Tijing vs. CA, 354 SCRA 17; GR No.

125901, March
8, 2001
Posted by Pius Morados on April 29, 2012

(Special Proceedings Habeas Adoption: Custody of a minor)

Facts: Petitioners filed a petition for habeas corpus in order to recover their son from respondent and presented witnesses to
substantiate their petition. Respondent claimed on the other hand that she is the natural mother of the child.
The trial court held in favor of the petitioners and granted the petition for habeas corpus. On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the
decision rendered by the trial court. The appellate court expressed its doubts on the propriety of the habeas corpus.

Issue: WON habeas corpus is the proper remedy to regain custody of a minor.
Held: Yes. The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his
liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. The writ of habeas corpus is the
proper legal remedy to enable parents to regain the custody of a minor child even if the latter be in the custody of a third person of his
own free will.

People v. Umanito
People v. Rufino Umanito
26 Oct 2007 / Tinga / Appeal from a CA decision
Search and seizure > Nature, scope and definition > Types > With a search warrant > Things that may be seized > Rules on DNA
evidence [AM No. 06-11-5-SC (2007)]
FACTS
Around 9PM, private complainant AAA was accosted by a young male (whom she later knew as Umanito). He waited for her by the
creek, and he pointed as knife at her abdomen. He dragged her into the Home Economics Building of Daramuangan Elementary
School. He undressed her while still holding the knife. He set her down on a bench, put down the knife, and had sex with her. He
dressed up and threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. Six months later, AAA s mother noticed the prominence on her
stomach, and it was then that she divulged to her mother the alleged rape. Her mother brought her to the police station. (Umanito s
alibi: He was at home all day. Re: AAA, he admitted that he courted her but she spurned him. He conjectured that she had a crush on
him since she frequently visited him.)
RTC rendered judgment against Umanito and sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua. Umanito s appeal was transferred to
the CA for intermediate review (as per Mateo ruling), and CA affirmed RTC. Umanito seeks acquittal on reasonable doubt, with the
belated filing of the case and AAA s questionable credibility as grounds. He also said that AAA filed the complaint only upon her
mother s insistence; this supports his claim that AAA had sex with another (a married man). Also, he claimed that there were several
inconsistencies in her assertions.
CASE IS REMANDED TO THE RTC FOR RECEPTION OF DNA EVIDENCE
RATIO
The fact that AAA bore a child because of the purported rape may provide the definitive key to Umanito s absolution, since it can now
be determined with reasonable certainty WON he is the father of her child. AAA and her child are directed to submit themselves to DNA
testing under the aegis of the New Rule on DNA Evidence (AM No. 06-11-5-SC) which took effect on 15 Oct 2007 (a few days before
promulgation of this case).
DNA print / 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. The groundwork for acknowledging the strong weight of DNA testing
was first laid out in Tijing v. CA . Herrera v. Alba discussed DNA analysis as evidence and traced the development of its admissibility in
our jurisdiction. Tecson v. COMELEC said that in case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to establish, DNA testing could be
resorted to.
The determination of WON Umanito is the father (through DNA testing) is material to the fair and correct adjudication of his
appeal. Under Sec. 4 of AM No. 06-11-5-SC, the courts are authorized, after due hearing and notice, motu proprio to order a
DNA testing. However, since SC is not a trier of facts, it would be more appropriate that the case be remanded to RTC for reception of
evidence.
The hearing should be confined to ascertaining the feasibility of DNA testing with due regard to the standards set. RTC should order the
DNA testing if it finds it to be feasible in this case. RTC shall determine the institution to undertake the testing, and the parties are free
to manifest their comments on the choice. 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, which shall be assessed by RTC in keeping with Sections 7
(Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence) and 8 (Reliability of DNA testing methodology). RTC is also enjoined to observe
confidentiality and preservation of DNA evidence.
To facilitate the execution of this resolution, although the parties are primarily bound to bear the expenses for DNA testing, such
costs may be advanced by SC if needed.
 Rosendo Herrera vs Rosendo Alba
Remedial Law Evidence Object Evidence Daubert Test DNA Evidence Vallejo Guidelines
In May 1998, Armi Alba, mother of minor Rosendo Alba filed a suit against Rosendo Herrera in order for
the latter to recognize and support Rosendo as his biological son. Herrera denied Armis allegations. In
the year 2000, the trial court ordered the parties to undergo a (deoxyribonucleic acid )DNA testing to
establish whether or not Herrera is indeed the biological father of Rosendo Alba. However, Herrera
questioned the validity of the order as he claimed that DNA testing has not yet garnered widespread
acceptance hence any result therefrom will not be admissible in court; and that the said test is
unconstitutional for it violates his right against self-incrimination.
ISSUE: Whether or not Herrera is correct.
HELD: No. It is true that in 1997, the Supreme Court ruled in Pe Lim vs CA that DNA testing is not yet
recognized in the Philippines and at the time when he questioned the order of the trial court, the prevailing
doctrine was the Pe Lim case; however, in 2002 there is already no question as to the acceptability of
DNA test results as admissible object evidence in Philippine courts. This was the decisive ruling in the
case of People vs Vallejo (2002).
In the Vallejo Case, the Supreme Court recognized DNA analysis as admissible evidence. On the other
hand, as to determining the weight and probative value of DNA test results, the Supreme Court provides,
which is now known as the Vallejo Guidelines:
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among other things,
the following data:

1. how the samples were collected,

2. how they were handled,
3. the possibility of contamination of the samples,
4. the procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
5. whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests,
6. and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.

The above test is derived from the Daubert Test which is a doctrine adopted from US jurisprudence
(Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) The Daubert Test is a test to be employed by courts
before admitting scientific test results in evidence. More specifically, the Daubert Test inquires:

1. Whether the theory or technique can be tested,

2. Whether the proffered work has been subjected to peer review,
3. Whether the rate of error is acceptable,
4. Whether the method at issue enjoys widespread acceptance

In this case, the Supreme Court declared that in filiation cases, before paternity inclusion can be had, the
DNA test result must state that the there is at least a 99.9% probability that the person is the biological
father. However, a 99.9% probability of paternity (or higher but never possibly a 100% ) does not
immediately result in the DNA test result being admitted as an overwhelming evidence. It does not
automatically become a conclusive proof that the alleged father, in this case Herrera, is the biological
father of the child (Alba). Such result is still a disputable or a refutable evidence which can be brought
down if the Vallejo Guidelines are not complied with.
What if the result provides that there is less than 99.9% probability that the alleged father is the biological
father?
Then the evidence is merely corroborative.
Anent the issue of self-incrimination, submitting to DNA testing is not violative of the right against self-
incrimination. 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. There is no testimonial compulsion in the getting
of DNA sample from Herrera, hence, he cannot properly invoke self-incrimination.