COMMITTEE ON.

THE REVISION OF THE RULES OF COURT

Chairperson CHIEF JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNo

Co-Chairperson JUSTICE MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ

3L\epubHcof tbe ~bilippines

Members
SENIOR JUSTICE LEONARDOA. QUISUMBING JUSTICE ADOLFO S. AzCUNA JUSTICE DANTE O. TINGA JUSTICE MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO JUSTICE ANTONIO EDUARDOB. NACHURA Consultants JUSTICE JOSE Y. FERIA (RET.) SENIOR JUSTICE FLERIDA RUTH P. ROMERO (RET.) SENIOR JUSTICE JOSUE N. BELLOSILLO(RET.) JUSTICE JOSE C. VrroG (RET.) JUSTICE BERNARDOP. PARDO (RET.) JUSTICE ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. (RET.) CA JUSTICE OSCAR M. HERRERA (RET.) Assisted by ATTY. FELIPEENRIQUEM. GOZON,JR. ATTY. Tu}:OBEN JERDANC. OROSA Secretary ATTY. DOUGLAS ANAMA F.
Asst. Secretary Ms. LIDA A. PILAPIL

~upreme QCourt fflanila

A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC

RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE

,

EFFECTIVEOCTOBER 15, 2007

MANILA, PHILIPPINES OCTOBER 2007

. ,

3l\epublitof tbe ~bilippines

~upreme

QCourt

:ilManila

EN BANe A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC RULE ON DNA EV):DENCE

RESOLUTION
Acting on the recommendation of the Chairperson and Members of the Subcommittee on Eviq.ence submitting for this Court's consideration and approval the p~oposed Rule on DNA Evidence, the

Court Resolvedto APPROVE the same.

'.

This Resolution .shall take effect on October 15, 2007 following its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. October 2, 2007.

'J

~rz,f\e

REYNATO'S. PUNO Chief. Justice

LEONARDO A, Q~BING Associate Justice

~~

CONSu!;:;;::RES-SANTIl:O
Associate Justice

.~

)a?:r/'~

~~
... .

AN~LINASANDOVAL.GUTIF)RREZ Associate Justice

c::::zz: u ANTONIO{~
Associate Justice
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice

SUB-COMMITTEE ON RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE

Chairperson:

Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (ret.)

Vice-Chairperson: Hon. RegaladoE. Maambong

A. ALICIAA USTRIA-MA Associate Justice

Members:

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice

Hon. Lucas P. Bersamin Hon. DiosdadoM. Peralta Hon. Raul B. Villanueva Hon. AloysiusC. Alday(ret.) Atty. RogelioA. Vinluan Atty. Francisco Ed. Lim Atty. Jose C. Sison Justice Bernardo P. Pardo (ret.) Justice Oscar M. Herrera, Sr. (ret.) Atty. Patricia-AnnT. Prodigalidad Atty. Zharone Fritz Japson-Ferreras Lida A. Pilapil

j'J

i,~.

MINITAV.CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice

U,I~~

Consultants:

ResourcePerson:'
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice

Secretary:
PRESBITE,O J. VELASCO,JR. sociate Justice

I
-

Asst. Secretary:

o EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice

RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice

RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE

SECTION. . Scope.- This Rule shall apply whenever DNA 1 evidence, as definedin Section3 hereof, is offered, used, or proposed to be offered or used as evidence in all criminal and civil actions as . well as special proceedings. SEC.2. Applicationof other Rules on Evidence.- In all matters not specificallycovered by this Rule, the Rules of Court and other pertinent provisionsof law on evidence shall apply. SEC.3. Definitionof Tenns.- For purposes of this Rule, the following terms shall be defined as follows: (a)
Rationale. .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ., . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 11

Table of Contents
Rule 5

"Biological sample" means any organic material originating from a person's body, even if found in inanimateobjects, that is susceptibleto DNA testing. This includes blood, saliva and other body fluids, tissues, hairs and bones;

(b) "DNA" means deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the chain of molecules found in every nucleated cell of thebody. The totalityof an individual'sDNA is unique for the individual, except identical twins; (c) "DNA evidence" constitutes the totality of the DNA profiles,resultsand other genetic informationdirectly generated from DNA testing of biological samples; (d) "DNA profile" means genetic information derived from DNA testing of a biological sample obtained from a person, which biological sample is clearly identifiableas originating from that person; (e) "DNA testing" means verified and credible scientific methods which include the extraction of DNA from biological samples, the generation of DNA profiles and the comparisonof the information obtained from

the DNA testing of biological samples for the purpose of determining, with reasonable certainty, whether or not the DNA obtained from two or more distinct biological samples originates from the same person (direct identification) or if the biological samples originate from related persons (kinship analysis); and (f) "Probability of Parentage" means the numerical estimate for the likelihood of parentage of a putative parent compared with the probability of a random match of two unrelated individuals in a given population.

(a) Order, where appropriate, that biological samples be taken from any person or crime scene evidence; (b) Imposereasonableconditions on DNA testingdesigned to protect the integrity of the biological sample, the testing process and the reliability of the test results, includingthe condition that the DNA test results shall be simultaneouslydisclosed to parties involved in the case; and (c) If the biological sample taken is of such an al,TIount that prevents the conduct of confirmatory testing by the other or the adverse party and where additional biological samples of the same kind can no longer be obtained, issue an order requiring all parties to the case or proceedings to wimess the DNA testing to be conducted. An ordergrantingthe DNA testing shall be immediatelyexecutory and shall not be appealable. Any petition for certiorari initiated therefrom shall not, in any way, stay the implementation thereof, unless a higher court issues an injunctive order. The grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained as a result thereof. SEc.6. Post-conviction DNA Testing.- Post-conviction DNA testing may be available, without need of prior court order, to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that (a) a biological sample exists, (b) such sample is relevant to the case, and (c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or modificationof the judgment of conviction. 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) TheDNA testingmethodology, includingtheprocedure followedin analyzing the samples, the advantages and

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 hi 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 scientificpotential to produce new informationthat 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 preclu~e a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at the behest of any party, including lawenforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced. SEC. 5. DNA Testing Order.- If the court finds that the requirements in Section 4 hereof have been complied with, the court shall :

A.lVI. NO. Ub-U-:H~C

(c)

disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with ~e scientificallyvalid standards in conducting the tests; 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 The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.

(b) The results of the DNA testing in the light of the totality of the other eyidence presented in the case;
,

and that (c) DNA results that exclude the putative parent from paternity shall be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of th~ Probability of Paternity is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA testing shall be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher? there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity., SEC. 10. Post-conviction DNA Testing. Remedy if the Results are Favorable to the Convict.- The convict or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin if the results of the post-conviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict. In case the court, after due hearing, finds the petition to be meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict, unless continued detention is justified for a lawful cause.
-t+

(d)

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; The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or methods; The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant scientific community; The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure the correctness of data generated; The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and 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.

(b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any member of said courts, which may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders. SEC. II. Confidentiality.- DNA profiles and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall be confidential. Except upon order of the court, a DNA profile and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall only be released to any of the following, under such terms and conditions as may be set forth by the court: (a) Person from whom the sample was taken;

, SEC. 9. Evaluation of DNA Testing Results.- In evaluating the results of DNA testing, the court shall consider the following: (a) The evaluation of the weight of matching DNA evidence or the relevance of mismatching DNA evidence;

(b). Lawyers representing parties in the case or action where the DNA evidence is offered and presented or sought to be offered and presented; (c) (d) (e) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action; Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and Other persons as determined by the court.

10

Rule on DNA Evidence

Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any information concerning a DNA profile without the proper court order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the court"wherein such DNA evidence was offered, presented or sought to be offered and presented. Where the person from whom the biological sample was taken files a written verified request to the court that allowed the DNA testing for the disclosure of the DNA profile of the person and all results or other information obtained from the DNA testing, the same may be disclosed to the persons named in the written verified request. SEC. 12. Preservation of DNA Evidence.- The trial court shall preserve the DNA evidence in its totality, including all biological samples, DNA profiles and results or other genetic information obtained from DNA testing. For this purpose, the court may order the appropriate government agency to preserve the DNA evidence as follows: (a) In criminal cases: i. for not less than the period of time that any person is under trial for an offense; or, ii. in case the accused is serving sentence, until such time as the accused has served his sentence; In all other cases, until such time as the decision in the case where the DNA evidence was introduced has

RATIONALE OF THE RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE

The first time the Supreme Court acknowledged the admissibility of DNA evidence was in People of the Philippines v. Gerrico Vallejo y Samartino alias Puke1("Vallejo"). Aside from formally and finally recognizingDNA evidence injurisprudence, the High Court in.Vallejo likewise laid down the standards to be considered in assessing its probative value. While acknowledging that DNA forensic analysis,if properly utilized by the Bench and Bar, can contribute significantly in helping to resolve many disputes and assist the courts in the delivery of justice, the Supreme Court is likewise aware that the indiscriminate and wholesale acceptance of DNA evidence, which is inherently influential and compelling, can r~sult in even grav.er injustice.
+

and (b)

become final and executory. The court may allow the physical destructionof a biological sample before the expiratioJ1 f the periodsset forthabove, provided o that:
(a) (b) A court order to that effect has been secured; or The person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in writing to the disposal of the DNA evidence.

As gatekeepers of evidence2 and, more importantly, as factfinders and initial decision-makers in the Philippine legal system, trial judges are tasked with ascertainingthe admissibilityof expert evidence, including testimony on DNA test results and, thereafter,' assessing their credibility. In performing these tasks, trial judges should not only be aware of the underlying technology of DN~ evidence and its real significance but, more importantly, should be given prescribed parameters on the requisite elements for reliability and validity (Le., the proper procedures, protocols, necessary laboratory reports, etc.), the possible sources of error, the available objections to the admission of DNA test results as evidence as well as the probative value of DNA evidence. On the part of the members of the Bar, their primary task is to protect the interests and welfare of their clients within the' bounds of the law. To successfully perform this task, it is essential that the
I

SEC. 13. Applicability to Pending Cases.- Except as provided in Sections 6 and 10 hereof, this Rule shall apply to cases pending at the time of its effectivity. SEC. 14. Effectivity.- This Rule shall take effect on October 15, 2007. followinl! Dublication in a ne\vspaper of general circulation.

G.R. No. 144656,May 9, 2002.

2 RULES OFCOURT,Rule 132, Sec. 38 provides that courts are tasked to rule on the::admissibility of proffered evidence.

II

---

--

------

12

Rule on DNA Evidence

A.M. No. 06-11-S-SC

13

members of the legal profession are well-informed of the processes and procedures relative to the introduction and presentation of DNA evidence and, more importantly, are given proper grounds for objecting to, andlor assailing the credibility of,' DNA evidence, a piece of evidence that is commonly mistaken as infallible. Indeed, it is only when the party litigants and their counsel are well-informed and .sufficiently armed with statutory guidance that the adversarial system may weed out "junk science." from the evidence on record.
. ...

the use of DNA evidence in crime scene investigations as well as paternity testing in all areas of the globe - the United States, most countries in Europe, in Asia, and now after more than 20 years since its discovery - in the Philippin.es. ' . LEGAL HISTORY OF DNA EVIDENCE IN THE PHILIPPINES Sometime in the second quarter of 2003, the Supreme Court, through its Second Division, cQmplainedthat it only had "uncertain testimonies to rely on" in reviewing the conviction of the accused for robbery with rape and exclaimed its wish that ithad "DNA or other scientificevidence... to still [its] doubts!"3 A move towards a more "scientific" approach -, a reliance on "scientific evidence," particularly DNA profiling - in criminal prosecutionshas been instigated, perhaps not surprisingly, by members of the forensic science community. Inspired by the advances in DNA technology in other nations and hoping that the Philippine criminal justice system would finally abreast wi~ more developed countries in terms of forensic science, defenders of convicted sexual offenders in the Philippinessought to secure post-convictionDNA testing. Initially, the DNA movement met some resistance. In 2002, DNA evidence was finally recognized as a formal part of Philippine criminal jurisprudence in the rape case, Vallejo. Finally, the era of DNA evidence has seen its dawn in the Philippines. Vallejo is' the first (published) case in which a Philippine trial court actually relied upon DNA' evidence as one circumstantial evidence to convict the accused of rape and sentence him to death. On appeal, the accused raised several errors in his conviction only one
of which pertained to the use of the DNA evidence

The Rule on DNA Evidenceis intendedto be the guide to both

the Bench imd the Bar for the introduction and use of DNA evidence iri the judicial system. Being a relatively new technology, guidance is necessary to ensure that the evidence gathered using various methods of DNA analysis is utilized effectively and properly, shall not be misused andlor abused and, more importantly, shall continue to ensure that DNA analysis serves justice and protects, rather than prejudices, the public." . HISTORY OF DNA PROFILING

blockor geneticblueprintof life - was first characterized by scientists

F:rancis H.C.. ,Cr.ickand James D. Watson as the material that makes .:upthe .genetic code of all organisms,'without exception. In doing so, Crick and Watson were ~ompletely unawal,"eof the potential impact their ~iscovery woul~,have on forensic science in particular and the .criminal justice ,system as a whole. Resting on the established natural . truth that ,no two individuals have the same DNA blueprint, with the
.

More than fifty years ago, in 1953, DNA

- the so-caUed building

.~xceptionof conceived.. DNA typingor "profiling," as it is now identicaitwins, called, was

~

I.

DNA "fingerprinting," as it was then called, was first proposed

_

that the

in 1984by an Englishgeneticist,Alec J. Jeffreys,and thereafter

, .,direc'tly used in a rape and murder case to exonerate an innocent ..suspect and to convict the guilty accused. One year later, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in DNA analysis was discovered. This discovery revolutionalized the field of molecular biology and pushed forensic science to advance in leaps and bounds. Since then, human identity testing using various DNA typing methods has become widespread. The past two decades have seen tremendous growth in

"prosecution failed to show that all the samples submitted for DNA testing were not contaminated, considering that these specimens were alreadysoakedin smirchy(sic) watersbeforetheywere submittedto the laboratory."4 In rejecting the accused's argument regarding the
/

3 Peopleof the Philippines v. Joel Jansonand Ricky Pinantoa alias "OGCO, "
.

G.R. No. 125938,April 4, 2003.

4 People of the Philippines v. Gerrico Vallejoy Samartfno alias Puke, G.R. No. 1446~6. May 9, 2002.

14

Rule on DNA Evidence

A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests."

15

DNA examination and admitting the DNA evidence, the Supreme Court held: "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 sceneof 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 fallowed in analyzing the samples,

In 2004, following the footsteps of Vallejo, the Supreme Court, in People of the Philippines v. Joel Yatal.5("Yatar") declared, in no uncertain terms, that "[f]or purposes of criminal investigation,DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence." In the same breath, however, the High Court explained, "We are just beginning to integrate lhese advances in science and technology in the Philippine criminal justice system, so we must be cautious as we traverse these relatively uncharted waters." Applying the persuasive jurisprudence from the American jurisdiction, the Supreme Court in Yatarruled that the "DNA evidenceobtainedthrough PCR testing and utilizing STR analysis ... is relevant and reliable since.it is reasonablybased on scientifically valid principles of human genetics and molecular biology" and, consequently, under Philippine law, admissible as corroborative evidence. DNA evidence and the resulting DNA identification have also found use in paternity and filiation cases decided by the High Court, namely, Arnel L. Agustin v. Court of Appeals, et al.6 and Rosendo Herrera v. Rosendo Alba7 ("Herrera"), both decided in the wake of Vallejo and Yatar. Significantly, it is in these cases where the admissibility of DNA evidence, as distinguished from probativevalue, has been specificailyraised. In Herrera, the parties extensivelydebated the applicabilityof two distinct, if not disparate, US case doctrines relative to the admissibility of DNA evidence. In resolving the conflicting legal positions advanced, the Supreme Court decreed: "We now determine the applicabilityin thisjurisdiction of these American cases. Obviously, neither the FryeSchwartz 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
G.R. No. 150224, May 19, 2004. (, G.R. No. 162571. June 15, 2005. G.R. No. 1482:!0. June 15. 2005.

16

Rule on DNA Evidence 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. o the admissibility t of DNA analysis as evidence. Indeed, even evidence on collateral matters is allowed "when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the p.robability 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 Oaubert-Kumho go into the weight of the evidence."

A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC

17

SALIENT FEATURES OF THE RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE

Secrlarts J and 2

The Rule on DNA Evidence does not adopt a specific rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. Accordingly, the general rules of evidence in the Rules of Court remain applicable in the determination of the admissibility of DNA evidence. Otherwise stated, for DNA evidence to'be admissible, the only requirement is that it be relevant to the fact in issue and not excluded by law or the Rules of Court. [Rule 128, Sec. 3] Section 4 1. A DNA Testing Order may be issued by a court motu proprio and/or upon application by a party interested in the litigation, after due hearing. Whenever DNA testing has been previously conducted on the same biological sample, such an application will not be granted and/or a DNA Testing Order will not be issued unless the subsequent DNA testing is to confirm results already obtained, and such confirmation is sought "for good reasons." Otherwise stated, confirmatory DNA testing is not a ~atter of right. DNA testingmay be had at the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding is commenced. Thus, law enforcement agencies, in the course of their investigations of a crime, may have DNA testing without any court order.

2.
+

Accompanying this categorical declaration that DNA evidence is admissible whenever relevant, however, was the High Court's reiteration of its previous warning in Yatar: "Despite our relatively liberal rules on admissibility, trial courts should be cautious in giving credence to DNA analysis as evidence." On November 3, 2006, the Hon. Ameurfina A. Melencio Herrera, Chancellor of the .Philippine Judicial Academy, transmitted to the Supreme Court the "Rule on Admissibility and Evaluation of DNA Evidence" for the consideration and approval of the Court. On Npvember 23, 2006, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, who was then Senior Associate Justice and Chairman of the Supreme Court Committee on the Revision of the Rules of Court endorsed the proposed rule to the Sub-Committee on Evidence for study and recommendation. On July 20, 2007, the Sub-Committee submitted to the Supreme Court the "Rule on DNA Evidence," which the Sub-Committee revised and submitted to the Court on October I, 2007,

3.

Section 5 1. The Rule on DNA Evidence takes into accountthe possibility that the biological sample obtained may be insufficient for more than one DNA testing and provides for a process to afford the protection and due process necessary. A DNA Testing Order is immediately executory and not appealable, Moreover, in the absence of an injunctiveorder

2.

18

Rule on DNA Evidence from a higher court, a DNA Testing Order is not stayed by certiorari proceedings instituted to nullify it.

A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC

Sections JJ and J 2

19

Section 6 Post-Conviction DNA Testing is available, without need of prior court order, to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that "(a) a biological sample exists, (b) such sample is relevant to the case, and (c) the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction. " Section 10 If the results of the post-conviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict, the remedy of such convict is to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin. In case the court, after due hearing, finds the petition to be meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict. The section contemplates a situation in which the convict has been convicted of a crime and, on the basis of the post-conviction DNA testing, is found to be innocent. In this case, thejudgment of convictionis reversed and the convict is released from detention, unless he is serving sentence for another crime. The section likewise contemplates a situation in which the convict has been convicted, alone or with other convicts, of a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, such as forcible abduction with rape; or a special complex crime, such as robbery with homicide or robbery with rape. If, based on the results of the post-conviction DNA testing, the court finds that the convict was erroneously convicted of rape or homicide, the court may modify the judgment of convictioI}by acquitting the convict of rape or homicide and maintaining the judgment of conviction for robbery. The court may order the continued detention of the convict if he had not yet served the sentence for robbery. A similar petition may be filed either in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, or with any member of said courts, who may conduct a hearing thereon or remand the petition to the court of origin and issue the appropriate orders.

DNA evid'ence(including the DNA profile and other information gathered from DNA testing) is declared confidential. The court is mandated to preserve the DNA evidence in its totality, including all biological samples, DNA profiles, and results or other genetic information obtained from DNA testing. However, tlie court is not precluded from ordering the appropriate government agency to preserve the DNA evidence. The court may also allow the physical destruction of a biologi~al~amplebefore the expiration of the periods set forth, provided that the two conditions mentionedin Section 12 are complied with.
Section J3

The Rule on DNA Evidence is specifically made applicable to cases that are pending as of the time of its effectivity including cases pending appeal. However, the right to apply for post-conviction DNA Testing, as provided by Sections 6 and 10, is available to all accused, includingthose convicted by final and executoryjudgments at the time of the effectivity of this Rule.

----

---