Herrera v. Alba

Facts:

1.     then 13 yr old Rosendo Alba (“respondent”), represented by his mother Armi Alba, filed before the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition, support and damages against petitioner.

2.     Petitioner filed his answer with counterclaim where he denied that he is the biological father of respondent. Petitioner also denied physical contact with respondent’s mother.

3.     Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings.

a.     To support the motion, respondent presented the testimony of Saturnina C. Halos, Ph.D.; In her testimony, Dr. Halos described the process for DNA paternity testing and asserted that the test had an accuracy rate of 99.9999% in establishing paternity.

4.     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.

5.     RTC: granted respondent’s motion to conduct DNA paternity testing

6.     Petitioner filed a MR and asserted that “under the present circumstances, the DNA test [he] is compelled to take would be inconclusive, irrelevant and the coercive process to obtain the requisite specimen..., unconstitutional.”- DENIED

7.     Petitioner filed before the appellate court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 He asserted that the trial court rendered the Orders“in excess of, or without jurisdiction and/or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.” Petitioner further contended that there is “no appeal nor any [other] plain, adequateand speedy remedy in the ordinary course of law.

8.     CA: Denied petition; Affirmed RTC; stated that petitioner merely desires to correct the trial court’s evaluation of evidence. Thus, appeal is an available remedy for an error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The appellate court also stated that the proposed DNA paternity testing does not violate his right against self-incrimination because the right applies only to testimonial compulsion. Finally, the appellate court pointed out that petitioner can still refute a possible adverse result of the DNA paternity testing.

9.     Petitioner further submits that the appellate court gravely abused its discretion when it authorized the trial court “to embark in [sic] a new procedure xxx to determine filiation despite the absence of legislation to ensure its reliability and integrity, want of official recognition as made clear in Lim vs. Court of Appeals and the presence of technical and legal constraints in respect of [sic] its implementation.” Petitioner maintains that the proposed DNA paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination.

Issue:

whether a DNA test is a valid probative tool in this jurisdiction to determine filiation or whether DNA analysis may be admitted as evidence to prove paternity.

Held:   Yes

Admissibility of DNA Analysis as Evidence

People v. Vallejo- “DNA, being a relatively new science, xxx 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. We declared:

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among other 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.

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.

People v. 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 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 re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo 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 convict-petitioner and the DNA profile of the victim’s child does not preclude the convict-petitioner’s commission of rape.

In the present case, the various pleadings filed by petitioner and respondent refer to two United States cases to support their respective positions on the admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence:

Frye v. US - Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

*State v. Shwartz - modified Frye standard ; While we agree with the trial court that forensic DNA typing has gained general acceptance in the scientific community, we hold that admissibility of specific test results in a particular case hinges on the laboratory’s compliance with appropriate standards and controls, and the availability of their testing data and results.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. - cautions that departure from the Frye standard of general acceptance does not mean that the Federal Rules do not place limits on the admissibility of scientific evidence. Rather, the judge must ensure that the testimony’s reasoning or method is scientifically valid and is relevant to the issue. Admissibility would depend on factors such as (1) whether the theory or technique can be or has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique’s operation; and (5) whether the theory or technique is generally accepted in the scientific community.

*Kumho Tires Co. v. Carmichael, further modified the Daubert standard- If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

Obviously, neither the Frye- Schwartz standard nor the Daubert-Kumho standard is controlling in the Philippines. At best, American jurisprudence merely has a persuasive effect on our decisions. Here, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not otherwise excluded by statute or the Rules of Court. Evidence is relevant when it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Section 49 of Rule 130, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, provides as follows:

The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess may be received in evidence.

This Rule does not pose any legal obstacle to the admissibility of DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed, even evidence on collateral matters is allowed “when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.”

Indeed, it would have been convenient to merely refer petitioner to our decisions in Tijing, Vallejo and Yatar to illustrate that DNA analysis is admissible as evidence. In our jurisdiction, the restrictive tests for admissibility established by Frye-Schwartz and Daubert-Kumho go into the weight of the evidence.

Probative Value of DNA Analysis as Evidence

Despite our relatively liberal rules on admissibility, trial courts should be cautious in giving credence to DNA analysis as evidence. We reiterate our statement in Vallejo:

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among other 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.

We also repeat the trial court’s explanation of DNA analysis used in paternity cases:

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.

It is not enough to state that the child’s DNA profile matches that of the putative father. A complete match between the DNA profile of the child and the DNA profile of the putative father does not necessarily establish paternity. For this reason, following the highest standard adopted in an American jurisdiction, trial courts should require at least 99.9% as a minimum value of the Probability of Paternity (“W”) prior to a paternity inclusion. W is a numerical estimate for the likelihood of paternity of a putative father compared to the probability of a random match of two unrelated individuals. An appropriate reference population database, such as the Philippine population database, is required to compute for W. Due to the probabilistic nature of paternity inclusions, W will never equal to 100%. However, the accuracy of W estimates is higher when the putative father, mother and child are subjected to DNA analysis compared to those conducted between the putative father and child alone.

DNA analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity should be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of W is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA analysis should be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of W is 99.9% or higher, then there is refutable presumption of paternity. This refutable presumption of paternity should be subjected to the Vallejo standards.

Right Against Self-Incrimination

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 underduress.

 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; the substance emitting from the body of the accused was received as evidence for acts of lasciviousness; morphine forced out of the mouth was received as proof; an order by the judge for the witness to put on pair of pants for size was allowed; and the court can compel a woman accused of adultery to submit for pregnancy test, since the gist of the privilege is the restriction on “testimonial compulsion.

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.