RTC decided in favor of the petitioners so Angelita appealed the decision with CA. The CA reversed the RTCs decision on the ground that evidence adduced by Bienvenida was not sufficient to establish that she was the mother of the minor, hence this case. Statement of the Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the RTC Ruling: YES. The Supreme Court ruled that a close scrutiny of the records of the case reveals that the evidence presented by Bienvenida is sufficient to establish that John Thomas Lopez is actually her missing son, Edgardo Tijing, Jr. The Supreme Court further added that before, parentage are usually resolved using conventional methods, namely: testimonial and documentary evidence, and physical resemblance, but at present, parentage can be more accurately established through a DNA test, a scientific system which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to. A positive match would clear up filiation or paternity.

DNA EVIDENCE b. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT" G.R. No. 150224 May 19, 2004 Statement of the Facts: Joel Yatar was convicted by the RTC with the crime of Rape with Homicide that he committed against Kathylyn Uba. He was convicted through the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, as well as by the result of the DNA test performed during the pendency of the case. In his appeal, Yatar claimed that the compulsory extraction of his blood sample for DNA testing, as well as the testing itself, violated his right against selfincrimination, as embodied in Secs. 12 and 17 of Article III of the Constitution. Statement of the Issue: Whether or not the compulsory extraction of blood sample for DNA testing violates the right of an accused against self-incrimination Ruling: NO. The Supreme Court ruled that the kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The Court further discussed that 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.

DNA EVIDENCE c. MARIA JEANETTE C. TECSON AND FELIX B. DESIDERIO, JR. VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RONALD ALLAN KELLEY POE (A.K.A. FERNANDO POE, JR., AND VICTORINO X. FORNIER G. R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004 Statement of the Facts: Citizenship is a treasured right conferred on those whom the state believes are deserving of the privilege. It is a precious heritage, as well as an inestimable acquisition,that cannot be taken lightly by anyone - either by those who enjoy it or by those who dispute it. Before the Court are three consolidated cases, all of which raise a single question of profound importance to the nation. The issue of citizenship is brought up to challenge the qualifications of a presidential candidate to hold the highest office of the land. Is Fernando Poe, Jr., a natural-born Filipino or is he not? On December 31, 2003, respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines under the KoalisyonngNagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) Party, in the forthcoming national elections. In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be August 20, 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. Victorino X. Fornier, initiateda petition before the Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") to disqualify FPJ and to deny due course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon the thesis that FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino citizen when in truth, according to Fornier, his parents were foreigners. On January 23, 2004, the COMELEC dismissed SPA No. 04-003 for lack of merit. On January 26, 2004, Fornier filed his motion for reconsideration. The motion was denied by the COMELEC en banc. Petitioner assailed the decision of the COMELEC before this Court. The other petitions, later consolidated with G. R. No. 161824, would include G. R. No. 161434, and the other, docketed G. R. No. 161634, both challenging the jurisdiction of the COMELEC and asserting that, under Article VII, Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, only the Supreme Court had original and exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the basic issue on the case. Statement of the Issue: Whether or not DNA Testing could be resorted to in case of proof of filiation or paternity of an illegitimate child

DNA EVIDENCE Ruling: In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to. A positive match would clear up filiation or paternity. In Tijing vs. Court of Appeals, this Court has acknowledged the strong weight of DNA testing - "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 the 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. While the totality of the evidence may not establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, the evidence on hand still would preponderate in his favor enough to hold that he cannot be held guilty of having made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy in violation of Section 78, in relation to Section 74, of the Omnibus Election Code. The case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

DNA EVIDENCE d. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RUFINOUMANITO G.R No. 172607, April 16, 2009 Statement of the Facts: This case involves a charge of rape. The accused RufinoUmanito was found by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union, Branch 67 guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. Umanito was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered to indemnify the private complainant in the sum of P50,000.00. On appeal, the Court of Appeals offered the judgment of the trial court. Umanito appealed the decision of the appellate court the Supreme Court. In its 2007 Resolution, the Court acknowledged "many incongruent assertions of the prosecution and the defense. Atthe same time the alleged 1989 rape of the private complainant, AAA, had resulted in her pregnancy and the birth of a child, a girl hereinafter identified as "BBB." With the advance in genetics and the availability of new technology, it can now be determined with reasonable certainty whether appellant is the father of AAA's child. If he is not, his acquittal may be ordained. The Court has pronounced that if it can be conclusively determined that the accused did not sire the alleged victim's child, this may cast the shadow of reasonable doubt and allow his acquittal on this basis. If he is found not to be the father, the finding will at least weigh heavily in the ultimate decision in this case. Thus, the appellant, AAA and her child were directed to submit themselves to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing under the aegis of the New Rule on DNA Evidence which took effect on 15 October 2007, subject to guidelines prescribed therein. Statement of the Issue: Whether or not Umanito is the biological father of BBB Ruling: DNA print or identification technology is now recognized as a uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to absolve one erroneously accused, where biological evidence is available. For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can aid immensely in determining a more accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper administration of justice in every case. With the procedure adopted by the Forensic Chemist of the NBI, who is an expert and whose integrity and dedication to her work is beyond reproach the manner how the biological samples were collected, how they were handled and the chain of custody thereof were properly established the court is convinced that there is no possibility of contamination of the DNA samples taken from the parties.

DNA EVIDENCE There is a COMPLETE MATCH in all the fifteen (15) loci tested between the alleles of RufinoUmanito and [BBB]. That based on the findings; there is a 99.9999% probability of paternity that RufinoUmanito is the biological father of [BBB]. Section 6. A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC provides that: "If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.Disputable presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. The disputable presumption that was established as a result of the DNA testing was not contradicted and overcome by other evidence considering that the accused did not object to the admission of the results of the DNA testing nor presented evidence to rebut the same. Based on the result of the DNA analysis conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation, Forensic Division, RUFINO UMANITO y MILLARES is the biological father of [BBB].Umanito's defense of alibi, together with his specific assertion that while he had courted AAA they were not sweethearts, lead to a general theory on his part that he did not engage in sexual relations with the complainant. The DNA testing has evinced a contrary conclusion, and that as testified to by AAA, Umanito had fathered the child she gave birth to on April 5, 1990, nine months after the day she said she was raped by Umanito.

DNA EVIDENCE e. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. GERRICO VALLEJO @PUKE G.R. No. 144656, May 9, 2002 Statement of the Facts: On July 10, 1999, the accused Gerrico Vallejo raped Daisy Diolalo, a nine year old child and while raping said victim, the said accused strangled her to death. Accused-appellant was arraigned on July 26, 1999 and, with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, whereupon trial ensued. Testimonies of the witnesses were given and the Forensic Biologist of the NBI, took blood samples from accused-appellant for laboratory examination to determine his blood type. Likewise, the basketball shorts and shirt worn by accused-appellant on the day the victim was missing and the victims clothing were turned over to the Forensic Chemistry Division of the NBI for the purpose of determining the presence of human blood and its groups. The Forensic Chemist of the NBI conducted DNA tests on the specimens and testified that the vaginal swabs of the victim taken during the autopsy contained the DNA profiles of accused-appellant and the victim. On July 31, 2000 the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City, sentenced the accused Gerrico Vallejo y Samartino to death and ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the victim. Hence, this appeal. Statement of the Issue: Whether or not the prosecution failed to show that all the samples submitted for DNA testing were not contaminated, considering that these specimens were already soaked in smirchy waters before they were submitted to the laboratory Ruling: DNA is an organic substance found in a persons cells which contains his or her genetic code. Except for identical twins, each persons DNA profile is distinct and unique. When a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene of the crime or from the victims body for the suspects DNA. This is the evidence sample. The evidence sample is then matched with the reference sample taken from the suspect and the victim. The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an association exists between the evidence sample and the reference sample. The samples collected are subjected to various chemical processes to establish their profile. In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among others 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.

DNA EVIDENCE In the case at bar, the bloodstains taken from the clothing of the victim and of accused-appellant, the smears taken from the victim as well as the strands of hair and nails taken from her tested negative for the presence of human DNA because these specimens were soaked in smirchy water before they were submitted to the laboratory. The state of the specimens prior to the DNA analysis could have hampered the preservation of any DNA that could have been there before. Thus, it is the inadequacy of the specimens submitted for examination, and not the possibility that the samples had been contaminated, which accounted for the negative results of their examination. But the vaginal swabs taken from the victim yielded positive for the presence of human DNA. In conclusion, the totality of the evidence points to no other conclusion than that accused-appellant is guilty of the crime charged. Evidence is weighed not counted. When facts or circumstances which are proved are not only consistent with the guilt of the accused but also inconsistent with his innocence, such evidence, in its weight and probative force, may surpass direct evidence in its effect upon the court. This is how it is in this case. Thus, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City, finding accused-appellant Gerrico Vallejo y Samartino GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide is hereby affirmed.

DNA EVIDENCE f. AUGUSTUS CAEZAR GAN vs. FRANCHESKA JOY PONDEVIDA GR No. 145527, 28 May 2002, 382 SCRA 357 Statement of the Facts: Bernadette Pondevida had a love child with Augustus Gan. Gan, however, denied paternity of the child and so denied to give support. Consequently, Bernadette instituted in behalf of her daughter a complaint against Gan for support with prayer for support pendente lite. For failing to file an answer within the reglementary period, Gan was declared in default. Hence, the trial court received Bernadettes evidence ex parte. After finding that the claim of filiation and support was adequately proved, the trial court rendered its Decision ordering Gan to recognize Francheska as his illegitimate child and support her with P20,000.00 every month. The trial court then granted Pondevidas motion for execution of the judgment of support. Gan then filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals but his petition was dismissed. His motion for reconsideration was also denied. Thus, he filed a Motion for Reconsideration to his petition before the Supreme Court. He sought the setting aside of the default order and the judgment rendered thereafter. He consents to submit to Dioxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Testing to resolve the issue of paternity, which test he claims has a reputation for accuracy. Statement of the Issue: After having been declared in default, could Gan still be allowed to be subjected to DNA testing to resolve the issue of paternity? Ruling: NO. Having been declared in default, Gan forfeited his right to be heard and present evidence in his favor. He is precluded from adducing evidence on appeal. No useful purpose would be served in giving weight to Gan's arguments concerning the validity of the judgment by default and his insistence that he be subjected, together with Bernadette Pondevida, to DNA testing to settle the issue of paternity. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing the Petition for Certiorari instituted by Gan and upholding the validity of the Writ of Execution issued by the RTC is AFFIRMED.

DNA EVIDENCE g. ESTATE OF ROGELIO G. ONG vs. Minor JOANNE RODJIN DIAZ, Represented by Her Mother and Guardian, Jinky C. Diaz GR No. 171713, 17 December 2007, 540 SCRA 480 Statement of the Facts: Minor Joanne Diaz, represented by her mother, Jinky Diaz, filed a complaint for compulsory recognition with prayer for support pending litigation against Rogelio Ong. After finding that the claim was adequately proved, the trial court rendered judgment declaring Joanne to be the illegitimate child of Rogelio with Jinky and ordering Rogelio to support Joanne until she reaches majority age. Rogelio filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied. Rogelio then appealed to the Court of Appeals. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the case, Rogelio died. The Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the RTC and remanded the case to the RTC for the issuance of an order directing the parties to make arrangements for DNA analysis for the purpose of determining the paternity of Joanne, upon consultation and in coordination with laboratories and experts on the field of DNA analysis. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied. Hence, petitioner filed a petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. She argues that a remand of the case to the RTC for DNA analysis is no longer feasible due to the death of Rogelio. Statement of the Issue: Can DNA analysis be resorted to to prove filiation of minor Joanne, despite the death of his putative father, Rogelio? Ruling: YES. A definitive result of the DNA testing will decisively lay to rest the issue of the filiation of Joanne. The death of the petitioner does not ipso facto negate the application of DNA testing for as long as there exists appropriate biological samples of his DNA. The term "biological sample" means 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. Thus, even if Rogelio already died, any of the biological samples as enumerated above as may be available, may be used for DNA testing. In this case, petitioner has not shown the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate biological sample that can be utilized for the conduct of DNA testing. In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution are AFFIRMED.

DNA EVIDENCE h. JURRY ANDAL, RICARDO ANDAL and EDWIN MENDOZA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al. GR No. 138268-69, 26 May 1999, 307 SCRA 650 Statement of the Facts: Petitioners were convicted of rape with homicide by the RTC of Batangas. They were sentenced to death and were scheduled for execution on June 16, 17, and 18, 1999. They then sought a writ of habeas corpus claiming that the RTCs decision was void. They prayed for a temporary restraining order to stay their execution and/or a preliminary injunction enjoining their execution. Petitioners relied on the argument that the trial court was ousted of jurisdiction to try their case since the pre-trial identification of the accused was made without the assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver from the accused. They also asserted that they should be allowed to present DNA evidence, as DNA tests are more accurate and authoritative means of identification than eye-witness identification. Statement of the Issue: After evidence sufficient to support a judgment of conviction has been presented, may DNA tests still be considered to assail the legality of the conviction? Ruling: NO. The Supreme Court found that there was no violation of the constitutional rights of the accused and a resultant deprivation of liberty or due process of law. In fact, the petition may be viewed as an attempt at a second motion for reconsideration of a final decision of the Court, disguised as one for habeas corpus. The accused were sentenced to the supreme penalty of death as a result of a valid accusation, trial, and judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction, after a fair and equitable trial. The factual milieu did not show a mistrial or a violation of the constitutional rights of the accused. The issue of DNA tests as a more accurate and authoritative means of identification than eye-witness identification need not be belabored. The accused were all properly and duly identified by the prosecutions principal witness. Olimpio Corales, a brother in law of accused Jurry and Ricardo Andal. DNA testing proposed by petitioners to have an objective and scientific basis of identification of semen samples to compare with those taken from the vagina of the victim are thus unnecessary or are forgotten evidence too late to consider. IN VIEW WHEREOF, we resolve to DENY the petition for habeas corpus, and declare valid the judgment rendered by the trial court and affirmed by this Court. This resolution is final.

DNA EVIDENCE i. CABATANIA V. CA, GR No. 124814, 21 October 2004, 441 SCRA 96 Statement of the Facts: This controversy stemmed from a petition for recognition and support filed by Florencia Regodos in behalf of her minor son, Camelo Regodos against Camelo Cabatania. Camelo Cabatania, denying the alleged paternity insisted that Florencia was already pregnant when they first had sex. Florencia pressented the birth certificate and baptismal record both identifying Camelo as the father as evidence to prove paternity , additionally the trial judge took into consideration the resemblance of Camelo with his alleged son and render a decision in favor of the mother and son. Said judgment was appealed but was affirmed by the CA, hence Cabatania filed a review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. Statement of the Issue: Whether or not there was substantial proof presented to prove paternity and filiation Ruling: No. A copy of the birth and baptismal certificates, the preparation of which was without the knowledge or consent of petitioner. A certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent evidence of paternity when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in the preparation of said certificate. The local civil registrar has no authority to record the paternity of an illegitimate child on the information of a third person. while a baptismal certificate may be considered a public document, it can only serve as evidence of the administration of the sacrament on the date specified but not the veracity of the entries with respect to the childs paternity. Thus, certificates issued by the local civil registrar and baptismal certificates are per se inadmissible in evidence as proof of filiation and they cannot be admitted indirectly as circumstantial evidence to prove the same. On the matter that the judge took into acount the resemblance of the child and the alleged father the supreme court stated that " In this age of genetic profiling and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis, the extremely subjective test of physical resemblance or similarity of features will not suffice as evidence to prove paternity and filiation before the courts of law."

DNA EVIDENCE j. HERRERA V. ALBA, GR No. 148220, 15 June 2005, 460 SCRA 197 Statement of the Facts: On 14 May 1998, then 13-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 respondents 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. 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. Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability. Petitioner further argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination. Statement of the Issue: 1. Whether or not DNA is an acceptable proof of paternity 2. Whether or not DNA testing violates the right against self-incrimination Ruling: 1. 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: 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, the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.

DNA EVIDENCE 2. 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 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.

DNA EVIDENCE k. IN RE: WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR REYNALDO DE VILLA GR No. 158802, 17 November 2004, 442 SCRA 706 Statement of the Facts: By final judgment dated February 1, 2001, in People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo de Villa(G.R. No. 124639), the Court found Reynaldo de Villa guilty of the rape of Aileen Mendoza, his niece by affinity and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusin perpetua. During the trial of said case Aileen gave birth to a child which was a product of the rape. 3 years after the conviction, de Villa filled for an issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under Rule 102 of the Rules of Court seeking to be granted a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. These reliefs are sought on the basis of purportedly exculpatory evidence, gathered after performing DNA testing on samples allegedly collected from the petitioner and a child born to the victim of the rape.He further alleges that during the trial of the case, he was unaware that there was a scientific test that could determine once and for all if Reynaldo was the father of the victims child, Leahlyn. Petitioner-relator was only informed during the pendency of the automatic review of petitioners case that DNA testing could resolve the issue of paternity. This information was apparently furnished by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) Anti-Death Penalty Task Force, which took over as counsel for petitioner and after testing, the DNA Laboratory rendered a preliminary report on March 21, 2003, which showed that Reynaldo de Villa could not have sired any of the children whose samples were tested, due to the absence of a match between the pertinent genetic markers in petitioners sample and those of any of the other samples, including Leahlyns. Statement of the Issue: Whether or not the DNA test subsequently conducted, allegedly excluding petitioner from the child purportedly fathered as a result of the rape is considered as newly discovered evidence Ruling: No. Although the DNA evidence was undoubtedly discovered after the trial, the court nonetheless finds that it does not meet the criteria for newly-discovered evidence that would merit a new trial. Such evidence disproving paternity could have been discovered and produced at trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence. Petitioners claim that he was unaware of the existence of DNA testing until the trial was concluded carries no weight with this Court. Lack of knowledge of the existence of DNA testing speaks of negligence, either on the part of petitioner, or on the part of petitioners counsel. In either instance, however, this negligence is binding upon petitioner. It is a settled rule that a party cannot blame his counsel for negligence when he himself was guilty of neglect. A client is bound by the acts of his counsel, including the latters mistakes and negligence. It is likewise settled that relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy at law was due to his own negligence, or to a mistaken mode of procedure.