JESSE U. LUCAS V. JESUS S.

LUCAS

G.R. No. 190710, [June 6, 2011]

FACTS:

Petitioner, Jesse Lucas filed a Petition to Establish Filiation with a Motion for the
Submission of Parties to DNA Testing before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Jesse alleged that he is the son of his mother Elsie who got acquainted with
respondent, Jesus S. Lucas in Manila. He also submitted documents which include (a)
petitioner’s certificate of live birth; (b) petitioner’s baptismal certificate; (c) petitioner’s
college diploma, showing that he graduated from Saint Louis University in Baguio City
with a degree in Psychology; (d) his Certificate of Graduation from the same school; (e)
Certificate of Recognition from the University of the Philippines, College of Music; and
(f) clippings of several articles from different newspapers about petitioner, as a musical
prodigy.

Jesus learned of this and he filed a Special Appearance and Comment manifesting
that the petition was adversarial in nature and therefore summons should be served
on him. Meanwhile, Jesse filed a Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case which
the RTC found to be sufficient in form and hence set the case for hearing. Jesus filed a
Motion for Reconsideration arguing that DNA testing cannot be had on the basis of a
mere allegation pointing to him as Jesse’s father.

Acting on Jesus’ Motion for Reconsideration, the RTC dismissed the case and held
that Jesse failed to establish compliance with the four procedural aspects for a
paternity action enumerated in the case of Herrera v. Alba namely, a prima
faciecase, affirmative defences, presumption of legitimacy, and physical resemblance
between the putative father and the child.

This prompted Jesse to file a Motion for Reconsideration which the RTC granted. A
new hearing was scheduled where the RTC held that ruling on the grounds relied
upon by Jesse for filing the instant petition is premature considering that a full-blown
trial has not yet taken place. Jesus filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was
denied by the RTC. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals
(CA). The CA ruled in favour of Jesus, it noted that Jesse failed to show that the four
significant aspects of a traditional paternity action had been met and held that DNA
testing should not be allowed when the petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie
case.

ISSUE:

Whether aprima facie showing is necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing
order

HELD:

Yes, but it is not yet time to discuss the lack ofa prima facie case vis-à-vis the motion
for DNA testing since no evidence has, as yet, been presented by petitioner.
RATIO:

Misapplication of Herrera v. Alba by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals. The statement in Herrera v. Alba that there are four significant procedural
aspects in a traditional paternity case which parties have to face has been widely
misunderstood and misapplied in this case. A party is confronted by these so-called
procedural aspects during trial, when the parties have presented their respective
evidence. They are matters of evidence that cannot be determined at this initial stage
of the proceedings, when only the petition to establish filiation has been filed. The
CA’s observation that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case is herefore
misplaced. A prima facie case is built by a party’s evidence and not by mere
allegations in the initiatory pleading.

Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence merely provides for conditions that are aimed
to safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the DNA testing. It states that 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;(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. This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court
order, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or
proceeding is commenced. This does not mean, however, that a DNA testing order will
be issued as a matter of right if, during the hearing, the said conditions are
established.

In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA testing order, there must be a
show cause hearing wherein the applicant must first present sufficient evidence to
establish a prima facie case or a reasonable possibility of paternity or “good cause” for
the holding of the test. In these states, a court order for blood testing is considered a
“search,” which, under their Constitutions (as in ours), must be preceded by a finding
of probable cause in order to be valid. Hence, the requirement of a prima facie case, or
reasonable possibility, was imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a finding of
probable cause. Courts in various jurisdictions have differed regarding the kind of
procedures which are required, but those jurisdictions have almost universally found
that a preliminary showing must be made before a court can constitutionally order
compulsory blood testing in paternity cases. We agree, and find that, as a preliminary
matter, before the court may issue an order for compulsory blood testing, the moving
party must show that there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As explained
hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the action refuses to
voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing must be held in which the
court can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie
case which warrants issuance of a court order for blood testing The same condition
precedent should be applied in our jurisdiction to protect the putative father from
mere harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the
petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of
paternity.”

People v. Umanito

People v. Rufino Umanito

26 Oct 2007 / Tinga / Appeal from a CA decision
Search and seizure > Nature, scope and definition > Types > With a search warrant >
Things that may be seized > Rules on DNA evidence [AM No. 06-11-5-SC (2007)]
FACTS
Around 9PM, private complainant AAA was accosted by a young male (whom she later
knew as Umanito). He waited for her by the creek, and he pointed as knife at her
abdomen. He dragged her into the Home Economics Building of Daramuangan
Elementary School. He undressed her while still holding the knife. He set her down on
a bench, put down the knife, and had sex with her. He dressed up and threatened to
kill her if she reported the incident. Six months later, AAA ’ s mother noticed the
prominence on her stomach, and it was then that she divulged to her mother the
alleged rape. Her mother brought her to the police station. (Umanito’ s alibi: He was at
home all day. Re: AAA, he admitted that he courted her but she spurned him. He
conjectured that she had a crush on him since she frequently visited him.)
RTC rendered judgment against Umanito and sentenced him to
suffer reclusion perpetua. Umanito ’s appeal was transferred to the CA for intermediate
review (as per Mateo ruling), and CA affirmed RTC. Umanito seeks acquittal on
reasonable doubt, with the belated filing of the case and AAA ’ s questionable
credibility as grounds. He also said that AAA filed the complaint only upon her
mother ’s insistence; this supports his claim that AAA had sex with another (a married
man). Also, he claimed that there were several inconsistencies in her assertions.
CASE IS REMANDED TO THE RTC FOR RECEPTION OF DNA EVIDENCE
RATIO
The fact that AAA bore a child because of the purported rape may provide the
definitive key to Umanito ’ s absolution, since it can now be determined with
reasonable certainty WON he is the father of her child. AAA and her child are directed
to submit themselves to DNA testing under the aegis of the New Rule on DNA Evidence
(AM No. 06-11-5-SC) which took effect on 15 Oct 2007 (a few days before
promulgation of this case).
DNA print / 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. The groundwork for acknowledging the strong weight
of DNA testing was first laid out in Tijing v. CA . Herrera v. Alba discussed DNA
analysis as evidence and traced the development of its admissibility in our
jurisdiction. Tecson v. COMELEC said that in case proof of filiation or paternity would
be unlikely to establish, DNA testing could be resorted to.
The determination of WON Umanito is the father (through DNA testing) is
material to the fair and correct adjudication of his appeal. Under Sec. 4 of AM No.
06-11-5-SC, the courts are authorized, after due hearing and notice, motu
proprio to order a DNA testing. However, since SC is not a trier of facts, it would be
more appropriate that the case be remanded to RTC for reception of evidence.
The hearing should be confined to ascertaining the feasibility of DNA testing with due
regard to the standards set. RTC should order the DNA testing if it finds it to be
feasible in this case. RTC shall determine the institution to undertake the testing, and
the parties are free to manifest their comments on the choice. 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, which shall be assessed by
RTC in keeping with Sections 7 (Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence) and 8
(Reliability of DNA testing methodology). RTC is also enjoined to observe confidentiality
and preservation of DNA evidence.
To facilitate the execution of this resolution, although the parties are primarily
bound to bear the expenses for DNA testing, such costs may be advanced by SC if
needed.

IN RE: THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR REYNALDO DE VILLA (detained at

the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City)
JUNE DE VILLA, petitioner-relator,
vs.
THE DIRECTOR, NEW BILIBID PRISONS, respondent.
FACTS:
This is a Petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under Rule 102 of the
Rules of Court. Petitioner Reynaldo de Villa, joined by his son, petitioner-relator June
de Villa, seeks a two-fold relief: First, that respondent Director of Prisons justify the
basis for the imprisonment of petitioner Reynaldo de Villa; and second, that petitioner
be granted a new trial. These reliefs are sought on the basis of purportedly exculpatory
evidence, gathered after performing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing on samples
allegedly collected from the petitioner and a child born to the victim of the rape.

By final judgment, petitioner de Villa, the trial court found petitioner guilty of the rape
of Aileen Mendoza when she was 12 years old, his niece by affinity and was sentenced
to suffer the penalty of reclusión perpetua; and ordered him to pay the offended party
civil indemnity, moral damages, costs of the suit, and support for Leahlyn Corales
Mendoza, the putative child born of the rape. Petitioner is currently serving his
sentence at the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City. Petitioner’s defense, at the time
of the alleged rape, he was already 67 years old. Old age and sickness had rendered
him incapable of having an erection. On automatic review, the court found that the
date of birth of Aileen’s child was medically consistent with the time of the rape.

Three years after the promulgation of our Decision, there was a question of Reynaldo
de Villa’s guilt or innocence. Petitioner-relator in this case, June de Villa, is the son of
Reynaldo. He alleges that during the trial of the case, he was unaware that there was a
scientific test that could determine once and for all if Reynaldo was the father of the
victim’s child, Leahlyn. Petitioner-relator was only informed during the pendency of
the automatic review of petitioner’s case that DNA testing could resolve the issue of
paternity. This information was apparently furnished by the Free Legal Assistance
Group (FLAG) Anti-Death Penalty Task Force, which took over as counsel for
petitioner. Thus, petitioner’s brief in People v. de Villa sought the conduct of a blood
type test and DNA test in order to determine the paternity of the child allegedly
conceived as a result of the rape and the relief was implicitly denied. Petitioner filed a
Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Decision, wherein he once more prayed that
DNA tests be conducted and it was denied with finality in a Resolution. Petitioner-
relator was undaunted by these challenges, for having been informed that DNA tests
required a sample that could be extracted from saliva, petitioner-relator asked Billy
Joe de Villa, a grandson of Reynaldo de Villa and a classmate of Leahlyn Mendoza, to
ask Leahlyn to spit into a new, sterile cup and used as a sample. Petitioner-relator
then gathered samples from four grandchildren of Reynaldo de Villa. Petitioner-relator
requested the NSRI to conduct DNA testing on the sample given by Leahlyn Mendoza,
those given by the grandchildren of Reynaldo de Villa, and that given by Reynaldo de
Villa himself. The identities of the donors of the samples, save for the sample given by
Reynaldo de Villa, were not made known to the DNA Analysis Laboratory.

After testing, the DNA Laboratory rendered a preliminary report and showed that
Reynaldo de Villa could not have sired any of the children whose samples were tested,
due to the absence of a match between the pertinent genetic markers.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the DNA result is a valid basis for habeas corpus and new trial?

HELD:
No. The most criterion for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, is that the
individual seeking such relief be illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or
placed under some form of illegal restraint. If an individual’s liberty is restrained via
some the legal process, the writ of habeas corpus is unavailing. In the recent case of
Feria v. CA, it was held that review of judgment of conviction is allowed in a petition
for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus only in a very specific instances, such as
when, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding, (a) there has been a deprivation of a
constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; (b) the court had no
jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or (c) an excessive penalty has been imposed, as
such sentence is void as to such excess. This court stated the general rule that the
writ of habeas corpus is not a writ of error, and should not be thus used.

A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted only if the
following requisites are met: (a) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) that
said evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trail even with the
exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative,
corroborative or impeaching; and (d) that the evidence is of such weight that, if
admitted, it would probably change the judgment.

Petitioner-relator’s claim that he was “unaware” of the existence of DNA testing until
the trial was concluded carries no weight with this court. Lack of knowledge of the
existence of DNA testing speaks of negligence, either on the part of petitioner, or on
the part of petitioner’s counsel. In either instance, however, this negligence is binding
upon petitioner.
PEOPLE V. GERRICO VALLEJO, G.R. NO 144656 (2002)
FACTS: On July 10, 1999 (Rosario, Cavite), at about 1pm, 9-year old Daisy Diolola
went to her neighbor’s house to seek help in an assignment. It was a Saturday.
Gerrico Vallejo, the neighbor, helped Daisy in her assignment.
1. At 5pm of the same day, Daisy’s mom noticed that her child wasn’t home yet.
She went to Vallejo’s house and Daisy wasn’t there. 7pm, still no word of
Daisy’s whereabouts. The next morning, Daisy’s body was found tied to a tree
near a river bank. Apparently, she was raped and thereafter strangled to death.
2. In the afternoon of July 11, the police went to Vallejo’s house to question the
latter as he was one of the last persons with the victim.
3. But prior to that, some neighbors have already told the police that Vallejo was
acting strangely during the afternoon of July 10.
4. The police requested for the clothes that Vallejo wore the day Daisy
disappeared. Vallejo complied and the clothes were submitted for processing.
5. The person who processed the clothing was Pet Byron Buan, a Forensic
Biologist of the NBI. At the instance of the local fiscal, he also took buccal
swabs (mouth/cheek swabs) from Vallejo and a vaginal swab from Daisy’s body
for DNA testing. Dr. Buan found that there were bloodstains in Vallejo’s
clothing – Blood Type A, similar to that of the victim, while Vallejo’s Blood Type
is O.
6. Buan also found that the vaginal swab from Daisy contained Vallejo’s DNA
profile.
7. Meanwhile, Vallejo already executed a sworn statement admitting the crime.
8. But when trial came, Vallejo insisted that the sworn statement was coerced;
that he was threatened by the cops; that the DNA samples should be
inadmissible because the body and the clothing of Daisy (including his clothing
– which in effect is an admission placing him in the crime scene – though not
discussed in the case) were already soaked in smirchy waters, hence
contaminated.
9. Vallejo was convicted and was sentenced to death by the trial court.

ISSUE: WON the DNA samples obtained from Vallejo’s clothes and those of the victim
are admissible as evidence

HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the findings of Buan(NBI forensic biologist)
are conclusive. The court reiterated that even though DNA evidence is merely
circumstantial, it can still convict the accused considering that it corroborates all
other circumstantial evidence gathered in this rape-slay case.

The Supreme Court also elucidated on the admissibility of DNA evidence in this case
and for the first time recognized its evidentiary value in the Philippines, thus

DNA is an organic substance found in a person's cells which contains his or her
genetic code. Except for identical twins, each person's DNA profile is distinct and
unique.

When a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene of the crime or from
the victim's body for the suspect's DNA. This is the evidence sample. The evidence
sample is then matched with the reference sample taken from the suspect and the
victim.

The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether an association exists between the
evidence sample and the reference sample. The samples collected are subjected to
various chemical processes to establish their profile. The test may yield three possible
results:
1) The samples are different and therefore must have originated from different
sources (exclusion). This conclusion is absolute and requires no further
analysis or discussion;
2) It is not possible to be sure, based on the results of the test, whether the
samples have similar DNA types (inconclusive). This might occur for a variety of
reasons including degradation, contamination, or failure of some aspect of the
protocol. Various parts of the analysis might then be repeated with the same or
a different sample, to obtain a more conclusive result; or
3) The samples are similar, and could have originated from the same source
(inclusion). In such a case, the samples are found to be similar, the analyst
proceeds to determine the statistical significance of the Similarity.

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider,
among others things, the following data: 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.

CAB: The bloodstains taken from the clothing of the victim and of accused-appellant,
the smears taken from the victim as well as the strands of hair and nails taken from
her tested negative for the presence of human DNA. According to Viloria-Magsipoc
(NBI forensic chemist), these specimens were soaked in smirchy water before they
were submitted to the laboratory. The state of the specimens prior to the DNA analysis
could have hampered the preservation of any DNA that could have been there before.
So when serological methods were done on these specimens, Buan could have taken
such portion or stains that were only amenable for serological method and were not
enough for DNA analysis already. So negative results were found on the clothing that
were submitted which were specimens.

The totality of the evidence points to no other conclusion than that Vallejo is guilty of
the crime charged. Evidence is weighed not counted. When facts or circumstances
which are proved are not only consistent with the guilt of the accused but also
inconsistent with his innocence, such evidence, in its weight and probative force, may
surpass direct evidence in its effect upon the court. This is how it is in this case.