View full case

ROSENDO HERRERA v. ROSENDO ALBA

FACTS:

Rosendo Alba filed a petition against Rosendo Herrera claiming that Herrera is his biological father. Herrera denies paternity and physical contact with Alba's mother.

Alba filed a motion for DNA paternity testing, supported by an expert in DNA analysis. The expert explained the process and asserted its accuracy rate.

Herrera opposed the testing, arguing that it violates his right against self-incrimination.

The trial court granted the motion and ordered the parties to undergo DNA paternity testing.

Herrera filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming the test would be inconclusive, irrelevant, and unconstitutional.

The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration.

Herrera filed a petition for certiorari before the appellate court, challenging the trial court's orders and arguing that the DNA testing lacked legal and factual support.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's orders, stating that Herrera had available remedies to refute any adverse results and that the right against self-incrimination only applies to testimonial compulsion.

Herrera filed a motion for reconsideration, which the appellate court denied.

Herrera raises the issue of the validity of DNA testing in determining filiation in the jurisdiction and seeks guidelines for its integration into the judicial system and the admissibility of DNA test results in a paternity suit.

This case involves a dispute over paternity and filiation. The respondent filed a petition for support against the petitioner, alleging that he is the biological father. The trial court considered three aspects of a traditional paternity action: a prima facie case, affirmative defenses, and physical resemblance. The respondent's mother presented evidence supporting her claim, while the petitioner denied paternity and claimed that the respondent is the child of another man. The mother submitted evidence of physical resemblance between the petitioner and the respondent. The relevant laws, rules, and jurisprudence on establishing filiation were examined, including the Family Code and the Rules on Evidence. The Court has previously ruled that incriminating acts and statements by the putative father can be accepted as evidence to establish filiation.

The case discusses DNA analysis as evidence to prove paternity. The trial court emphasized that DNA is exclusive to an individual and unchanging throughout life. DNA can be found in various body parts and can be used to generate a unique DNA profile for an individual. The case explores whether DNA analysis can be accepted as evidence to establish paternity.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether DNA analysis may be admitted as evidence to prove paternity.

  2. Whether DNA analysis is admissible as evidence in court.

  3. What factors should courts consider in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence.

  4. Whether the American standards on the admissibility of scientific evidence, such as the Frye-Schwartz and Daubert-Kumho standards, are controlling in the Philippines.

  5. Whether DNA analysis is admissible as evidence in the Philippines.

RULING:

  1. Yes, DNA analysis may be admitted as evidence to prove paternity.

  2. 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.

  3. In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider factors such as 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.

  4. The American standards on the admissibility of scientific evidence are not controlling in the Philippines. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of Court. The restrictive tests for admissibility established by Frye-Schwartz and Daubert-Kumho only go into the weight of the evidence.

  5. DNA analysis is admissible as evidence in the Philippines. Section 49 of Rule 130 provides that the opinion of a witness with special knowledge, skill, experience, or training may be received in evidence. While trial courts should be cautious in giving credence to DNA analysis, considering factors such as sample collection, handling, possible contamination, testing procedures, and analyst qualifications, DNA analysis can be used in paternity cases to establish paternity.

PRINCIPLES:

  • DNA is the fundamental building block of a person's entire genetic make-up and can determine a person's identity.

  • DNA analysis is a procedure in which DNA extracted from a biological sample obtained from an individual is examined to generate a unique DNA profile.

  • DNA typing involves analyzing polymorphic loci, which are sections of DNA that differ between individuals.

  • There are various techniques to conduct DNA typing, such as RFLP, HLA DQ a/Pm loci, mtDNA process, VNTR, and PCR-based STR.

  • Like fingerprint analysis, in DNA typing, "matches" are determined by comparing the DNA profiles of two samples.

  • In a paternity test, DNA profiles of the mother, child, and alleged father are compared to determine parentage.

  • If the alleged father's DNA types match the paternal types in the child, he is not excluded as the father. If they do not match, he is excluded.

  • Courts may use the results of scientific methods, such as DNA testing, to aid in resolving parentage disputes and should not reject such results if obtained completely.

  • DNA analysis has been recognized as evidence in Philippine courts.

  • Courts should consider various factors in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence.

  • The admissibility of specific test results in a particular case hinges on the laboratory's compliance with appropriate standards and controls.

  • Relevant evidence is admissible, provided it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable.

  • The American standards on the admissibility of scientific evidence, such as the Frye-Schwartz and Daubert-Kumho standards, are not controlling in the Philippines.

  • Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of Court.

  • Section 49 of Rule 130 allows the admission of expert testimony on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience, or training.

  • DNA analysis is admissible as evidence in the Philippines, but trial courts should consider factors such as sample collection, handling, possible contamination, testing procedures, and analyst qualifications in assessing its probative value.

  • The right against self-incrimination only applies to testimonial evidence.

  • Evidence derived from the body of the accused can be used in court.

  • The privilege against self-incrimination restricts testimonial compulsion.

  • The investigation of paternity and filiation of children can be aided by modern science and technology, as long as it adheres to legal limits.