People v. Umamito

Facts:

1.     Rufino Umamito, appellant was charged with the crime of rape

2.     Appellate Court Facts:

a.     It was around 9 in the evening of July 15, 1989, while on her way to her grandmother’s home, when private complainant [AAA] was accosted by a young male. It was only later when she learned the name of accused-appellant UMANITO.

b.     She recounted that UMANITO waited for her by the creek, and then with a knife pointed at [AAA]’s left side of the abdomen, he forced her to give in to his kisses, to his holding her breasts and stomach, and to his pulling her by the arm to be dragged to the Home Economics Building inside the premises of the Daramuangan Elementary School where UMANITO first undressed her [AAA] and himself with his right hand while he still clutched the knife menacingly on his left hand.

c.      Private complainant [AAA] recounted that she could not shout because she was afraid. She further recounted that UMANITO laid her down on a bench, set the knife down, then mounted her, inserting his penis into her [AAA’s] vagina and shortly thereafter, UMANITO dressed up and threatened [AAA] while poking the knife at her neck, not to report the incident to the police or else he said he would kill her.

d.     UMANITO then left, while the victim [AAA] went on to her grandmother’s house and she noticed that it was already around 1:00 o’clock in the morning when she reached there.

e.     6 months after the incident, [AAA’s] mother, noticed the prominence on [AAA]’s stomach. It was only then when the victim, [AAA], divulged to her mother the alleged rape and told her the details of what had happened After hearing [AAA]’s story, her mother brought her to the police station.

3.     UMAMITO’s version on the stand was different. Denying the accusations of AAA, he claimed that on 15 July 1989, he was home the whole day, helping his family complete rush work on picture frames ordered from Baguio. He did not step out of their house on the evening in question, he added. Concerning his relationship with AAA, appellant admitted that he had courted her but she spurned him. He conjectured, though, that AAA had a crush on him since she frequently visited him at his house.

4.     RTC: Guilty, reclusion perpetua; the court a quo held that the discrepancies in AAA’s testimony did not impair her credibility. Despite some inconsistencies in her statement, the RTC observed that AAA’s demeanor on the witness stand did not indicate any falsehood in her narration; rejected appellant’s defense of alibi, ruling that he did not prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime given the testimonies that he and complainant were residing in the same barrio.

5.     CA: Affirmed

6.     Appealed to SC

Contentions:

Umamito

 - seeks his acquittal on reasonable doubt by reason of the belated filing of the case against him and the questionable credibility of AAA with respect to her varying allegations.

-He avers that apparently AAA filed the complaint against him only upon the prodding of her mother. This aspect, appellant insists, negates AAA’s claim that he was the one who raped her but rather supports his assertion that the sexual congress AAA engaged in was with another man, her real lover who was married to another woman.

-highlights AAA’s contradictory declarations on when she met appellant and the nature of their relationship. He also alludes to AAA’s purportedly inconsistent statements on whether it was appellant or she herself, upon his orders, who took off her clothes. Finally, appellant points out the supposedly conflicting assertions of AAA on whether it was at the creek or in the school building that he kissed her face and other parts of her body.

Issue:

whether the prosecution has successfully met the level of proof needed to find appellant guilty of the crime of rape.

Held: No

Among the many incongruent assertions of the prosecution and the defense, the disharmony on a certain point stands out. Appellant, on one hand, testified that although he had courted AAA, they were not sweethearts. Therefore, this testimony largely discounts the possibility of consensual coitus between him and AAA. On the other, AAA made contradictory allegations at the preliminary investigation and on the witness stand with respect to the nature of her relationship with appellant. First, she claimed that she met appellant only on the day of the purported rape; later, she stated that they were actually friends; and still later, she admitted that they were close.

Amidst the slew of assertions and counter-assertions, a happenstance may provide the definitive key to the absolution of the appellant. This is the fact that AAA bore a child as a result of the purported rape. With the advance in genetics and the availability of new technology, it can now be determined with reasonable certainty whether appellant is the father of AAA’s child. If he is not, his acquittal may be ordained.

if it can be conclusively determined that the accused did not sire the alleged victim’s child, this may cast the shadow of reasonable doubt and allow his acquittal on this basis. If he is found not to be the father, the finding will at least weigh heavily in the ultimate decision in this case. Thus, we are directing appellant, AAA and AAA’s child to submit themselves to DNA testing.

DNA print or 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.

*Jurisprudence on DNA testing

Tijing v. CA- x x x Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless we adopt the modern and scientific ways available. Fortunately, we have now the facility and expertise in using DNA test for identification and parentage testing.

Herrera v. Alba - where the validity of a DNA test as a probative tool to determine filiation in our jurisdiction was put in issue, discussed DNA analysis as evidence and traced the development of its admissibility in our jurisdiction.

People v. 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.; 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.

Tecson v. Comelec - reiterated the acceptance of DNA testing in our jurisdiction in this wise: “[i]n case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to.”

It is obvious to the Court that the determination of whether appellant is the father of AAA’s child, which may be accomplished through DNA testing, is material to the fair and correct adjudication of the instant appeal. Under Section 4 of the Rules, the courts are authorized, after due hearing and notice, motu proprio to order a DNA testing. However, while this Court retains jurisdiction over the case at bar, capacitated as it is to receive and act on the matter in controversy, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not, in the course of daily routine, conduct hearings.

Hence, it would be more appropriate that the case be remanded to the RTC for reception of evidence in appropriate hearings, with due notice to the parties.

Section 4 of the Rules spells out the matters which the trial court must determine, thus:

Section 4 of the Rules spells out the matters which the trial court must determine, thus:

SEC. 4.Application for DNA Testing Order.–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.

The 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.

Given our earlier pronouncements on the relevance of the DNA testing, it would be unbecoming of the RTC to conclude otherwise, Section 4 (d) notwithstanding. The hearing should be confined to ascertaining the feasibility of DNA testing with due regard to the standards set in Section 4 (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Rules.

Should the RTC find the DNA testing feasible in the case at bar, it shall order the same, in conformity with Section 5 of the Rules.  It is also the RTC which shall determine the institution to undertake the DNA testing and the parties are free to manifest their comments on the choice of DNA testing center.

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. The RTC, in evaluating the DNA results upon presentation, shall assess the same as evidence in keeping with Sections 7 and 8 of the Rules, to wit:

SEC. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence. – In assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the court shall consider the following:

(a) The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples;

(b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests;

(c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputable standards-setting institution and the qualification of the

analyst who conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established; and

(d) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.

The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of evidence shall apply suppletorily.

SEC. 8. Reliability of DNA testing methodology.–In evaluating whether the DNA testing methodology is reliable, the court shall consider the following:

(a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested;

(b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods;

(c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific community;

(d) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the correctness of data gathered;

(e) The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and

(f) The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles and the significance and limitation of statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles.

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, the RTC shall 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.

Moreover, the court a quo must ensure that the proper chain of custody in the handling of the samples submitted by the parties is adequately borne in the records, i.e.: that the samples are collected by a neutral third party; that the tested parties are appropriately identified at their sample collection appointments; that the samples are protected with tamper tape at the collection site; that all persons in possession thereof at each stage of testing thoroughly inspected the samples for tampering and explained his role in the custody of the samples and the acts he performed in relation thereto.

In light of the fact that this case constitutes the first known application of the Rules, the Court is especially interested in monitoring the implementation thereof in this case, for its guidance and continuing evaluation of the Rules as implemented. For purposes of supervising the implementation the instant resolution, the Court designates Deputy Court Administrator Reuben Dela Cruz (DCA Dela Cruz) to: (a) monitor the manner in which the court a quo carries out the Rules; and (b) assess and submit periodic reports on said implementation to the Court. Towards the fulfillment of such end, the RTC is directed to cooperate and coordinate with DCA Dela Cruz.

A final note. In order to facilitate the execution of this Resolution, though the parties are primarily bound to bear the expenses for DNA testing, such costs may be advanced by this Court if needed.

WHEREFORE, the instant case is remanded to the RTC for reception of DNA evidence in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. The RTC is further directed to report to the Court the results of the proceedings below within sixty (60) days from receipt hereof.