Case Summary (G.R. No. 148220)
Factual Background
Rosendo Alba, through his mother Armi Alba, alleged in 1998 that Herrera fathered him and sought recognition, support and damages. Herrera denied paternity and moved for counterproof. The minor’s side secured testimony from Dr. Saturnina Halos, head of the UP-NSRI DNA laboratory, on the high accuracy of DNA testing.
Trial Court Proceedings
On February 3, 2000, the RTC granted the motion for DNA testing of Herrera, the minor and the mother. Herrera’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 8, 2000. He then filed a certiorari petition with the CA, claiming jurisdictional excess and grave abuse.
Appellate Court Ruling
The CA denied the certiorari petition on November 29, 2000, holding that errors in evaluating evidence are not certiorari matters and that compulsory DNA testing does not violate the right against self-incrimination, which protects only testimonial compulsion.
Issues Presented
- Whether DNA testing is a valid probative tool for filiation under Philippine law and, if so, under what conditions it is admissible.
- Whether compelling Herrera to undergo DNA testing violates his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.
Paternity and Filiation Framework
Under the Family Code, illegitimate and legitimate filiation may be proved by birth records, acknowledgments, continuous possession of status, or any means allowed by law. Traditional evidence includes:
- Prima facie declarations of maternal sexual relations
- Corroborative proof (letters, photos)
- Affirmative defenses (absence, impotency, intercourse with others)
- Presumption of legitimacy and physical resemblance
Evolution of DNA Evidence
Early rulings (Pe Lim, 1997) hesitated to admit DNA testing. By 2001 (Tijing) and 2002 (Vallejo), the Court recognized DNA profiling’s scientific validity. Subsequent cases (Yatar, De Villa) affirmed its probative value, subject to procedural safeguards.
Admissibility Standards
Philippine law admits all relevant evidence not excluded by statute or rules. Rule 130 §49 permits expert opinion on specialized matters. Comparative U.S. standards (Frye-Schwartz; Daubert-Kumho) inform weight and reliability but do not bind Philippine courts.
Probative Value Requirements
Following Vallejo, courts must evaluate:
- Sample collection and chain of custody
- Laboratory procedures and contamination risks
- Analyst qualifications and adherence to standards
For paternity, a Probability of Paternity (W) of at least 99.9% is required for a refutable
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 148220)
The Petition and Procedural History
- Petition for review under Rule 45 filed by Rosendo Herrera to set aside the Court of Appeals Decision dated 29 November 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 59766.
- Trial court (RTC Branch 48, Manila) issued two key Orders in SP No. 98-88759: one dated 3 February 2000 directing DNA paternity testing, and another dated 8 June 2000 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Court of Appeals affirmed both RTC Orders, prompting the present appeal.
Facts of the Case
- On 14 May 1998, thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba, through his mother Armi Alba, filed a petition for compulsory recognition, support, and damages against Herrera.
- Herrera answered on 7 August 1998, denying biological paternity and any sexual contact with Armi Alba.
- Respondent moved to compel DNA paternity testing; testified Dr. Saturnina C. Halos as expert witness explaining the test’s process and 99.9999% accuracy.
- Herrera opposed DNA testing, arguing lack of general acceptance and violation of his right against self-incrimination.
Trial Court’s Orders on DNA Testing
- Order of 3 February 2000 granted the motion: directed petitioner, the minor, and Armi Alba to undergo DNA testing within 30 days and submit results within 90 days.
- Order of 8 June 2000 denied Herrera’s motion for reconsideration, which claimed potential inconclusiveness, irrelevance, coercion, and unconstitutionality of DNA testing under the circumstances.
Court of Appeals’ Decision
- On 29 November 2000, the appellate court dismissed Herrera’s certiorari petition, finding an available remedy by appeal for alleged errors in judgment.
- Held that DNA paternity testing does not violate the privilege against self-incrimination, which applies only to compelled testimonial evidence.
- Emphasized Herrera’s right to challenge any adverse DNA result and affirmed the RTC Orders with costs to petitioner.
- Denial of motion for reconsideration in Resolution of 23 May 2001.
Issues Presented
- Whether DNA testing is a valid and admissible probative tool for determining filiation in Philippine courts.
- The conditions and prerequisites for integrating DNA technology into paternity proceedings a