2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Umanito

*
G.R. No. 172607. October 26, 2007.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RUFINO

UMANITO, appellant.

Criminal Law; Evidence; New Rule on Deoxyribonucleic Acid

(DNA) Evidence; Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Testing; If it can be
conclusively determined that the accused did not sire the alleged
rape victim’s child, this may cast the shadow of reasonable doubt
and allow his acquittal on this basis.—Amidst the slew of
assertions and counter-assertions, a happenstance may provide
the definitive key to the absolution of the appellant. This is the
fact that AAA bore a child as a result of the purported rape. 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. We have 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, we are directing appellant, AAA and
her child to submit themselves to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
testing under the aegis of the New Rule on DNA Evidence (the
Rules), which took effect on 15 October 2007, subject to guidelines
prescribed herein.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases;

Deoxyribonucleic Acid (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,
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) identification is a fertile source of
both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.—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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can aid immensely

in determining a more accurate account of the

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

553

VOL. 537, OCTOBER 26, 2007 553

People vs. Umanito

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. Verily, as we
pointed out in People v. Yatar, 428 SCRA 505 (2004), the process
of obtaining such vital evidence has become less arduous—The
U.P. National Science Research Institute (NSRI), which
conducted the DNA tests in this case, used the Polymerase chain
reaction (PCR) amplification method by Short Tandem Repeat
(STR) analysis. With PCR testing, tiny amounts of a specific DNA
sequence can be copied exponentially within hours. Thus, getting
sufficient DNA for analysis has become much easier since it
became possible to reliably amplify small samples using the PCR
method.

Same; Same; Same; Remand of Cases; Under Section 4 of the

New Rule on Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Evidence, the courts are
authorized, after due hearing and notice, motu proprio to order a
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) testing; Since the Supreme Court is
not a trier of facts and does not, in the course of daily routine,
conduct hearings, it would be more appropriate that the case be
remanded to the Regional Trial Court for reception of evidence in
appropriate hearings, with due notice to the parties.—It is obvious
to the Court that the determination of whether appellant is the
father of AAA’s child, which may be accomplished through DNA
testing, is material to the fair and correct adjudication of the
instant appeal. Under Section 4 of the Rules, the courts are
authorized, after due hearing and notice, motu proprio to order a
DNA testing. However, while this Court retains jurisdiction over
the case at bar, capacitated as it is to receive and act on the
matter in controversy, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts
and does not, in the course of daily routine, conduct hearings.
Hence, it would be more appropriate that the case be remanded to

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/16
2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

the RTC for reception of evidence in appropriate hearings, with

due notice to the parties.

Same; Same; Same; Offer of Evidence; After the

Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) analysis is obtained, it shall be
incumbent upon the parties who wish to avail of the same to offer
the results in accordance with the rules of evidence.—Should the
RTC find the DNA testing feasible in the case at bar, it shall
order the same, in conformity with Section 5 of the Rules. It is
also the RTC which shall determine the institution to undertake
the DNA testing and the parties are free to manifest their
comments on the choice of DNA testing

554

554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Umanito

center. After the DNA analysis is obtained, it shall be incumbent

upon the parties who wish to avail of the same to offer the results
in accordance with the rules of evidence. The RTC, in evaluating
the DNA results upon presentation, shall assess the same as
evidence in keeping with Sections 7 and 8 of the Rules.

Same; Same; Same; In light of the fact that this case

constitutes the first known application of the Rules on
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Evidence, the Court is especially
interested in monitoring the implementation thereof in this case,
for its guidance and continuing evaluation of the Rules as
implemented.—In light of the fact that this case constitutes the
first known application of the Rules, the Court is especially
interested in monitoring the implementation thereof in this case,
for its guidance and continuing evaluation of the Rules as
implemented. For purposes of supervising the implementation the
instant resolution, the Court designates Deputy Court
Administrator Reuben Dela Cruz (DCA Dela Cruz) to: (a) monitor
the manner in which the court a quo carries out the Rules; and (b)
assess and submit periodic reports on said implementation to the
Court. Towards the fulfillment of such end, the RTC is directed to
cooperate and coordinate with DCA Dela Cruz.

Same; Same; Same; In order to facilitate the execution of the

Court’s Resolution in the instant case, the costs for the
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) testing may be advanced by the
Supreme Court if needed.—In order to facilitate the execution of
this Resolution, though the parties are primarily bound to bear

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/16
2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

the expenses for DNA testing, such costs may be advanced by this
Court if needed.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
     The Solicitor General for appellee.
     Public Attorney’s Office for appellant.

555

VOL. 537, OCTOBER 26, 2007 555

People vs. Umanito

RESOLUTION

TINGA, J.:
1
On appeal is the Decision of the Court of 2Appeals dated 15
February 2006, affirming the Judgment of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union, Branch 67 dated
15 October 1997 finding Rufino Umanito (appellant) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering
him to indemnify
3
the private complainant in the sum of
P50,000.00.
On 9 January 1990, appellant was 4
charged with the
crime of rape in a Criminal Complaint which reads:

“That on or about 9:00 P.M. of July 15, 1989, at Brgy[.]

Daramuangan, Municipality of Naguilian, Province of La Union,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the abovenamed accused who was armed with a fan knife and by
means of force and threats, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously succeeded in having a sexual
intercourse to [sic] the undersigned who is unmarried woman of
good reputation, a woman who is over 12 but below 18 years old
[sic] of age, to the damage 5and prejudice of the offended party.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”

It was only five (5) years later, or sometime in 1995, that

appellant was arrested. It took place when he went to the
Municipal Hall of Naguilian to secure a police clearance.
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.
The appellate court’s chronicle of the facts is as follows:

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/16
2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

1 Rollo, pp. 3-15. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas and

concurred in by Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Juan Q.
Enriquez, Jr.
2 CA Rollo, pp. 20-34. Penned by Judge Jose G. Paneda.
3 Id., at p. 34.
4 Records, p. 1.
5 Id.

556

556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Umanito

“It was around 9:00 o’clock in the evening of July 15, 1989, while
on her6 way to her grandmother’s home, when private complainant
[AAA] was accosted by a young male. It was only later when she
learned the name of accused-appellant UMANITO. She recounted
that accused-appellant UMANITO waited for her by the creek,
and then with a knife pointed at [AAA]’s left side of the [sic]
abdomen, he forced her to give in to his kisses, to his holding her
breasts and stomach, and to his pulling her by the arm to be
dragged to the Home Economics Building inside the premises of
the Daramuangan Elementary School where accused-appellant
UMANITO first undressed her [AAA] and himself with his right
hand while he still clutched the knife menacingly on his left hand.
Private complainant [AAA] recounted that she could not shout
because she was afraid. She further recounted that accused-
appellant UMANITO laid her down on a bench, 4 meters long and
24 inches wide, set the knife down, then mounted her, inserting
his penis into her [AAA’s] vagina and shortly thereafter, accused-
appellant UMANITO dressed up and threatened [AAA] while
poking the knife at her neck, not to report the incident to the
police or else he said he would kill her. Accusedappellant
UMANITO then left, while the victim [AAA] went on to her
grandmother’s house and she noticed that it was already around
1:00 o’clock in the morning when she reached there.
In January 1990, 6 months after 7
the incident, private
complainant [AAA’s] mother, [BBB], noticed the prominence on
[AAA]’s stomach. It was only then when the victim, private
complainant [AAA], divulged to her mother the alleged rape and
told her the details of what had happened in July, [sic] 1989. After
hearing private complainant8
[AAA]’s story, her mother brought
her to the police station.”

Appellant’s version on the stand was different. Denying the

accusations of AAA, he claimed that on 15 July 1989, he
was

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/16
2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

_______________

6 The real name of the victim is withheld per R.A. No. 7610 and R.A.
No. 9262. See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006,
502 SCRA 419.
7 The real name of the victim’s mother is likewise withheld to protect
her and the victim’s privacy. See People v. Cabalquinto, supra.
8 Supra note 1 at pp. 5-6.

557

VOL. 537, OCTOBER 26, 2007 557

People vs. Umanito

home the whole day, helping his family complete rush work
on picture frames ordered from Baguio. He did not step out9
of their house on the evening in question, he added.
Concerning his relationship with AAA, appellant admitted
that he had courted her but she spurned him. He
conjectured, though, that AAA had a 10crush on him since
she frequently visited him at his house.
Finding that the prosecution had proven appellant’s
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the RTC rendered judgment
against him and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua
11
and to indemnify AAA in the sum of
P50,000.00. In so doing, the court a quo held that the
discrepancies in AAA’s testimony did not impair her
credibility. Despite some inconsistencies in her statement,
the RTC observed that AAA’s demeanor on the witness 12
stand did not indicate any falsehood in her narration.
The trial court likewise rejected appellant’s defense of
alibi, ruling that he did not prove that it was physically
impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime given the
testimonies that
13
he and complainant were residing in the
same barrio. 14
Pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo, appellant’s
appeal before us was transferred to the Court of Appeals
for intermediate review. On 15 February 2006, the
appellate court affirmed the challenged decision. Finding
AAA to be a credible witness, the Court of Appeals agreed
with the trial court that the inconsistencies in her
statements were too trivial and15 inconsequential to impair
the credibility of her testimony.

_______________

9 TSN, 11 February 1997, pp. 6-8.

10 Id., at p. 10.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/16
2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

11 Supra note 2 at pp. 33-34.

12 CA Rollo, p. 31.
13 Id.
14 G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
15 Supra note 1 at pp. 8, 11.

558

558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Umanito

In this appeal, appellant seeks his acquittal on reasonable

doubt by reason of the belated filing of the case against him
and the questionable credibility of AAA with respect to her
varying allegations.
Appellant asserts that the court a quo erred in giving
full faith and credence to the testimony of the complaining
witness and in not acquitting him on reasonable doubt. He
avers that apparently AAA filed the complaint 16
against him
only upon the prodding of her mother. This aspect,
appellant insists, negates AAA’s claim that he was the one
who raped her but rather supports his assertion that the
sexual congress AAA engaged in was with another man, 17
her real lover who was married to another woman.
Appellant further puts 18
in issue the long delay in AAA’s
filing of the complaint.
Appellant capitalizes on the alleged serious
inconsistencies in AAA’s assertions, and further
characterizes
19
her actions and contentions as incredible and
unnatural. In particular, appellant highlights AAA’s
contradictory declarations on when she met appellant and
the nature of their relationship. He also alludes to AAA’s
purportedly inconsistent statements on whether it was
appellant or she herself, upon his orders, who took off her
clothes. Finally, appellant points out the supposedly
conflicting assertions of AAA on whether it was at the
creek or in the school building that he kissed her face and
other parts of her body.
Once again, this Court is called upon to determine
whether the prosecution has successfully met the level of
proof needed to find appellant guilty of the crime of rape.
Among the many incongruent assertions of the
prosecution and the defense, the disharmony on a certain
point stands out. Appellant, on one hand, testified that
although he had

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/16
2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

16 CA Rollo, p. 58.
17 Id. See also TSN, 11 February 1997, pp. 5, 9-10, 12.
18 CA Rollo, pp. 58-59.
19 Records, p. 392.

559

VOL. 537, OCTOBER 26, 2007 559

People vs. Umanito

courted AAA, they were not sweethearts. Therefore, this

testimony largely discounts the possibility of consensual
coitus between him and AAA. On the other, AAA made
contradictory allegations at the preliminary investigation
and on the witness stand with respect to the nature of her
relationship with appellant. First, she claimed that she met
appellant only on the day of the purported rape; later, she
stated that they were actually20 friends; and still later, she
admitted that they were close.
Amidst the slew of assertions and counter-assertions, a
happenstance may provide the definitive key to the
absolution of the appellant. This is the fact that AAA bore a
child as a result of the purported rape. 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. We have pronounced that if it can be
conclusively determined that the accused did not sire the
alleged victim’s child, this may cast the shadow21 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,
we are directing appellant, AAA and her child to22submit
themselves to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing
23
under
the aegis of the New Rule on DNA Evidence (the Rules),
which took effect on 15 October 2007, subject to guidelines
prescribed herein.

_______________

20 Id., at 3; TSN, 29 March 1995, p. 4; TSN, 13 March 1996, pp. 2-3, 20-
24.
21 See In Re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for De Villa, 442 SCRA 706
(2004).
22 In People v. Marquez (430 Phil. 383; 380 SCRA 561 [2002]), we
characterized DNA testing as synonymous to DNA typing, DNA
fingerprinting, DNA profiling, genetic tests, and genetic fingerprinting.
23 A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, 15 October 2007.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/16
2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

560

560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Umanito

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
24
the proper administration of justice in every
25
case. Verily,
as we pointed out in People v. Yatar, the process of
obtaining such vital evidence has become less arduous—

“The U.P. National Science Research Institute (NSRI), which

conducted the DNA tests in this case, used the Polymerase chain
reaction (PCR) amplification method by Short Tandem Repeat
(STR) analysis. With PCR testing, tiny amounts of a specific DNA
sequence can be copied exponentially within hours. Thus, getting
sufficient DNA for analysis has become much easier since it
became possible
26
to reliably amplify small samples using the PCR
method.”

The ground work for acknowledging the strong weight of

DNA testing
27
was first laid out in Tijing v. Court of
Appeals, where the Court said—

“x x x 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

_______________

24 People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 504, 514.
25 G.R. No. 150224, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 505 (2004).
26 Id., at p. 515.
27 406 Phil. 449; 354 SCRA 17 (2001).

561

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/16
2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

VOL. 537, OCTOBER 26, 2007 561

People vs. Umanito

the mother and the other from the father. 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 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. Though it is not necessary in this case to resort to DNA
testing, in future it would be useful to all concerned
28
in the prompt
resolution of parentage and identity issues.”
29
The leading case of Herrera v. Alba, where the validity of
a DNA test as a probative tool to determine filiation in our
jurisdiction was put in issue, discussed DNA analysis as
evidence and traced the development of its admissibility in
our jurisdiction. Thus:

“DNA is the fundamental building block of a person’s entire

genetic make-up. DNA is found in all human cells and is the same
in every cell of the same person. Genetic identity is unique.
Hence, a person’s DNA profile can determine his identity.
DNA analysis is a procedure in which DNA extracted from a
biological sample obtained from an individual is examined. The
DNA is processed to generate a pattern, or a DNA profile, for the
individual from whom the sample is taken. This DNA profile is
unique for each person, except for identical twins. We quote
relevant portions of the trial court’s 3 February 2000 Order with
approval:

Everyone is born with a distinct genetic blueprint called DNA

(deoxyribonucleic acid). It is exclusive to an individual (except in the
rare occurrence of identical twins that share a single, fertilized egg), and
DNA is unchanging throughout life. Being a component of every cell in
the human body, the DNA of an individual’s blood is the very DNA in his
or her skin

_______________

28 Id., at p. 461.
29 G.R. No. 148220, 15 June 2005, 460 SCRA 197. See also Agustin v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 162571, 15 June 2005, 460 SCRA 315.

562

562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/16
2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

People vs. Umanito

cells, hair follicles, muscles, semen, samples from buccal swabs, saliva, or
other body parts.
The chemical structure of DNA has four bases. They are known as A
(adenine), G (guanine), C (cystosine) and T (thymine). The order in which
the four bases appear in an individual’s DNA determines his or her
physical makeup. And since DNA is a double-stranded molecule, it is
composed of two specific paired bases, A-T or T-A and G-C or C-G. These
are called “genes.”
Every gene has a certain number of the above base pairs distributed in
a particular sequence. This gives a person his or her genetic code.
Somewhere in the DNA framework, nonetheless, are sections that differ.
They are known as “polymorphic loci,” which are the areas analyzed in
DNA typing (profiling, tests, fingerprinting, or analysis/DNA
fingerprinting/genetic tests or fingerprinting). In other words, DNA
typing simply means determining the “polymorphic loci.”
How is DNA typing performed? From a DNA sample obtained or
extracted, a molecular biologist may proceed to analyze it in several
ways. There are five (5) techniques to conduct DNA typing. They are: the
RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism); “reverse dot blot” or
HLA DQ a/Pm loci which was used in 287 cases that were admitted as
evidence by 37 courts in the U.S. as of November 1994; mtDNA process;
VNTR (variable number tandem repeats); and the most recent which is
known as the PCR-([polymerase] chain reaction) based STR (short
tandem repeats) method which, as of 1996, was availed of by most
forensic laboratories in the world. PCR is the process of replicating or
copying DNA in an evidence sample a million times through repeated
cycling of a reaction involving the so-called DNA polymerize enzyme.
STR, on the other hand, takes measurements in 13 separate places and
can match two (2) samples with a reported theoretical error rate of less
than one (1) in a trillion.
Just like in fingerprint analysis, in DNA typing, “matches” are
determined. To illustrate, when DNA or fingerprint tests are done to
identify a suspect in a criminal case, the evidence collected from the
crime scene is compared with the “known” print. If a substantial amount
of the identifying features are the same, the DNA or fingerprint is
deemed to be a

563

VOL. 537, OCTOBER 26, 2007 563

People vs. Umanito

match. But then, even if only one feature of the DNA or fingerprint is
different, it is deemed not to have come from the suspect.
As earlier stated, certain regions of human DNA show variations
between people. In each of these regions, a person possesses two genetic

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/16
2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

types called “allele,” one inherited from each parent. 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 (Emphasis in
the original).
xxxx

The 2002 case of People v. Vallejo discussed DNA analysis as

evidence. This may be considered a 180 degree turn from the
Court’s wary attitude towards DNA testing in the 1997 Pe Lim
case, where we stated that “DNA, being a relatively new science, x
x x has not yet been accorded official recognition by our courts.” In
Vallejo, the DNA profile from the vaginal swabs taken from the
rape victim matched the accused’s DNA profile. We affirmed the
accused’s conviction of rape with homicide and sentenced him to
death.
xxxx
Vallejo discussed the probative value, not admissibility, of
DNA evidence. By 2002, there was no longer any question on the
validity of the use of DNA analysis as evidence. The Court moved
from the issue of according “official recognition” to DNA analysis
as evidence to the issue of observance of procedures in conducting
DNA analysis.
In 2004, there were two other cases that had a significant
impact on jurisprudence on DNA testing: People v. Yatar and In
re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa. In Yatar, a
match existed between the DNA profile of the semen found in the
victim and the DNA profile of the blood sample given by appellant
in open

564

564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Umanito

court. The Court, following Vallejo’s footsteps, affirmed the

conviction of appellant because the physical evidence,
corroborated by circumstantial evidence, showed appellant guilty
of rape with homicide. In De Villa, the convict-petitioner
presented DNA test results to prove that he is not the father of
the child conceived at the time of commission of the rape. The
Court ruled that a difference between the DNA profile of the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/16
2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

convict-petitioner and the DNA profile of the victim’s child

30
does
not preclude the convict-petitioner’s commission of rape.”
31
The 2004 case of Tecson v. Commission on Elections
likewise reiterated the acceptance of DNA testing in our
jurisdiction in this wise: “[i]n 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 physical32
residue of the long dead parent
could be resorted to.”
It is obvious to the Court that the determination of
whether appellant is the father of AAA’s child, which may
be accomplished through DNA testing, is material to the
fair and correct adjudication of the instant appeal. Under
Section 4 of the Rules, the courts are authorized, after due
hearing and notice, motu proprio to order a DNA testing.
However, while this Court retains jurisdiction over the case
at bar, capacitated as it is to receive and act on the matter
in controversy, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts
and does33 not, in the course of daily routine, conduct
hearings. Hence, it would be more appropriate that the
case be remanded to the RTC for reception of evidence in
appropriate hearings, with due notice to the parties.

_______________

30 Id., at pp. 209-213. Citations omitted.

31 G.R. No. 161434, 3 March 2004, 424 SCRA 277.
32 Id., at p. 345.
33 Carlos v. Sandoval, 471 SCRA 266 (2005).

565

VOL. 537, OCTOBER 26, 2007 565

People vs. Umanito

What should be the proper scope of such hearings? Section

4 of the Rules spells out the matters which the trial court
must determine, thus:

“SEC. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order.—The appropriate

court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of
any person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation,
order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and
notice to the parties upon a showing of the following:

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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/16
2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

(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
(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may
consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity
of the DNA testing.

The Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a

prior court order, at the behest of any party, including law 34
enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced.”

Given our earlier pronouncements on the relevance of the

DNA testing, it would be unbecoming of the RTC to
conclude otherwise, Section 4 (d) notwithstanding. The
hearing should be confined to ascertaining the feasibility of
DNA testing with due regard to the standards set in
Section 4 (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Rules.
Should the RTC find the DNA testing feasible in the
case at bar, it shall order the same, in conformity with
Section 5 of

_______________

34 RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE, Sec. 4.

566

566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Umanito

35
the Rules. 36 It is also the RTC which shall determine the
institution to undertake the DNA testing and the parties
are free to manifest their comments on the choice of DNA
testing center.
After the DNA analysis is obtained, it shall be
incumbent upon the parties who wish to avail of the same
to offer the results in accordance with the rules of evidence.
The RTC, in evaluating the DNA results upon
presentation, shall assess the same as evidence in keeping
with Sections 7 and 8 of the Rules, to wit:

“SEC. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence.—In

assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/16
2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

court shall consider the following:

_______________

35 SEC. 5. DNA Testing Order.—If the court finds that the

requirements in Section 4 hereof have been complied with, the court shall.
—

(a) Order, as appropriate, that biological samples be taken from any

person or crime scene evidence;
(b) Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to protect
the integrity of the biological sample, the testing process and the
reliability of the test results, including a condition that the DNA
test results shall be simultaneously disclosed to parties involved in
the case; and
(c) If the biological sample taken is of such an amount that prevents
the conduct of confirmatory testing by the other or the adverse
party and where additional biological samples of the same kind
can no longer be obtained, issue an order requiring all parties to
the case or proceedings to witness the DNA testing to be
conducted.

x x x The grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed as

an automatic admission into evidence of any component of the DNA
evidence that may be obtained as a result thereof.
36 Among the current known institutions offering DNA testing are the
University of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute and St.
Luke’s Medical Center.

567

VOL. 537, OCTOBER 26, 2007 567

People vs. Umanito

(a) The chain 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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/16
2/9/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 537

(d) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter

provided.

The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation

of evidence shall apply suppletorily.
SEC. 8. Reliability of DNA testing methodology.—In evaluating
whether the DNA testing methodology is reliable, the court shall
consider the following:

(a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is,

whether the theory or technique can be and has been
tested;
(b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the
principles or methods;
(c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the
relevant scientific community;
(d) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls
to ensure the correctness of data gathered;
(e) The existence of an appropriate reference population
database; and
(f) The general degree of confidence attributed to
mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA
profiles and the significance and limitation of statistical
calculations used in comparing DNA profiles.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168d07e6dfdb82c1c9c003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/16