Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 177 views

    Herrera v. Alba, 460 SCRA 197 (2005)

    Uploaded by

    SophiaFrancescaEspinosa
    The Court explained that the privilege against self-incrimination only applies to testimonial or communicative evidence obtained under compulsion. It does not prevent the production of physical evidence from the body, such as DNA samples. As such, obtaining DNA samples is not unconstitutional and can help determine paternity in line with policies under the Family Code. The Court affirmed the lower courts' orders requiring the petitioner to undergo DNA testing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Herrera v. Alba, 460 SCRA 197 (2005)

    Uploaded by

    SophiaFrancescaEspinosa
    177 views2 pages
    The Court explained that the privilege against self-incrimination only applies to testimonial or communicative evidence obtained under compulsion. It does not prevent the production of physical evidence from the body, such as DNA samples. As such, obtaining DNA samples is not unconstitutional and can help determine paternity in line with policies under the Family Code. The Court affirmed the lower courts' orders requiring the petitioner to undergo DNA testing.

    Original Description:

    s

    Original Title

    375. Herrera v. Alba, 460 SCRA 197 (2005)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court explained that the privilege against self-incrimination only applies to testimonial or communicative evidence obtained under compulsion. It does not prevent the production of physical evidence from the body, such as DNA samples. As such, obtaining DNA samples is not unconstitutional and can help determine paternity in line with policies under the Family Code. The Court affirmed the lower courts' orders requiring the petitioner to undergo DNA testing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    177 views2 pages

    Herrera v. Alba, 460 SCRA 197 (2005)

    Uploaded by

    SophiaFrancescaEspinosa
    The Court explained that the privilege against self-incrimination only applies to testimonial or communicative evidence obtained under compulsion. It does not prevent the production of physical evidence from the body, such as DNA samples. As such, obtaining DNA samples is not unconstitutional and can help determine paternity in line with policies under the Family Code. The Court affirmed the lower courts' orders requiring the petitioner to undergo DNA testing.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    University of the Philippines College of Law

    ABC, 3-D

    Topic B. Rights of a Witness


    Case No. G.R. NO. 148220 / June 15, 2005
    Case Name Herrera v. Alba, 460 SCRA 197 (2005)
    Ponente Carpio, j.

    RELEVANT FACTS

    Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings. To
    support the motion, respondent presented the testimony of Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D.

    Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability. Petitioner further
    argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination.

    ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI


    Issue Ratio
    W/N petitioner’s Right NO.
    Against Self-Incrimination
    was violated by DNA Section 17, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides that "no person shall
    Analysis. be compelled to be a witness against himself." Petitioner asserts that
    obtaining samples from him for DNA testing violates his right against self-
    incrimination. Petitioner ignores our earlier pronouncements that the
    privilege is applicable only to testimonial evidence. Again, we quote relevant
    portions of the trial court's 3 February 2000 Order with approval:

    Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the


    respondent in a paternity case, contrary to the belief of respondent in this
    action, will not violate the right against self-incrimination. This privilege
    applies only to evidence that is "communicative" in essence taken under
    duress (People v. Olvis, 154 SCRA 513, 1987). The Supreme Court has ruled
    that the right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition on the use of
    physical or moral compulsion to extort communication (testimonial evidence)
    from a defendant, not an exclusion of evidence taken from his body when it
    may be material. As such, a defendant can be required to submit to a test to
    extract virus from his body (as cited in People v. Olvis, Supra); the substance
    emitting from the body of the accused was received as evidence for acts of
    lasciviousness (US v. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145); morphine forced out of the
    mouth was received as proof (US v. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735); an order by
    the judge for the witness to put on pair of pants for size was allowed (People
    v. Otadora, 86 Phil. 244); and the court can compel a woman accused of
    adultery to submit for pregnancy test (Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62), since
    the gist of the privilege is the restriction on "testimonial compulsion."

    The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the
    paternity and filiation of children, especially of illegitimate children, is without
    prejudice to the right of the putative parent to claim his or her own defenses.
    Where the evidence to aid this investigation is obtainable through the
    University of the Philippines College of Law
    ABC, 3-D

    facilities of modern science and technology, such evidence should be


    considered subject to the limits established by the law, rules, and
    jurisprudence.

    RULING

    WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29
    November 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 59766. We also AFFIRM the Orders dated 3 February 2000 and 8 June 2000
    issued by Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. SP-98-88759. SO ORDERED.

    You might also like