r t o f A p p e al s

ti n v. C o u
Agus
Jesse Cabanacan 3A
 DNA Testing

“Courts should apply the results of

science when competently obtained
in aid of situations presented, since
to reject said result is to deny
progress.”

Supreme Court, speaking through Justice

Quisumbing, March 8, 2001
 Agustin v. CA
THE CASE

• In March 2002, Fe Prollamante and Martin

Prollamante sued Arnel Agustin for support.

• Fe claimed that Arnel is the biological father of

Martin which Arnel denied.

• The trial court, over the objection of Arnel

invoking his constitutional right against self-
incrimination, ordered DNA testing.
DNA Testing
 The Story
• Arnel courted Fe in 1992.
 The Story
• Sa lalong madaling panahon, naging mag
jowa na sila.
 The Story
• The relationship flourished, bringing it to its
natural consequence of intimacy.
 The Story
Then in November 1999, at the age of 34, Fe
got pregnant.
 The Story
In August 2000, despite
Arnel’s insistence on an
abortion, Fe gave birth
to a baby boy.

The birth certificate was

purportedly signed by
Arnel.
 The Story
Arnel paid for the hospital expenses (including the
pre-natal care).

Later, he refused Fe’s

repeated requests for
support despite his
adequate financial
capacity, even
suggesting to have the
Baby committed for
adoption.
 The Story
Arnel adamantly denied having fathered the child, and
became a scarce commodity that seem to vanish into
thin air.
 The Story
One day in January 2001, after a round of golf with
his golf buddies at Capitol Hills GCC, on his way Arnel
to his car at the parking lot…
 The Story
…there was Fe waiting with 5-month old Martin.

Arnel left in such a hurry that he

sped off with the car door
still open, hitting Fe’s leg.
 AGUSTIN v. CA

• In March 2002, Fe and Martin sued Arnel for

support and support pendente lite.
• Arnel denied having sired Martin, alleging his
affair and intimacy with Fe ended in 1998, a year
before Martin was conceived.
• He admitted their relationship, which started in
1993.
• But he really never fell in love with Fe because
she had a secret lover and she was demanding,
scheming and possessive, chaarr!!
 AGUSTIN v. CA

• What started out as a romantic liaison became a

stormy on-and-off affair
• Fe became so obsessed with Arnel, entertaining
the idea of marrying Arnel
• Resorting to devious ways and means to alienate
Arnel from his wife and family
• She started calling Arnel’s wife and family
• So Arnel terminated the affair because he felt it
had turned out be a case of …….
“Heaven hath no Rage like Love to
Hatred turned

Nor Hell a Fury like a Woman

Scorned!”
 AGUSTIN v. CA

• Arnel denied ever hitting any part of Fe’s body at

the parking lot of Capitol Hills GCC, where Fe
followed him demanding that he acknowledge
Martin as his child.

• He claimed that he could not get through Fe and

the discussion got heated up that he had no other
choice but to leave.

• Arnel further claimed that the CTC used for the

birth certificate and alleged to his was falsified.
 AGUSTIN v. CA

• In his pre-trial brief, Arnel denied having sired

Martin but expressed his willingness to consider
any settlement proposal.

• Fe and Martin moved for an order for paternity

testing pursuant to Rule 28 of the Rules.

• Arnel opposed, invoking his right against self-

incrimination.
 AGUSTIN v. CA

• Arnel also moved for dismissal for lack of cause

of action, considering that his signature on the
birth certificate was a forgery and argued that an
unrecognized illegitimate child is not entitled to
support.
• The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and
ordered DNA paternity testing.
• The CA affirmed the trial court.
• So Arnel filed a petition for certiorari before the
Supreme Court.
 AGUSTIN v. CA

ISSUE
Whether or not DNA paternity testing
can be ordered in a proceeding for
support without violating petitioner’s
constitutional right to privacy and right
against self-incrimination.
Significance DNA Paternity Testing
Significance DNA Paternity Testing
Significance DNA Paternity Testing
 AGUSTIN v. CA

RULING

Petition is without merit

 AGUSTIN v. CA
Ruling

Since this case is the very first time that the

admissibility of DNA testing as the means of
determining paternity is the focal issue in a
controversy, the SC felt the need to discuss the
brief history of its past decisions featuring DNA
testing
 EVOLUTION OF DNA EVIDENCE
PCR Technique Invented in 1985
PHILIPPINES
• 1995: People v. Teehankee
– Eyewitness ID significant,
but not as accurate and
authoritative as DNA
• 1997: Pe Lim v. CA
– Cautioned against DNA
use; relatively new science
yet to be recognized
• 2001: Tijing v. CA
– Opened the possibility of
admitting DNA as evidence
of parentage
– Acknowledged strong
weight of DNA testing
USA
• 1988: Andrews v. State of
Florida
– Applied DNA fingerprinting
to semen sample in rape
case
– First person in U.S.
convicted based on DNA
evidence
• 1989: People of State of NY
v. Castro
– First time admissibility of
DNA evidence in U.S.
courts was questioned.
– FBI TWGDAM guidelines
 EVOLUTION OF DNA EVIDENCE
PHILIPPINES
• 2002: People v. Vallejo
– First real breakthrough of
DNA as admissible
• 2003: People v. Janson
– DNA could dispel doubts
• 2004: People v. Yatar
– Established guidelines
– Applied Daubert standard
– Upheld constitutionality of
compulsory DNA testing
USA
• 1990: U.S. v. Two Bulls
– Added two new standards
to 3-pronged test in Castro
to make it a 5-prong test
– General acceptance of
underlying theory of DNA
testing
– Caution on DNA testing
unless performed properly
 EVOLUTION OF DNA EVIDENCE
PHILIPPINES
• 2004: Tecson v. COMELEC
– Reiterated Tijing
– DNA testing could be
resorted if conventional
proof unlikely to stablish
filiation or would be difficult
to obtain
• 2007: A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC
– October 2, 2007
– Rule on DNA Evidence
USA
• 1991: People of State of IL v.
Miles
– Conviction sustained based
on DNA evidence which
followed TWIGDAM
guidelines in Castro
– Stopped doubts on DNA
• 1993: Daubert v. Merrell Dow
– Declared FRE expanded
range of admissible evidence
– Decision known as Daubert
Standard of Evidence
Admissibility
Impact of DNA Testing
 AGUSTIN v. CA
Ruling
• The SC cited its ruling in Yatar where it upheld
the constitutionality of compulsory DNA testing
and the admissibility of the results thereof as
evidence.
• 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.
 AGUSTIN v. CA
Ruling
• The Court, over the years, has expressly
excluded several kinds of object evidence taken
from the person of the accused from the realm of
self-incrimination.
• For example, in Jimenez v. Cañizares, the Court
even authorized the examination of a woman’s
genitalia, in an action for annulment filed by her
husband, to verify his claim that she was
impotent, her orifice being too small for his penis.
 AGUSTIN v. CA
Ruling
• Some of these procedures were, to be sure, rather
invasive and involuntary, but all of them were
constitutionally sound. DNA testing and its results,
per the Court’s ruling in Yatar, are now similarly
acceptable.
• As to petitioner’s invocation of his right to privacy,
the Court was not persuaded, citing its ruling in Ople
v. Torres where it stressed that the right to privacy
does not bar all incursions into individual privacy.
The right is not intended to stifle scientific and
technological advancements that enhance public
service and the common good.
 AGUSTIN v. CA
Ruling
• The constitutional right to privacy has been only
critically at issue mostly in the areas of the
legality of searches and seizures and the
infringement of privacy of communication.
• Petitioner’s case involves neither and his
argument that his right against self-incrimination
is in jeopardy holds no water. His hollow
invocation of his constitutional rights elicits no
sympathy here for the simple reason that they
are not in any way being violated.
 AGUSTIN v. CA
Ruling
• If, in a criminal case, an accused whose very life
is at stake can be compelled to submit to DNA
testing, we see no reason why, in this civil case,
petitioner who does not face such dire
consequences cannot be ordered to do the
same.
• The foregoing considered, the Court, speaking
through Justice Corona, found no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the CA for affirming the
trial court which denied the petitioner’s motion to
dismiss and ordered him to submit himself for
DNA testing.
 AGUSTIN v. CA
Ruling

We have long believed in the merits of DNA testing

and have repeatedly expressed as much in the
past. This case comes at a perfect time when DNA
testing has finally evolved into a dependable and
authoritative form of evidence gathering. We
therefore take this opportunity to forcefully
reiterate our stand that DNA testing is a valid
means of determining paternity.
People v. Baniaga