G.R. No.

172607

October 26, 2007

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs.

RUFINO UMANITO, Appellant.
TINGA, J.:
On appeal is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated 15 February 2006, affirming the
Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union, Branch 67 dated 15
October 1997 finding Rufino Umanito (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering him
to indemnify the private complainant in the sum of P50,000.00.3
On 9 January 1990, appellant was charged with the crime of rape in a Criminal Complaint4
which reads:
That on or about 9:00 P.M. of July 15, 1989, at Brgy[.] Daramuangan, Municipality of
Naguilian, Province of La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused who was armed with a fan knife and by means of force
and threats, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeeded in having a
sexual intercourse to [sic] the undersigned who is unmarried woman of good reputation, a
woman who is over 12 but below 18 years old [sic] of age, to the damage and prejudice of
the offended party.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
It was only five (5) years later, or sometime in 1995, that appellant was arrested. It took
place when he went to the Municipal Hall of Naguilian to secure a police clearance.
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.
The appellate courts chronicle of the facts is as follows:
It was around 9:00 oclock in the evening of July 15, 1989, while on her way to her
grandmothers home, when private complainant [AAA]6 was accosted by a young male. It
was only
later when she learned the name of accused-appellant UMANITO. She recounted that
accused-appellant UMANITO waited for her by the creek, and then with a knife pointed at
[AAA]s left side of the [sic] 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
accused-appellant UMANITO first undressed her [AAA] and himself with his right hand while
he still clutched the knife menacingly on his left hand. Private complainant [AAA] recounted
that she could not shout because she was afraid. She further recounted that accusedappellant UMANITO laid her down on a bench, 4 meters long and 24 inches wide, set the
knife down, then mounted her, inserting his penis into her [AAAs] vagina and shortly
thereafter, accused-appellant 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.
Accused-appellant UMANITO then left, while the victim [AAA] went on to her grandmothers

house and she noticed that it was already around 1:00 oclock in the morning when she
reached there.
In January 1990, 6 months after the incident, private complainant [AAAs] mother, [BBB],7
noticed the prominence on [AAA]s stomach. It was only then when the victim, private
complainant [AAA], divulged to her mother the alleged rape and told her the details of what
had happened in July, [sic] 1989. After hearing private complainant [AAA]s story, her
mother brought her to the police station.8
Appellants 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.9 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.10
Finding that the prosecution had proven appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the RTC
rendered judgment against him and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and to indemnify AAA in the sum of P50,000.00.11 In so doing, the court a quo
held that the discrepancies in AAAs testimony did not impair her credibility. Despite some
inconsistencies in her statement, the RTC observed that AAAs demeanor on the witness
stand did not indicate any falsehood in her narration.12
The trial court likewise rejected appellants 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.13
Pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,14 appellants appeal before us was transferred to
the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. On 15 February 2006, the appellate court
affirmed the challenged decision. Finding AAA to be a credible witness, the Court of Appeals
agreed with the trial court that the inconsistencies in her statements were too trivial and
inconsequential to impair the credibility of her testimony.15
In this appeal, appellant 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.
Appellant asserts that the court a quo erred in giving full faith and credence to the
testimony of the complaining witness and in not acquitting him on reasonable doubt. He
avers that apparently AAA filed the complaint against him only upon the prodding of her
mother.16 This aspect, appellant insists, negates AAAs 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.17 Appellant further
puts in issue the long delay in AAAs filing of the complaint.18
Appellant capitalizes on the alleged serious inconsistencies in AAAs assertions, and further
characterizes her actions and contentions as incredible and unnatural.19 In particular,
appellant highlights AAAs contradictory declarations on when she met appellant and the
nature of their relationship. He also alludes to AAAs 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.
Once again, this Court is called upon to determine whether the prosecution has successfully
met the level of proof needed to find appellant guilty of the crime of rape.
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.20
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 AAAs child. If he is not, his acquittal may be ordained. We have pronounced that if
it can be conclusively determined that the accused did not sire the alleged victims child,
this may cast the shadow of reasonable doubt and allow his acquittal on this basis.21 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 AAAs child to submit themselves to
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing22 under the aegis of the New Rule on DNA Evidence23
(the Rules), which took effect on 15 October 2007, subject to guidelines prescribed herein.
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. For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of
both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can aid immensely in determining a more
accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty,
securing the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper administration of justice in
every case.24 Verily, as we pointed out in People v. Yatar,25 the process of obtaining such
vital evidence has become less arduous
The U.P. National Science Research Institute (NSRI), which conducted the DNA tests in this
case, used the Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification method by Short Tandem
Repeat (STR) analysis. With PCR testing, tiny amounts of a specific DNA sequence can be
copied exponentially within hours. Thus, getting sufficient DNA for analysis has become
much easier since it became possible to reliably amplify small samples using the PCR
method.26
The ground work for acknowledging the strong weight of DNA testing was first laid out in
Tijing v. Court of Appeals,27 where the Court said
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. The University of the Philippines

Natural Science Research Institute (UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the
capability to conduct DNA typing using short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. The analysis is
based on the fact that the DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies, one copy from the
mother and the other from the father. The DNA from the mother, the alleged father and
child are analyzed to establish parentage. Of course, being a novel scientific technique, the
use of DNA test as evidence is still open to challenge. Eventually, as the appropriate case
comes, courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was
said, that courts should apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid of
situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny progress. Though it is not
necessary in this case to resort to DNA testing, in future it would be useful to all concerned
in the prompt resolution of parentage and identity issues.28
The leading case of Herrera v. Alba,29 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. Thus:
DNA is the fundamental building block of a persons entire genetic make-up. DNA is found in
all human cells and is the same in every cell of the same person. Genetic identity is unique.
Hence, a persons DNA profile can determine his identity.
DNA analysis is a procedure in which DNA extracted from a biological sample obtained from
an individual is examined. The DNA is processed to generate a pattern, or a DNA profile, for
the individual from whom the sample is taken. This DNA profile is unique for each person,
except for identical twins. We quote relevant portions of the trial courts 3 February 2000
Order with approval:
Everyone is born with a distinct genetic blueprint called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). It is
exclusive to an individual (except in the rare occurrence of identical twins that share a
single, fertilized egg), and DNA is unchanging throughout life. Being a component of every
cell in the human body, the DNA of an individuals blood is the very DNA in his or her skin
cells, hair follicles, muscles, semen, samples from buccal swabs, saliva, or other body parts.
The chemical structure of DNA has four bases. They are known as A (adenine), G (guanine),
C (cystosine) and T (thymine). The order in which the four bases appear in an individuals
DNA determines his or her physical makeup. And since DNA is a double-stranded molecule,
it is composed of two specific paired bases, A-T or T-A and G-C or C-G. These are called
"genes."
Every gene has a certain number of the above base pairs distributed in a particular
sequence. This gives a person his or her genetic code. Somewhere in the DNA framework,
nonetheless, are sections that differ. They are known as "polymorphic loci," which are the
areas analyzed in DNA typing (profiling, tests, fingerprinting, or analysis/DNA
fingerprinting/genetic tests or fingerprinting). In other words, DNA typing simply means
determining the "polymorphic loci."
How is DNA typing performed? From a DNA sample obtained or extracted, a molecular
biologist may proceed to analyze it in several ways. There are five (5) techniques to conduct
DNA typing. They are: the RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism); "reverse dot
blot" or HLA DQ a/Pm loci which was used in 287 cases that were admitted as evidence by

37 courts in the U.S. as of November 1994; mtDNA process; VNTR (variable number tandem
repeats); and the most recent which is known as the PCR-([polymerase] chain reaction)
based STR (short tandem repeats) method which, as of 1996, was availed of by most
forensic laboratories in the world. PCR is the process of replicating or copying DNA in an
evidence sample a million times through repeated cycling of a reaction involving the socalled DNA polymerize enzyme. STR, on the other hand, takes measurements in 13
separate places and can match two (2) samples with a reported theoretical error rate of less
than one (1) in a trillion.
Just like in fingerprint analysis, in DNA typing, "matches" are determined. To illustrate, when
DNA or fingerprint tests are done to identify a suspect in a criminal case, the evidence
collected from the crime scene is compared with the "known" print. If a substantial amount
of the identifying features are the same, the DNA or fingerprint is deemed to be a match.
But then, even if only one feature of the DNA or fingerprint is different, it is deemed not to
have come from the suspect.
As earlier stated, certain regions of human DNA show variations between people. In each of
these regions, a person possesses two genetic types called "allele," one inherited from each
parent. 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 childs DNA was inherited
from the mother. The other half must have been inherited from the biological father. The
alleged fathers 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 mans 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 (Emphasis in the original).
xxxx
The 2002 case of People v. Vallejo discussed DNA analysis as evidence. This may be
considered a 180 degree turn from the Courts wary attitude towards DNA testing in the
1997 Pe Lim case, where we stated that "DNA, being a relatively new science, x x x 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 accuseds DNA profile. We affirmed
the accuseds conviction of rape with homicide and sentenced him to death.
xxxx
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.
In 2004, there were two other cases that had a significant impact on jurisprudence on DNA
testing: People v. Yatar and In re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa. In 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 Vallejos
footsteps, affirmed the conviction of appellant because the physical evidence, corroborated
by circumstantial evidence, showed appellant guilty of rape with homicide. In 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 victims child does not
preclude the convict-petitioners commission of rape.30
The 2004 case of Tecson v. Commission on Elections31 likewise 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."32
It is obvious to the Court that the determination of whether appellant is the father of AAAs
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.33 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.
What should be the proper scope of such hearings? 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.34
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.35 It is also the RTC which shall determine the
institution36 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.
The trial court is further enjoined to observe the requirements of confidentiality and
preservation of the DNA evidence in accordance with Sections 1137 and 1238 of the Rules.

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.39
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.
SO ORDERED.