Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In what cases is DNA testing used? paternity and filiation, recognition and support,
identification purposes i.e., rape
Upheld the constitutionality of compulsory DNA testing and rejected the contention that
it would infringe on the constitutional right against self-incrimination.
The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion. The
right against self-incrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of
the accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is
not an incrimination but as part of object evidence.
Sec. 4, RDE
A person who has a legal interest in the litigation may file an application for DNA testing
order before the appropriate court, at any time.
The order for DNA testing shall not, however, be issued as a matter of course and from the mere
fact that the person requesting for the testing has a legal interest in the litigation. For the order to
be issued, there must be a further showing that:
Evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence
or non-existence.
Sec. 4, Rule 128 - Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it
tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.
[R]elevance is a matter of relationship between the evidence and the fact in issue. The
determination of relevance is, thus, a matter of inference and not of law. The test is therefore,
one of logic, common sense, and experience.
There is no precise and universal test of relevancy provided by law. However, the
determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the discretion of
the court, which must be exercised according to the teachings of logic and everyday
experience.
Q: What is the purpose of the DNA test in this case? What does it prove?
- No, the issue is not paternity; the issue is whether or not Boy Lee committed
psychological violence against his wife.
Q: How is DNA testing of the accused and the children relevant to the resolution of
the criminal case for psychological violence in violation of R.A. 9262?
My Opinion/theory: Paternity is not the issue; it is not the ultimate fact to be proved.
The concept of relevance deals with the rational relationship between the evidence and
the fact to be proved.
In this case, the paternity and filiation between Juanito Lee and Christopher Dave Jorda
and Ivanhoe Jorda is not the focal issue. The fact in issue in this case is the commission
or non-comission of Juanito Lee of act or acts that would constitute psychological
violence under R.A. 9262.
It is the husbands infidelity that may cause mental or emotional suffering for his wife,
which may be considered psychological violence under RA 9262. The biological
relationship between the husband and the children of the alleged mistress is not the main
issue nor is it relevant to the determination of the commission of psychological violence.
(The wife does not know whether her husband fathered offspring with another woman.
Therefore, the fact of her husband being the father of the Jorda children could not have caused
her psychological distress.)
The present suit does not call for the determination of filiation of Christopher Dave Jorda
and Ivanhoe Jorda.
RA 9262
(a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts committed by
any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person
has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her
child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely
to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of
such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.xxx
C. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional
suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to
property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It includes
causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of
the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive
injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of
common children.
R.A. 9262 is a landmark legislation that defines and criminalizes acts of violence against women and
their children (VAWC) perpetrated by women's intimate partners, i.e, husband; former husband; or
any person who has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom the woman has a common
child. (Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013)
U.S. Case: In appropriate cases directing DNA test to be conducted, if it is required for proper
adjudication of the case, it cannot be said to be an intrusion into individual privacy.
Can a DNA Testing Order compel any person, even persons not impleaded in the case, to
undergo DNA test?
Sec. 5, RDE
If the court finds that the requirements in Sec. 4 have been complied with, the court shall:
a. Order, where appropriate, that biological samples be taken from any person or crime
scene evidence; (emphasis added) xxx
A court order for DNA testing should be considered a search which must be preceded by a
finding of probable cause in order to be valid. Xxxx
Thus, during the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie
evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.