JULY 25, 2018
00:00:01-00:10:00
The first thing I’d like to discuss with you tonight
is something that you might relate to. It’s….
IN RE: Petition to take the 1999 Bar Exams
A bar candidate by the name of Julius Cesar
passed the 1999 Bar Examinations but was not
allowed to take the lawyer’s oath. A Letter-
Complaint was filed before the Office of the
Bar Confidant by a certain Tuesday Castro
charging him with Immorality and Grave
Misconduct. Castro alleged that she and
petitioner were former lovers that she bore
him a son named Michael Angelo Castro on
May 5, 1999. The issue brought before the
Supreme Court was whether Cesar possesses
the good moral character required to be
admitted to the Philippine Bar.
Complainant presented evidence tending to
show that petitioner does not possess such
character since he refused to give financial
support to a child he has legally acknowledged
to be his own.
As expected, Cesar claimed otherwise. Aside
from the allegation that he was merely forced
into acknowledging paternity of Michael, he
wanted to remove first his reasonable doubts
regarding the child’s paternity through DNA
Testing. Cesar promised to abide with the
result of the DNA test and to give financial
support as religiously as before, even more, if
Michael was proved to be his son. Strangely,
however, Tuesday refused to undergo DNA
testing.
Hence, the Supreme Court ruled:
We take judicial notice of the fact that DNA
typing is fast becoming an important
procedure not only in the field of medical
science but in criminal law and paternity
disputes as well.
Considering the foregoing and the fact that
petitioner promised to abide by the result of
the DNA test as well as to shoulder the
expenses therefor, we find petitioner's
proposal for a DNA testing to be quite
reasonable and complainant's aversion to the
test surprising. If her claim that petitioner
fathered her child is really true, she has no
reason to fear the result of the test for it would
be another evidence in her favor. Moreover
this case should be decided on a strong
foundation of truth and justice rather than on
blind adherence to prima facie rules.
Finding the proposal of petitioner for DNA
testing at his expense to be fair and
reasonable, unless the test is conducted and
the results thereof submitted to this Court
within forty-five (45) days from notice hereof,
the Court will be constrained to grant the
petition of JULIUS R. CESAR to be allowed to
take his oath as a lawyer and to be admitted
to the Philippine Bar.
So baliktad ta karon because the usual situation
is it’s the father who is reluctant from taking the
DNA testing because it might be confirmatory of
something. So here. Siya pa jud ang naga insist.
Ang babae ang dili ganahan.
So what the SC is saying is that naay mga in-ani
na kaso na pwede nato gamitan ng DNA and
actually we take judicial notice of the fact that
this is a useful tool and is something that can be
used to solve this kinds of disputes.
Kay tinuod man gyud if she claims na atty cesar
here is the father , dili sya mahadlok na adunay
mga variants. Para sa kanya wala mahitabo na
variants kay iyaha man jud na anak.
There was np DNA testing that happened in this
case. But, it’s enough for the SC to say na dili siya
reluctant eh. He was confident about it and you
know all that is well, ends well. He eventually
became a lawyer.
So what was the key moment for him? He was so
confident to have the DNA test but the mother
didn’t want to.
So after 12 years of cases involving DNA
evidence, the Supreme Court finally came up
with the rule on dna evidence and promulgated
A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC (2 October 2007), or the
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE, which took effect on
October 15, 2007.
Let’s now go to the provisions…
Section 1 provides that the rule “shall apply
whenever DNA evidence, as defined in Section 3
hereof, is offered, used, or proposed to be offered
or used as evidence in all criminal and civil
actions as well as special proceedings.”
In Criminal Actions
DNA evidence can be used in criminal actions
involving unlawful killings such as parricide,
murder, homicide, and infanticide.
So if you are charged with murder for example
and then you are accused of killing your child or
your parent, so that would be parricide or
infanticide. So you can deny “di mana nako
paryente. Di mana nako papa.” So it can’t be
parricide.
DNA evidence can perhaps be useful to establish
relationship, being either an element of the
offense or a mitigating circumstance.
Also, as we have already observed, many of the
cases decided by the Supreme Court that refer to
DNA evidence had been in rape cases as well,
and kidnapping, and several cases as well.
What about adultery? Remember adultery is
committed by any married woman who shall
have sexual intercourse with a man not her
husband and by the man who has carnal
knowledge of her knowing her to be married,
even if the marriage be subsequently declared
void.
Suppose that, the offended husband may allege
that his unfaithful wife became pregnant by
another man. DNA evidence can be used to
establish that the child is not the husband’s and
therefore, that his wife had sexual intercourse
with another man.
Dili man pwede immaculate conception. There
has to be some doing with another man. It brings
to mind the old case of VILLAFLOR versus
SUMMERS.
Villaflor vs. Summers
Villaflor was charged with the crime of
adultery. The trial court judge ordered her to
subject herself to a physical examination to
see whether or not she was pregnant and thus
determine the crime of adultery being
charged to her.
She refused such physical examination,
interposing the argument that such
examination was a violation of her right
against self-incrimination. She was found in
contempt of court and was ordered to be
committed to Bilibid Prison until she should
permit the medical examination required by
the court. In ruling against her contention, the
Supreme Court declared that:
The constitutional guaranty, that no person
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, is limited to a
prohibition against compulsory testimonial
self-incrimination. An ocular inspection of the
body of the accused is permissible.
Let us suppose that the husband was unable to
copulate with the wife, cannot have sex. Maybe
he is impotent, basta there’s physical
impossibility for the husband to copulate with
the wife. And then the wife gets pregnant. Or it
is possible that the husband was elsewhere—
Alibi. Like sea man noh. It’s just so ironic that the
sea man cannot be the source of the semen.
(haha)

So here petitioner refused such physical

examination, interposing the argument that such
examination was a violation of her right against
self-incrimination. And of course the SC said it is
not part of the prohibition. It is only limited to
prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-
incrimination.

Again it is limited to mechanical acts. And we can

apply that now to DNA testing. Assuming, that a
case with a similar factual milieu as that of
Villaflor vs. Summers would come about, it will
not only be ocular inspection of the body that
would determine pregnancy. You could also
determine if the child was born out of this ilicit
relationship with another man. So how useful
DNA is in this date of age.

And we remember in the case of Agustin, DNA

testing and its results and our ruling in Yatar are
now similarly acceptable.

So we go back to our previous discussion, when

we talk about criminal actions, DNA testing can
be compelled. It’s as simple as that. Why?
Because it’s a purely physical and mechanical
act. And if you remember the case of Herrera vs.
Alba, the Supreme Court held that if you can
compel in a criminal case to give a DNA sample
or a blood sample to undergo paraffin testing,
etc., with all the more reason that he can be
compelled in a civil case where your liberty is not
actually in jeopardy.