A.M. No.

06-11-5 SC

RULE ON DNA
EVIDENCE

October 15, 2007
Scope of the use of DNA Evidence:

Criminal Actions

Civil Actions

Special Proceedings

Suppletory application of the Rules of
Court.

Definition of Terms

Biological Sample
-any organic material originating from a persons body that is
susceptible of DNA testing.

DNA
-deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules found in
every nucleated cell of the body.

DNA Evidence
-constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles, results and other
genetic information directly generated from DNA testing of
biological samples

DNA Profile
-genetic information derived from DNA testing of a
biological sample obtained from a person, which biological
sample is clearly identifiable as originating from that person



Definition of Terms

DNA Testing
-verified and credible scientific methods which include the
extraction of DNA from biological samples, the generation of
DNA profiles and the comparison of the information obtained
from the DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of
determining, with reasonable certainty, whether or not the DNA
obtained from two or more distinct biological samples originates
from the same person (direct identification) or if the
biological samples originate from related persons (kinship
analysis)

Probability of Parentage
-the numerical estimate for the likelihood of parentage of a
putative parent compared with the probability of a random
match of two unrelated individuals in a given population


How may an order for DNA Testing be obtained?

It shall be issued only after due notice and hearing upon showing of the
following:

a. A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;

b. The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected
to the type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was
previously subjected to DNA testing, but the results may
require confirmation for good reasons;

c. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;

d. The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce
new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the
case; and

d.The existence of other factors, if any, which the court consider
as potentially affecting the accuracy of integrity of the DNA
testing.

Is a court order always required before
undertaking a DNA testing?

No. It is not always required. The Rule allows a
testing without a prior court order if done
BEFORE a suit or proceeding is commenced at
the instance of any party including law
enforcement agencies. A litigation need not
always exist prior to DNA Testing. A court shall
be required only if there is already a pending
litigation.
Is a court order granting DNA testing
appealable?

No. It is not appealable. The order is
immediately executory.

What is the remedy against a court order
granting DNA Testing?

The remedy is a petition for certiorari. However,
the filing of the petition shall not stay the
implementation of the order unless a higher
court issued an injunctive order.



Is there an automatic admission of the DNA
evidence obtained in the testing?

There is NONE. The court will still have to evaluate
the probative value of the proposed evidence before
its admission.

Matters to be considered by the court in
assessing the probative value of the evidence:

a. The chair of custody, including how the biological
samples were collected, how they were handled,
and the possibility of contamination of the samples;






b. The DNA testing methodology, including the
procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the
advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and
compliance with the scientifically valid standards in
conducting the tests;

c. The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation
by any reputable standards-setting institution and the
qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. If
the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience
of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility
shall be properly established; and

d. The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter
provided.

If a person has already been convicted under
a final and executory judgment, may he still
avail of DNA Testing?

Yes. Post-conviction DNA Testing is available to the
(a) prosecution, and (b) to the person convicted
provided the following requisites are met:

a biological sample exists
such sample is relevant to the case, and
the testing would probably result in the reversal
or modification of the judgment of conviction.



What remedy is available to the
convict if the results of the DNA
Testing are favorable to him?

He may file a petition for habeas corpus
in the court of origin (or in the Court of
Appeals or the Supreme Court) which
shall conduct a hearing. If the court finds
the petition meritorious after due hearing,
it shall reverse or modify the judgment of
conviction.



Evaluation of DNA Results:

Results that exclude the putative parent
from paternity = Conclusive proof of non-
paternity

Value of Probability of Parentage is less
that 99.9% = Corroborative evidence

Value of Probability of Parentage is 99.9%
or higher = Disputable presumption of
paternity.


DNA profiles and all the results therefrom are
confidential. Whoever discloses any information
regarding DNA profiles without court order shall
be liable for indirect contempt. DNA profiles and
other results can be released to the following:

Person from whom the sample was taken;
Person from whom the sample was taken;
Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal
action;
Duly authorized law enforcement agencies;
and
Other persons as determined by the court.



Where the person from whom the
biological sample was taken files a
written verified request to the court that
allowed the DNA testing for the
disclosure of the DNA profile of the
person and all results or other
information obtained from the DNA
testing, the same may be disclosed to
the persons named in the written
verified request.


The trial court shall preserve the DNA Evidence in its
totality. For this purpose, the court may order the
appropriate government agency to preserve the DNA
evidence as follows:

In criminal cases:
for not less than the period of time that any
person is under trial for an offense; or
in case the accused is serving sentence, until
such time as the accused has served his
sentence;

In all other cases, until such time as the decision in
the case where the DNA evidence was introduced has
become final and executory.


The court may allow the physical
destruction of a biological sample before
the expiration of the periods set forth in
the Rule, provided that:

1. A court order to that effect has been
secured; or

2. The person from whom the DNA
sample was obtained has consented in
writing to the disposal of the DNA
evidence.


JURISPRUDENTIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS


In Raymund Pe Lim vs Joanna Rose Pe Lim et al
3
, the
Supreme Court recognized the novelty of DNA technology at
the time. It stated: DNA being a relatively new science, it has
not yet been accorded official recognition by our courts.
Paternity will still have to be resolved by such conventional
evidence as the relevant incriminating acts, verbal and
written, by the putative father. In more recent years, the use
of selected DNA markers has become the procedure of
choice over blood typing because of the increased level of
polymorphism and the less susceptibility of DNA molecules to
degradation compared to proteins.

The Supreme Court first recognized to the existence
and availability of DNA technology in resolving
disputed parentage cases in Tijing v Diamante et
al
5
. In this case, the couple Tijing and a Mrs. Angelita
Diamante, simultaneously claimed to be the parents
of a child. Based on other evidence already presented
such as information on the childs birth and the
apparent inability of the respondent Diamante to bear
a child, the SC affirmed the decision of the RTC by
granting custody of the child to Edgardo A. Tijing and
Bienvenida R. Tijing. In addition, the SC included the
option of DNA testing if the respondent Diamante
chooses to further her appeal for the custody of the
child.
The SC said: 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 Sciences Research Institute
(UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the
capability to conduct DNA typing using short tandem
repeat (STR) analysis. For it was said that courts
should apply the results of science when completely
obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject
said result 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.
However, it is in the landmark case of People v
Vallejo
6
where the Supreme Court first
admitted DNA evidence previously presented at
trial. Vallejo was convicted of raping and later
killing a 9-year old child. The analysis used did
not employ the basic principles of parentage
testing as DNA extracted from crime scene
evidence was directly compared to the DNA of a
known suspect (direct matching). In Vallejo,
DNA obtained from vaginal swabs taken from the
child was found to be consistent with that of the
accused. Although statistical evaluation of the
weight of matching DNA evidence,
e.g. random match probability value that
provides a certain measure of the strength of the
DNA match over random chance, was not
reported, the Supreme Court admitted the DNA
evidence and subsequently used it together with
other evidence to convict the accused. This
decision paved the way for the general
admissibility of DNA evidence in Philippine courts
although the relevancy and the integrity of data
generated must be studied on a case by case
basis.
The Supreme Court in People v.
Vallejo provided some principles to consider in
assessing the probative value of DNA:

(1) how the samples were collected;
(2) how they were handled;
(3) the possibility of contamination;
(4) the procedure followed in analyzing the
samples;
(5) whether the proper standards and
procedures were followed; and
(6) the qualification of the analyst who
conducted the tests.
It was the case People v Yatar
7
where the
Supreme Court admitted DNA evidence in
parentage cases, albeit the use of this type of
analysis was not immediately evident. People v
Yatar is a rape-homicide case wherein biological
samples collected from the body of the 16-year
old victim were kept for two years prior to the
conduct of DNA tests. To generate the DNA profile
of the victim, bloodstains on her clothing that
were found at the crime scene were submitted for
laboratory testing. In addition, a reverse paternity
DNA test was performed using reference samples
collected from her parents to verify that the DNA
profile generated from the bloodstain was that of
the victim and not due to contamination because
of prolonged storage. Knowledge of the correct
DNA profile of the victim was essential because
the vaginal swab collected from her were
composed of more than one DNA profile. Hence
generation of a reference victims DNA profile
facilitated the identification of the non-victim DNA
on the vaginal swab which is that of the
perpetrator, provided the evidence was properly
handled and not contaminated. Moreover, the
victims DNA profile confirmed that the slides
containing the vaginal smear stored at room
temperature in the local hospital were part of the
set of evidence relevant to the case.
The Supreme Court admitted the
procedures and the interpretation of
DNA evidence presented at the
Regional Trial Court, and highlighted
the utility of DNA evidence, when
properly collected, handled and
stored, to assist in the prompt and
fair resolution of cases.
DNA testing is a valid probative tool
in the Philippines. Its high level of
accuracy is highly useful. Promoting
its use not only protects the rights
of the people, it also results in the
improvement of the administration
of justice.
Thank you.