Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

148220 June 15, 2005

ROSENDO HERRERA, petitioner, vs. ROSENDO ALBA, m no!, !e"!e#en$e% &' ( # mo$(e! ARM) A. ALBA, *n% HON. N)M+A CUESTA, -)LCHES, P!e# % n. Ju%.e, B!*n/( 48, Re. on*0 T! *0 Cou!$, M*n 0*, respondents. D CARP)O, J.: The !ase This is a petition for revie" # to set aside the Decision $ dated $% Nove&ber $''' of the !ourt of (ppeals )*appellate court*+ in !(,-.R. SP No. .%/00. The appellate court affir&ed t"o Orders 1 issued b2 3ranch 45 of the Re6ional Trial !ourt of Manila )*trial court*+ in SP No. %5,55/.%. The Order dated 1 Februar2 $''' directed Rosendo 7errera )*petitioner*+ to sub&it to deo82ribonucleic acid )*DN(*+ paternit2 testin6, "hile the Order dated 5 9une $''' denied petitioner:s &otion for reconsideration. The Facts On #4 Ma2 #%%5, then thirteen,2ear,old Rosendo (lba )*respondent*+, represented b2 his &other (r&i (lba, filed before the trial court a petition for co&pulsor2 reco6nition, support and da&a6es a6ainst petitioner. On / (u6ust #%%5, petitioner filed his ans"er "ith counterclai& "here he denied that he is the biolo6ical father of respondent. Petitioner also denied ph2sical contact "ith respondent:s &other. Respondent filed a &otion to direct the ta;in6 of DN( paternit2 testin6 to abbreviate the proceedin6s. To support the &otion, respondent presented the testi&on2 of Saturnina !. 7alos, Ph.D. <hen she testified, Dr. 7alos "as an (ssociate Professor at De =a Salle >niversit2 "here she tau6ht !ell 3iolo62. She "as also head of the >niversit2 of the Philippines Natural Sciences Research Institute )*>P,NSRI*+, a DN( anal2sis laborator2. She "as a for&er professor at the >niversit2 of the Philippines in Dili&an, ?ue@on !it2, "here she developed the Molecular 3iolo62 Pro6ra& and tau6ht Molecular 3iolo62. In her testi&on2, Dr. 7alos described the process for DN( paternit2 testin6 and asserted that the test had an accurac2 rate of %%.%%%%A in establishin6 paternit2. 4 Petitioner opposed DN( paternit2 testin6 and contended that it has not 6ained acceptabilit2. Petitioner further ar6ued that DN( paternit2 testin6 violates his ri6ht a6ainst self,incri&ination. The Rulin6 of the Trial !ourt In an Order dated 1 Februar2 $''', the trial court 6ranted respondent:s &otion to conduct DN( paternit2 testin6 on petitioner, respondent and (r&i (lba. ThusB )n 1 e2 o3 $(e 3o!e.o n. , the &otion of the petitioner is GRANTED and the relevant individuals, na&el2B the petitioner, the &inor child, and respondent are directed to under6o DNA "*$e!n $' $e#$ n. in a laborator2 of their co&&on choice "ithin a period of thirt2 )1'+ da2s fro& receipt of the Order, and to sub&it the results thereof "ithin a period of ninet2 )%'+ da2s fro& co&pletion. The parties are further re&inded of the hearin6 set on $4 Februar2 $''' for the reception of other evidence in support of the petition. )T )S SO ORDERED.. ) &phasis in the ori6inal+ Petitioner filed a &otion for reconsideration of the 1 Februar2 $''' Order. 7e asserted that *under the present circu&stances, the DN( test CheD is co&pelled to ta;e "ould be inconclusive, irrelevant and the coercive process to obtain the reEuisite speci&enF, unconstitutional.* In an Order dated 5 9une $''', the trial court denied petitioner:s &otion for reconsideration. 0 On #5 9ul2 $''', petitioner filed before the appellate court a petition for certiorari under Rule 0. of the #%%/ Rules of !ivil Procedure. 7e asserted that the trial court rendered the Orders dated 1 Februar2 $''' and 5 9une $''' *in e8cess of, or "ithout Gurisdiction andHor "ith 6rave abuse of discretion a&ountin6 to lac; or e8cess of Gurisdiction.* Petitioner further contended that there is *no appeal nor an2 CotherD plain, adeEuate and speed2 re&ed2 in the ordinar2 course of la".* Petitioner &aintained !ISION

his previous obGections to the ta;in6 of DN( paternit2 testin6. 7e sub&itted the follo"in6 6rounds to support his obGectionB #. Public respondent &isread and &isapplied the rulin6 in =i& vs. !ourt of (ppeals )$/' S!R( $+. $. Public respondent ruled to accept DN( test "ithout considerin6 the li&itations on, and conditions precedent for the ad&issibilit2 of DN( testin6 and i6norin6 the serious constraints affectin6 the reliabilit2 of the test as ad&itted b2 private respondent:s *e8pert* "itness. 1. SubGect Orders lac; le6al and factual support, "ith public respondent rel2in6 on scientific findin6s and conclusions unfit for Gudicial notice and unsupported b2 e8perts in the field and scientific treatises. 4. >nder the present circu&stances the DN( testin6 petitioner CisD co&pelled to ta;e "ill be inconclusive, irrelevant and the coercive process to obtain the reEuisite speci&en fro& the petitioner, unconstitutional./ The Rulin6 of the !ourt of (ppeals On $% Nove&ber $''', the appellate court issued a decision den2in6 the petition and affir&in6 the Euestioned Orders of the trial court. The appellate court stated that petitioner &erel2 desires to correct the trial court:s evaluation of evidence. Thus, appeal is an available re&ed2 for an error of Gud6&ent that the court &a2 co&&it in the e8ercise of its Gurisdiction. The appellate court also stated that the proposed DN( paternit2 testin6 does not violate his ri6ht a6ainst self,incri&ination because the ri6ht applies onl2 to testi&onial co&pulsion. Finall2, the appellate court pointed out that petitioner can still refute a possible adverse result of the DN( paternit2 testin6. The dispositive portion of the appellate court:s decision readsB <7 R FOR , fore6oin6 pre&ises considered, the Petition is hereb2 DEN)ED DUE COURSE, and ordered dis&issed, and the challen6ed orders of the Trial !ourt A++)RMED, "ith costs to Petitioner. SO ORD R D.5 Petitioner &oved for reconsideration, "hich the appellate court denied in its Resolution dated $1 Ma2 $''#.% Issues Petitioner raises the issue of "hether a DN( test is a valid probative tool in this Gurisdiction to deter&ine filiation. Petitioner as;s for the conditions under "hich DN( technolo62 &a2 be inte6rated into our Gudicial s2ste& and the prereEuisites for the ad&issibilit2 of DN( test results in a paternit2 suit.#' Petitioner further sub&its that the appellate court 6ravel2 abused its discretion "hen it authori@ed the trial court *to e&bar; in CsicD a ne" procedure 888 to deter&ine filiation despite the absence of le6islation to ensure its reliabilit2 and inte6rit2, "ant of official reco6nition as &ade clear in Lim vs. Court of Appeals and the presence of technical and le6al constraints in respect of CsicD its i&ple&entation.*## Petitioner &aintains that the proposed DN( paternit2 testin6 violates his ri6ht a6ainst self,incri&ination.#$ The Rulin6 of the !ourt The petition has no &erit. 3efore discussin6 the issues on DN( paternit2 testin6, "e dee& it appropriate to 6ive an overvie" of a paternit2 suit and appl2 it to the facts of this case. <e shall consider the reEuire&ents of the Fa&il2 !ode and of the Rules of vidence to establish paternit2 and filiation. An Overview of the Paternity and Filiation Suit Filiation proceedin6s are usuall2 filed not Gust to adGudicate paternit2 but also to secure a le6al ri6ht associated "ith paternit2, such as citi@enship, #1 support )as in the present case+, or inheritance. The burden of provin6 paternit2 is on the person "ho alle6es that the putative father is the biolo6ical father of the child. There are four si6nificant procedural aspects of a traditional paternit2 action "hich parties have to faceB a prima facie case, affir&ative defenses, presu&ption of le6iti&ac2, and ph2sical rese&blance bet"een the putative father and child. #4

( prima facie case e8ists if a "o&an declares that she had se8ual relations "ith the putative father. In our Gurisdiction, corroborative proof is reEuired to carr2 the burden for"ard and shift it to the putative father.#. There are t"o affir&ative defenses available to the putative father. The putative father &a2 sho" incapabilit2 of se8ual relations "ith the &other, because of either ph2sical absence or i&potenc2.#0 The putative father &a2 also sho" that the &other had se8ual relations "ith other &en at the ti&e of conception. ( child born to a husband and "ife durin6 a valid &arria6e is presu&ed le6iti&ate. #/ The child:s le6iti&ac2 &a2 be i&pu6ned onl2 under the strict standards provided b2 la". #5 Finall2, ph2sical rese&blance bet"een the putative father and child &a2 be offered as part of evidence of paternit2. Rese&blance is a trial techniEue uniEue to a paternit2 proceedin6. 7o"ever, althou6h li;eness is a function of heredit2, there is no &athe&atical for&ula that could Euantif2 ho" &uch a child &ust or &ust not loo; li;e his biolo6ical father. #% This ;ind of evidence appeals to the e&otions of the trier of fact. In the present case, the trial court encountered three of the four aspects. (r&i (lba, respondent:s &other, put for"ard a prima facie case "hen she asserted that petitioner is respondent:s biolo6ical father. ("are that her assertion is not enou6h to convince the trial court, she offered corroborative proof in the for& of letters and pictures. Petitioner, on the other hand, denied (r&i (lba:s assertion. 7e denied ever havin6 se8ual relations "ith (r&i (lba and stated that respondent is (r&i (lba:s child "ith another &an. (r&i (lba countered petitioner:s denial b2 sub&ittin6 pictures of respondent and petitioner side b2 side, to sho" ho" &uch the2 rese&ble each other. Paternit2 and filiation disputes can easil2 beco&e credibilit2 contests. <e no" loo; to the la", rules, and 6overnin6 Gurisprudence to help us deter&ine "hat evidence of incri&inatin6 acts on paternit2 and filiation are allo"ed in this Gurisdiction. Laws, Rules, and Jurisprudence sta!lishin" Filiation The relevant provisions of the Fa&il2 !ode provide as follo"sB (RT. #/.. Ille6iti&ate children &a2 establish their ille6iti&ate filiation in the sa&e "a2 and on the sa&e evidence as le6iti&ate children. 888 (RT. #/$. The filiation of le6iti&ate children is established b2 an2 of the follo"in6B )#+ The record of birth appearin6 in the civil re6ister or a final Gud6&entI or )$+ (n ad&ission of le6iti&ate filiation in a public docu&ent or a private hand"ritten instru&ent and si6ned b2 the parent concerned. In the absence of the fore6oin6 evidence, the le6iti&ate filiation shall be proved b2B )#+ The open and continuous possession of the status of a le6iti&ate childI or )$+ (n2 other &eans allo"ed b2 the Rules of !ourt and special la"s. The Rules on vidence include provisions on pedi6ree. The relevant sections of Rule #1' provideB S !. 1%. Act or declaration a!out pedi"ree.#The act or declaration of a person deceased, or unable to testif2, in respect to the pedi6ree of another person related to hi& b2 birth or &arria6e, &a2 be received in evidence "here it occurred before the controvers2, and the relationship bet"een the t"o persons is sho"n b2 evidence other than such act or declaration. The "ord *pedi6ree* includes relationship, fa&il2 6enealo62, birth, &arria6e, death, the dates "hen and the places "here these facts occurred, and the na&es of the relatives. It e&braces also facts of fa&il2 histor2 inti&atel2 connected "ith pedi6ree. S !. 4'. Family reputation or tradition re"ardin" pedi"ree.# The reputation or tradition e8istin6 in a fa&il2 previous to the controvers2, in respect to the pedi6ree of an2 one of its &e&bers, &a2 be received in evidence if the "itness testif2in6 thereon be also a &e&ber of the fa&il2, either b2 consan6uinit2 or affinit2. ntries in fa&il2 bibles or other fa&il2 boo;s or charts, en6ravin6 on rin6s, fa&il2 portraits and the li;e, &a2 be received as evidence of pedi6ree.

This !ourt:s rulin6s further specif2 "hat incri&inatin6 acts are acceptable as evidence to establish filiation. In Pe Lim v. CA,$' a case petitioner often cites, "e stated that the issue of paternit2 still has to be resolved b2 such conventional evidence as the relevant n/! m n*$ n. verbal and "ritten acts b2 the putative father. >nder (rticle $/5 of the Ne" !ivil !ode, voluntar2 reco6nition b2 a parent shall be &ade in the record of birth, a "ill, a state&ent before a court of record, or in an2 authentic "ritin6. To be effective, the clai& of filiation &ust be &ade b2 the putative father hi&self and the "ritin6 &ust be the "ritin6 of the putative father.$# ( notarial a6ree&ent to support a child "hose filiation is ad&itted b2 the putative father "as considered acceptable evidence. $$ =etters to the &other vo"in6 to be a 6ood father to the child and pictures of the putative father cuddlin6 the child on various occasions, to6ether "ith the certificate of live birth, proved filiation. $1 7o"ever, a student per&anent record, a "ritten consent to a father:s operation, or a &arria6e contract "here the putative father 6ave consent, cannot be ta;en as authentic "ritin6. $4 Standin6 alone, neither a certificate of baptis&$. nor fa&il2 pictures $0 are sufficient to establish filiation. So far, the la"s, rules, and Gurisprudence see&in6l2 li&it evidence of paternit2 and filiation to incri&inatin6 acts alone. 7o"ever, advances in science sho" that sources of evidence of paternit2 and filiation need not be li&ited to incri&inatin6 acts. There is no" al&ost universal scientific a6ree&ent that blood 6roupin6 tests are conclusive on non,paternit2, althou6h inconclusive on paternit2. $/ In Co Tao v. Court of Appeals,$5 the result of the blood 6roupin6 test sho"ed that the putative father "as a *possible father* of the child. Paternit2 "as i&puted to the putative father after the possibilit2 of paternit2 "as proven on presentation durin6 trial of facts and circu&stances other than the results of the blood 6roupin6 test. In Jao v. Court of Appeals,$% the child, the &other, and the putative father a6reed to sub&it the&selves to a blood 6roupin6 test. The National 3ureau of Investi6ation )*N3I*+ conducted the test, "hich indicated that the child could not have been the possible offsprin6 of the &other and the putative father. <e held that the result of the blood 6roupin6 test "as conclusive on the non,paternit2 of the putative father. The present case as;s us to 6o one step further. <e are no" as;ed "hether DN( anal2sis &a2 be ad&itted as evidence to prove paternit2. $%A Analysis as vidence DN( is the funda&ental buildin6 bloc; of a person:s entire 6enetic &a;e,up. DN( is found in all hu&an cells and is the sa&e in ever2 cell of the sa&e person. -enetic identit2 is uniEue. 7ence, a person:s DN( profile can deter&ine his identit2. 1' DN( anal2sis is a procedure in "hich DN( e8tracted fro& a biolo6ical sa&ple obtained fro& an individual is e8a&ined. The DN( is processed to 6enerate a pattern, or a DN( profile, for the individual fro& "ho& the sa&ple is ta;en. This DN( profile is uniEue for each person, e8cept for identical t"ins.1# <e Euote relevant portions of the trial court:s 1 Februar2 $''' Order "ith approvalB ver2one is born "ith a distinct 6enetic blueprint called DNA 4%eo5'! &onu/0e / */ %6. It is e8clusive to an individual )e8cept in the rare occurrence of identical t"ins that share a sin6le, fertili@ed e66+, and DN( is unchan6in6 throu6hout life. 3ein6 a co&ponent of ever2 cell in the hu&an bod2, the DN( of an individual:s blood is the ver2 DN( in his or her s;in cells, hair follicles, &uscles, se&en, sa&ples fro& buccal s"abs, saliva, or other bod2 parts. The che&ical structure of DN( has four bases. The2 are ;no"n as A )adenine+, G )6uanine+, C )c2stosine+ and T)th2&ine+. The order in "hich the four bases appear in an individual:s DN( deter&ines his or her ph2sical &a;eup. (nd since DN( is a double,stranded &olecule, it is co&posed of t"o specific paired bases, A,T or T,A and G,C orC,G. These are called &"enes.& ver2 "ene has a certain nu&ber of the above base pairs distributed in a particular seEuence. This 6ives a person his or her 6enetic code. So&e"here in the DN( fra&e"or;, nonetheless, are sections that differ. The2 are ;no"n as &polymorphic loci,& "hich are the areas anal2@ed in DN( t2pin6 )profilin6, tests, fin6erprintin6, or anal2sisHDN( fin6erprintin6H6enetic tests or fin6erprintin6+. In other "ords, DN( t2pin6 si&pl2 &eans deter&inin6 the &polymorphic loci.& 7o" is DN( t2pin6 perfor&edJ Fro& a DN( sa&ple obtained or e8tracted, a &olecular biolo6ist &a2 proceed to anal2@e it in several "a2s. There are five ).+ techniEues to conduct DN( t2pin6. The2 areB the RFLP 'restriction fra"ment len"th polymorphism() &reverse dot !lot& or 7=( D? aHP& loci "hich "as used in $5/ cases that "ere ad&itted as evidence b2 1/ courts in the >.S. as of Nove&ber #%%4I

&tDN( processI VNTR )variable nu&ber tande& repeats+I and the &ost recent "hich is ;no"n as the P!R,)Cpol2&eraseD chain reaction+ based STR )short tande& repeats+ &ethod "hich, as of #%%0, "as availed of b2 &ost forensic laboratories in the "orld. P!R is the process of replicatin6 or cop2in6 DN( in an evidence sa&ple a &illion ti&es throu6h repeated c2clin6 of a reaction involvin6 the so,called DN( pol2&eri@e en@2&e. S*R, on the other hand, ta;es &easure&ents in #1 separate places and can &atch t"o )$+ sa&ples "ith a reported theoretical error rate of less than one )#+ in a trillion. 9ust li;e in fin6erprint anal2sis, in DN( t2pin6, &matches& are deter&ined. To illustrate, "hen DN( or fin6erprint tests are done to identif2 a suspect in a cri&inal case, the evidence collected fro& the cri&e scene is co&pared "ith the &+nown& print. If a substantial a&ount of the identif2in6 features are the sa&e, the DN( or fin6erprint is dee&ed to be a m*$/(. 3ut then, even if onl2 one feature of the DN( or fin6erprint is % 33e!en$, it is dee&ed no$ $o (*1e /ome 3!om $(e #u#"e/$. (s earlier stated, certain re6ions of hu&an DN( sho" variations bet"een people. In each of these re6ions, a person possesses t"o 6enetic t2pes called &allele&, one inherited fro& each parent. In CaD paternit2 test, the forensic scientist loo;s at a nu&ber of these variable re6ions in an individual to produce a DN( profile. !o&parin6 ne8t the DN( profiles of the &other and child, it is possible to deter&ine "hich half of the child:s DN( "as inherited fro& the &other. The other half &ust have been inherited fro& the biolo6ical father. The alle6ed father:s profile is then e8a&ined to ascertain "hether he has the DN( t2pes in his profile, "hich &atch the paternal t2pes in the child. If the &an:s DN( t2pes do not &atch that of the child, the &an is e5/0u%e% as the father. If the DN( t2pes &atch, then he is no$ e5/0u%e% as the father.1$ ) &phasis in the ori6inal+ (lthou6h the ter& *DN( testin6* "as &entioned in the #%%. case of People v. Teehankee, Jr.,11 it "as onl2 in the $''# case of Tijing v. Court of Appeals 14 that &ore than a passin6 &ention "as 6iven to DN( anal2sis. In Tijing,"e issued a "rit of ha!eas corpus a6ainst respondent "ho abducted petitioners: 2oun6est son. Testi&onial and docu&entar2 evidence and ph2sical rese&blance "ere used to establish parenta6e. 7o"ever, "e observed thatB Parenta6e "ill still be resolved usin6 conventional &ethods unless "e adopt the &odern and scientific "a2s available. Fortunatel2, "e have no" the facilit2 and e8pertise in usin6 DN( test for identification and parenta6e testin6. The >niversit2 of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute )>P,NSRI+ DN( (nal2sis =aborator2 has no" the capabilit2 to conduct DN( t2pin6 usin6 short tande& repeat )STR+ anal2sis. 888 For it "as said, that courts should appl2 the results of science "hen co&pletel2 obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reGect said result is to den2 pro6ress. Thou6h it is not necessar2 in this case to resort to DN( testin6, in CtheD future it "ould be useful to all concerned in the pro&pt resolution of parenta6e and identit2 issues. Admissi!ility of $%A Analysis as vidence The $''$ case of People v. Vallejo1. discussed DN( anal2sis as evidence. This &a2 be considered a #5' de6ree turn fro& the !ourt:s "ar2 attitude to"ards DN( testin6 in the #%%/ Pe Lim case,10 "here "e stated that *DN(, bein6 a relativel2 ne" science, 888 has not 2et been accorded official reco6nition b2 our courts.* In Vallejo, the DN( profile fro& the va6inal s"abs ta;en fro& the rape victi& &atched the accused:s DN( profile. <e affir&ed the accused:s conviction of rape "ith ho&icide and sentenced hi& to death. <e declaredB In assessin6 the probative value of DN( evidence, therefore, courts should consider, a&on6 other thin6s, the follo"in6 dataB ho" the sa&ples "ere collected, ho" the2 "ere handled, the possibilit2 of conta&ination of the sa&ples, the procedure follo"ed in anal2@in6 the sa&ples, "hether the proper standards and procedures "ere follo"ed in conductin6 the tests, and the Eualification of the anal2st "ho conducted the tests.1/ Vallejo discussed the probative value, not ad&issibilit2, of DN( evidence. 32 $''$, there "as no lon6er an2 Euestion on the validit2 of the use of DN( anal2sis as evidence. The !ourt &oved fro& the issue of accordin6 *official reco6nition* to DN( anal2sis as evidence to the issue of observance of procedures in conductin6 DN( anal2sis. In $''4, there "ere t"o other cases that had a si6nificant i&pact on Gurisprudence on DN( testin6B People v. Yatar15 and In re: The rit of !a"eas Corpus for #e$nal%o %e Villa.1% In Yatar, a &atch e8isted bet"een the DN( profile of the se&en found in the victi& and the DN( profile of the blood sa&ple 6iven b2 appellant in open court. The !ourt, follo"in6 Vallejo&s footsteps, affir&ed the conviction of appellant because the ph2sical evidence, corroborated b2 circu&stantial evidence, sho"ed appellant 6uilt2 of rape "ith ho&icide. In 'e Villa, the convict,petitioner presented DN( test results to prove that he is not the father of the child

conceived at the ti&e of co&&ission of the rape. The !ourt ruled that a difference bet"een the DN( profile of the convict,petitioner and the DN( profile of the victi&:s child does not preclude the convict, petitioner:s co&&ission of rape. In the present case, the various pleadin6s filed b2 petitioner and respondent refer to t"o >nited States cases to support their respective positions on the ad&issibilit2 of DN( anal2sis as evidenceB (r$e v. ).*.4' and 'au"ert v. +errell 'o, Pharma-euti-als .4# In (r$e v. ).*., the trial court convicted Fr2e of &urder. Fr2e appealed his conviction to the Supre&e !ourt of the District of !olu&bia. Durin6 trial, Fr2e:s counsel offered an e8pert "itness to testif2 on the result of a s2stolic blood pressure deception test4$ &ade on defendant. The state Supre&e !ourt affir&ed Fr2e:s conviction and ruled that *the s2stolic blood pressure deception test has not 2et 6ained such standin6 and scientific reco6nition a&on6 ph2siolo6ical and ps2cholo6ical authorities as "ould Gustif2 the courts in ad&ittin6 e8pert testi&on2 deduced fro& the discover2, develop&ent, and e8peri&ents thus far &ade.* The (r$estandard of 6eneral acceptance states as follo"sB 9ust "hen a scientific principle or discover2 crosses the line bet"een the e8peri&ental and de&onstrable sta6es is difficult to define. So&e"here in this t"ili6ht @one the evidential force of the principle &ust be reco6ni@ed, and "hile courts "ill 6o a lon6 "a2 in ad&ittin6 e8pert testi&on2 deduced fro& a "ell reco6ni@ed scientific principle or discover2, the thin6 fro& "hich the deduction is &ade &ust be sufficientl2 established to have 6ained 6eneral acceptance in the particular field in "hich it belon6s. In #%5%, *tate v. *-h,art.41 &odified the (r$e standard. Sch"art@ "as char6ed "ith stabbin6 and &urder. 3loodstained articles and blood sa&ples of the accused and the victi& "ere sub&itted for DN( testin6 to a 6overn&ent facilit2 and a private facilit2. The prosecution introduced the private testin6 facilit2:s results over Sch"art@:s obGection. One of the issues brou6ht before the state Supre&e !ourt included the ad&issibilit2 of DN( test results in a cri&inal proceedin6. The state Supre&e !ourt concluded thatB <hile "e a6ree "ith the trial court that forensic DN( t2pin6 has 6ained 6eneral acceptance in the scientific co&&unit2, "e hold that ad&issibilit2 of specific test results in a particular case hin6es on the laborator2:s co&pliance "ith appropriate standards and controls, and the availabilit2 of their testin6 data and results.44 In #%%1, 'au"ert v. +errell 'o, Pharma-euti-als, In- .4. further &odified the (r$e/ *-h,art. standard.'au"ert "as a product liabilit2 case "here both the trial and appellate courts denied the ad&issibilit2 of an e8pert:s testi&on2 because it failed to &eet the (r$e standard of *6eneral acceptance.* The >nited States Supre&e !ourt ruled that in federal trials, the Federal Rules of vidence have superseded the (r$e standard. Rule 4'# defines relevant evidence, "hile Rule 4'$ provides the foundation for ad&issibilit2 of evidence. ThusB Rule 4'#. *Relevant evidence* is defined as that "hich has an2 *tendenc2 to &a;e the e8istence of an2 fact that is of conseEuence to the deter&ination of the action &ore probable or less probable than it "ould be "ithout the evidence. Rule 4'$. (ll relevant evidence is ad&issible, e8cept as other"ise provided b2 the !onstitution of the >nited States, b2 (ct of !on6ress, b2 these rules, or b2 other rules prescribed b2 the Supre&e !ourt pursuant to statutor2 authorit2. vidence "hich is not relevant is not ad&issible. Rule /'$ of the Federal Rules of vidence 6overnin6 e8pert testi&on2 providesB If scientific, technical, or other speciali@ed ;no"led6e "ill assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to deter&ine a fact in issue, a "itness Eualified as an e8pert b2 ;no"led6e, s;ill, e8perience, trainin6, or education, &a2 testif2 thereto in the for& of an opinion or other"ise. 'au"ert cautions that departure fro& the (r$e standard of 6eneral acceptance does not &ean that the Federal Rules do not place li&its on the ad&issibilit2 of scientific evidence. Rather, the Gud6e &ust ensure that the testi&on2:s reasonin6 or &ethod is scientificall2 valid and is relevant to the issue. (d&issibilit2 "ould depend on factors such as )#+ "hether the theor2 or techniEue can be or has been testedI )$+ "hether the theor2 or techniEue has been subGected to peer revie" and publicationI )1+ the ;no"n or potential rate of errorI )4+ the e8istence and &aintenance of standards controllin6 the techniEue:s operationI and ).+ "hether the theor2 or techniEue is 6enerall2 accepted in the scientific co&&unit2.

(nother product liabilit2 case, 0umho Tires Co. v. Carmi-hael,40 further &odified the 'au"ert standard. This led to the a&end&ent of Rule /'$ in $''' and "hich no" reads as follo"sB If scientific, technical or other speciali@ed ;no"led6e "ill assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to deter&ine a fact in issue, a "itness Eualified as an e8pert b2 ;no"led6e, s;ill, e8perience, trainin6, or education, &a2 testif2 thereto in the for& of an opinion or other"ise, if )#+ the testi&on2 is based upon sufficient facts or data, )$+ the testi&on2 is the product of reliable principles and &ethods, and )1+ the "itness has applied the principles and &ethods reliabl2 to the facts of the case. <e no" deter&ine the applicabilit2 in this Gurisdiction of these (&erican cases. Obviousl2, neither the (r$e/*-h,art. standard nor the 'au"ert/0umho standard is controllin6 in the Philippines. 4/ (t best, (&erican Gurisprudence &erel2 has a persuasive effect on our decisions. 7ere, evidence is ad&issible "hen it is relevant to the fact in issue and is not other"ise e8cluded b2 statute or the Rules of !ourt.45 vidence is relevant "hen it has such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its e8istence or non,e8istence.4% Section 4% of Rule #1', "hich 6overns the ad&issibilit2 of e8pert testi&on2, provides as follo"sB The opinion of a "itness on a &atter reEuirin6 special ;no"led6e, s;ill, e8perience or trainin6 "hich he is sho"n to possess &a2 be received in evidence. This Rule does not pose an2 le6al obstacle to the ad&issibilit2 of DN( anal2sis as evidence. Indeed, even evidence on collateral &atters is allo"ed *"hen it tends in an2 reasonable de6ree to establish the probabilit2 or i&probabilit2 of the fact in issue.*.' Indeed, it "ould have been convenient to &erel2 refer petitioner to our decisions in Tijing, Vallejo and Yatar to illustrate that DN( anal2sis is ad&issible as evidence . In our Gurisdiction, the restrictive tests for ad&issibilit2 established b2 (r$e/*-h,art. and 'au"ert/0umho 6o into the "ei6ht of the evidence. Pro!ative ,alue of $%A Analysis as vidence Despite our relativel2 liberal rules on ad&issibilit2, trial courts should be cautious in 6ivin6 credence to DN( anal2sis as evidence. <e reiterate our state&ent in VallejoB In assessin6 the probative value of DN( evidence, therefore, courts should consider, a&on6 other thin6s, the follo"in6 dataB ho" the sa&ples "ere collected, ho" the2 "ere handled, the possibilit2 of conta&ination of the sa&ples, the procedure follo"ed in anal2@in6 the sa&ples, "hether the proper standards and procedures "ere follo"ed in conductin6 the tests, and the Eualification of the anal2st "ho conducted the tests..#D <e also repeat the trial court:s e8planation of DN( anal2sis used in paternit2 casesB In CaD paternit2 test, the forensic scientist loo;s at a nu&ber of these variable re6ions in an individual to produce a DN( profile. !o&parin6 ne8t the DN( profiles of the &other and child, it is possible to deter&ine "hich half of the child:s DN( "as inherited fro& the &other. The other half &ust have been inherited fro& the biolo6ical father. The alle6ed father:s profile is then e8a&ined to ascertain "hether he has the DN( t2pes in his profile, "hich &atch the paternal t2pes in the child. If the &an:s DN( t2pes do not &atch that of the child, the &an is e5/0u%e% as the father. If the DN( t2pes &atch, then he is no$ e5/0u%e% as the father..$ It is not enou6h to state that the child:s DN( profile &atches that of the putative father. ( co&plete &atch bet"een the DN( profile of the child and the DN( profile of the putative father does not necessaril2 establish paternit2. For this reason, follo"in6 the hi6hest standard adopted in an (&erican Gurisdiction,.1 trial courts should reEuire at least %%.%A as a &ini&u& value of the Probabilit2 of Paternit2 )*<*+ prior to a paternit2 inclusion. < is a nu&erical esti&ate for the li;elihood of paternit2 of a putative father co&pared to the probabilit2 of a rando& &atch of t"o unrelated individuals. (n appropriate reference population database, such as the Philippine population database, is reEuired to co&pute for <. Due to the probabilistic nature of paternit2 inclusions, < "ill never eEual to #''A. 7o"ever, the accurac2 of < esti&ates is hi6her "hen the putative father, &other and child are subGected to DN( anal2sis co&pared to those conducted bet"een the putative father and child alone. .4 DN( anal2sis that e8cludes the putative father fro& paternit2 should be conclusive proof of non, paternit2. If the value of < is less than %%.%A, the results of the DN( anal2sis should be considered as

corroborative evidence. If the value of < is %%.%A or hi6her, then there is !e3u$*&0e presu&ption of paternit2... This refutable presu&ption of paternit2 should be subGected to the Vallejo standards. Ri"ht A"ainst Self-.ncrimination Section #/, (rticle 1 of the #%5/ !onstitution provides that *no person shall be co&pelled to be a "itness a6ainst hi&self.* Petitioner asserts that obtainin6 sa&ples fro& hi& for DN( testin6 violates his ri6ht a6ainst self,incri&ination. Petitioner i6nores our earlier pronounce&ents that the privile6e is applicable onl2 to testi&onial evidence. (6ain, "e Euote relevant portions of the trial court:s 1 Februar2 $''' Order "ith approvalB Obtainin6 DN( sa&ples fro& an accused in a cri&inal case or fro& the respondent in a paternit2 case, contrar2 to the belief of respondent in this action, "ill not violate the ri6ht a6ainst self,incri&ination. This privile6e applies onl2 to evidence that is &communicative& in essence ta;en under duress )People vs. Olvis, #.4 S!R( .#1, #%5/+. The Supre&e !ourt has ruled that the ri6ht a6ainst self,incri&ination is Gust a prohibition on the use of ph2sical or &oral co&pulsion to e8tort co&&unication )testi&onial evidence+ fro& a defendant, not an e8clusion of evidence ta;en fro& his bod2 "hen it &a2 be &aterial. (s such, a defendant can be reEuired to sub&it to a test to e8tract virus fro& his bod2 )as cited in People vs. Olvis, Supra+I the substance e&ittin6 fro& the bod2 of the accused "as received as evidence for acts of lasciviousness )>S vs. Tan Ten6, $1 Phil. #4.+I &orphine forced out of the &outh "as received as proof )>S vs. On6 Siu 7on6, 10 Phil. /1.+I an order b2 the Gud6e for the "itness to put on pair of pants for si@e "as allo"ed )People vs. Otadora, 50 Phil. $44+I and the court can co&pel a "o&an accused of adulter2 to sub&it for pre6nanc2 test )Villaflor vs. Su&&ers, 4# Phil. 0$+, since the 6ist of the privile6e is the restriction on &testimonial compulsion.&.0 The polic2 of the Fa&il2 !ode to liberali@e the rule on the investi6ation of the paternit2 and filiation of children, especiall2 of ille6iti&ate children, is "ithout preGudice to the ri6ht of the putative parent to clai& his or her o"n defenses. ./ <here the evidence to aid this investi6ation is obtainable throu6h the facilities of &odern science and technolo62, such evidence should be considered subGect to the li&its established b2 the la", rules, and Gurisprudence. 7HERE+ORE, "e DISMISS the petition. <e (FFIRM the Decision of the !ourt of (ppeals dated $% Nove&ber $''' in !(,-.R. SP No. .%/00. <e also (FFIRM the Orders dated 1 Februar2 $''' and 5 9une $''' issued b2 3ranch 45 of the Re6ional Trial !ourt of Manila in !ivil !ase No. SP,%5,55/.%. SO ORD R D. Davide, 9r., !.9., )!hair&an+, ?uisu&bin6, Knares,Santia6o, and (@cuna, 99., concur.