CASE DIGEST: Herrera v. Alba

 

ROSENDO HERRERA, petitioner, vs. ROSENDO ALBA, minor, represented by his mother ARMI A. ALBA, and HON. NIMFA CUESTA-VILCHES, Presiding Judge, Brach 48, Regional Trial Court, Manila, respondents
G.R. No. 148220                    |          June 15, 2005

FACTS:

Armi Alba, mother of 13-year-old Rosendo Alba, filed a petition for compulsory recognition, support and damages against petitioner. Petitioner denied that he is the biological father respondent. He also denied physical contact with respondent’s mother.

Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings. To support this motion, respondent presented the testimony of Dr. Saturnina C. Halos, the head of the University of the Philippines Natural Sciences Research Institute, a DNA analysis laboratory. In her testimony, Dr. Halos described the process for DNA paternity testing and asserted that the test had an accuracy rate of 99.9999% in establishing paternity.

Petitioner opposed DNA testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability. He further argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination.

ISSUE:

Whether or not DNA testing violates the right against self-incrimination

RULING:

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.

Section 17, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” This privilege is applicable only to testimonial evidence.

Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the respondent in a paternity case, contrary to the belief of respondent in this action, will not violate the right against self- incrimination. This privilege applies only to evidence that is “communicative” in essence taken under duress. The Supreme Court has ruled that 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. As such, a defendant can be required to submit to a test to extract virus from his body; the substance emitting from the body of the accused was received as evidence for acts of lasciviousness; morphine forced out of the mouth was received as proof; an order by the judge for the witness to put on pair of pants for size was allowed; and the court can compel a woman accused of adultery to submit for pregnancy test, since the gist of the privilege is the restriction on “testimonial compulsion.”