SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 172607. October 26, 2007.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , appellee, vs . RUFINO UMANITO ,

appellant.

RESOLUTION

TINGA , J : p

On appeal is the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals dated 15 February 2006,

a rming the Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union, Branch
67 dated 15 October 1997 nding Ru no Umanito (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
and ordering him to indemnify the private complainant in the sum of P50,000.00. 3
On 9 January 1990, appellant was charged with the crime of rape in a Criminal
Complaint 4 which reads:
That on or about 9:00 P.M. of July 15, 1989, at Brgy[.] Daramuangan,
Municipality of Naguilian, Province of La Union, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused who was armed
with a fan knife and by means of force and threats, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously succeeded in having a sexual intercourse to [sic] the
undersigned who is unmarried woman of good reputation, a woman who is over
12 but below 18 years old [sic] of age, to the damage and prejudice of the
offended party.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

It was only ve (5) years later, or sometime in 1995, that appellant was arrested.
It took place when he went to the Municipal Hall of Naguilian to secure a police
clearance.
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.
The appellate court's chronicle of the facts is as follows:
It was around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of July 15, 1989, while on her
way to her grandmother's home, when private complainant [AAA] 6 was accosted
by a young male. It was only later when she learned the name of accused-
appellant UMANITO. She recounted that accused-appellant UMANITO waited for
her by the creek, and then with a knife pointed at [AAA]'s left side of the [ sic]
abdomen, he forced her to give in to his kisses, to his holding her breasts and
stomach, and to his pulling her by the arm to be dragged to the Home Economics
Building inside the premises of the Daramuangan Elementary School where
accused-appellant UMANITO rst undressed her [AAA] and himself with his right
hand while he still clutched the knife menacingly on his left hand. Private
complainant [AAA] recounted that she could not shout because she was afraid.
She further recounted that accused-appellant UMANITO laid her down on a bench,
4 meters long and 24 inches wide, set the knife down, then mounted her, inserting
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 his penis into her [AAA's] vagina and shortly thereafter, accused-appellant
UMANITO dressed up and threatened [AAA] while poking the knife at her neck, not
to report the incident to the police or else he said he would kill her. Accused-
appellant UMANITO then left, while the victim [AAA] went on to her grandmother's
house and she noticed that it was already around 1:00 o'clock in the morning
when she reached there. SHCaDA

In January 1990, 6 months after the incident, private complainant [AAA's]

mother, [BBB], 7 noticed the prominence on [AAA]'s stomach. It was only then
when the victim, private complainant [AAA], divulged to her mother the alleged
rape and told her the details of what had happened in July, [ sic] 1989. After
hearing private complainant [AAA]'s story, her mother brought her to the police
station. 8

Appellant's version on the stand was different. Denying the accusations of AAA,
he claimed that on 15 July 1989, he was home the whole day, helping his family
complete rush work on picture frames ordered from Baguio. He did not step out of
their house on the evening in question, he added. 9 Concerning his relationship with AAA,
appellant admitted that he had courted her but she spurned him. He conjectured,
though, that AAA had a crush on him since she frequently visited him at his house. 1 0
Finding that the prosecution had proven appellant's guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, the RTC rendered judgment against him and sentenced him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify AAA in the sum of P50,000.00. 1 1 In so doing,
the court a quo held that the discrepancies in AAA's testimony did not impair her
credibility. Despite some inconsistencies in her statement, the RTC observed that AAA's
demeanor on the witness stand did not indicate any falsehood in her narration. 1 2
The trial court likewise rejected appellant's defense of alibi, ruling that he did not
prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime given the
testimonies that he and complainant were residing in the same barrio. 1 3
Pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo , 1 4 appellant's appeal before us was
transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. On 15 February 2006, the
appellate court a rmed the challenged decision. Finding AAA to be a credible witness,
the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the inconsistencies in her
statements were too trivial and inconsequential to impair the credibility of her
testimony. 1 5
In this appeal, appellant seeks his acquittal on reasonable doubt by reason of the
belated ling of the case against him and the questionable credibility of AAA with
respect to her varying allegations.
Appellant asserts that the court a quo erred in giving full faith and credence to
the testimony of the complaining witness and in not acquitting him on reasonable
doubt. He avers that apparently AAA led the complaint against him only upon the
prodding of her mother. 1 6 This aspect, appellant insists, negates AAA's claim that he
was the one who raped her but rather supports his assertion that the sexual congress
AAA engaged in was with another man, her real lover who was married to another
woman. 1 7 Appellant further puts in issue the long delay in AAA's ling of the complaint.
18

Appellant capitalizes on the alleged serious inconsistencies in AAA's assertions,

and further characterizes her actions and contentions as incredible and unnatural. 1 9 In
particular, appellant highlights AAA's contradictory declarations on when she met
appellant and the nature of their relationship. He also alludes to AAA's purportedly
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 inconsistent statements on whether it was appellant or she herself, upon his orders,
who took off her clothes. Finally, appellant points out the supposedly con icting
assertions of AAA on whether it was at the creek or in the school building that he
kissed her face and other parts of her body. AaCTcI

Once again, this Court is called upon to determine whether the prosecution has
successfully met the level of proof needed to find appellant guilty of the crime of rape.
Among the many incongruent assertions of the prosecution and the defense, the
disharmony on a certain point stands out. Appellant, on one hand, testi ed that
although he had courted AAA, they were not sweethearts. Therefore, this testimony
largely discounts the possibility of consensual coitus between him and AAA. On the
other, AAA made contradictory allegations at the preliminary investigation and on the
witness stand with respect to the nature of her relationship with appellant. First, she
claimed that she met appellant only on the day of the purported rape; later, she stated
that they were actually friends; and still later, she admitted that they were close. 2 0
Amidst the slew of assertions and counter-assertions, a happenstance may
provide the de nitive key to the absolution of the appellant. This is the fact that AAA
bore a child as a result of the purported rape. With the advance in genetics and the
availability of new technology, it can now be determined with reasonable certainty
whether appellant is the father of AAA's child. If he is not, his acquittal may be ordained.
We have pronounced that if it can be conclusively determined that the accused did not
sire the alleged victim's child, this may cast the shadow of reasonable doubt and allow
his acquittal on this basis. 2 1 If he is found not to be the father, the nding will at least
weigh heavily in the ultimate decision in this case. Thus, we are directing appellant, AAA
and AAA's child to submit themselves to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing 2 2 under
the aegis of the New Rule on DNA Evidence 2 3 (the Rules), which took effect on 15
October 2007, subject to guidelines prescribed herein.
DNA print or identi cation 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. For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA
identi cation is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can aid
immensely in determining a more accurate account of the crime committed, e ciently
facilitating the conviction of the guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent, and
ensuring the proper administration of justice in every case. 2 4 Verily, as we pointed out
in People v. Yatar , 2 5 the process of obtaining such vital evidence has become less
arduous —
The U.P. National Science Research Institute (NSRI), which conducted the
DNA tests in this case, used the Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) ampli cation
method by Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis. With PCR testing, tiny amounts
of a speci c DNA sequence can be copied exponentially within hours. Thus,
getting su cient DNA for analysis has become much easier since it became
possible to reliably amplify small samples using the PCR method. 2 6

The ground work for acknowledging the strong weight of DNA testing was rst
laid out in Tijing v. Court of Appeals, 2 7 where the Court said —
. . . Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless we
adopt the modern and scienti c ways available. Fortunately, we have now the
facility and expertise in using DNA test for identi cation and parentage testing.
The University of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute (UP-NSRI)
DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the capability to conduct DNA typing using
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. The analysis is based on the fact that the
DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies, one copy from the mother and the
other from the father. The DNA from the mother, the alleged father and child are
analyzed to establish parentage. Of course, being a novel scienti c technique, the
use of DNA test as evidence is still open to challenge. Eventually, as the
appropriate case comes, courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of
DNA evidence. For it was said, that courts should apply the results of science
when competently obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said
result is to deny progress. Though it is not necessary in this case to resort to DNA
testing, in future it would be useful to all concerned in the prompt resolution of
parentage and identity issues. 2 8

The leading case of Herrera v. Alba , 2 9 where the validity of a DNA test as a
probative tool to determine liation in our jurisdiction was put in issue, discussed DNA
analysis as evidence and traced the development of its admissibility in our jurisdiction.
Thus:
DNA is the fundamental building block of a person's entire genetic make-
up. DNA is found in all human cells and is the same in every cell of the same
person. Genetic identity is unique. Hence, a person's DNA pro le can determine
his identity.

DNA analysis is a procedure in which DNA extracted from a biological

sample obtained from an individual is examined. The DNA is processed to
generate a pattern, or a DNA pro le, for the individual from whom the sample is
taken. This DNA pro le is unique for each person, except for identical twins. We
quote relevant portions of the trial court's 3 February 2000 Order with approval:

Everyone is born with a distinct genetic blueprint called DNA

(deoxyribonucleic acid) . It is exclusive to an individual (except in the
rare occurrence of identical twins that share a single, fertilized egg), and
DNA is unchanging throughout life. Being a component of every cell in the
human body, the DNA of an individual's blood is the very DNA in his or her
skin cells, hair follicles, muscles, semen, samples from buccal swabs,
saliva, or other body parts.

The chemical structure of DNA has four bases. They are known as
A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cystosine) and T (thymine). The order in
which the four bases appear in an individual's DNA determines his or her
physical makeup. And since DNA is a double-stranded molecule, it is
composed of two speci c paired bases, A-T or T-A and G-C or C-G . These
are called "genes."
cHAaCE

Every gene has a certain number of the above base pairs distributed
in a particular sequence. This gives a person his or her genetic code.
Somewhere in the DNA framework, nonetheless, are sections that differ.
They are known as "polymorphic loci," which are the areas analyzed in
DNA typing (pro ling, tests, ngerprinting, or analysis/DNA
ngerprinting/genetic tests or ngerprinting). In other words, DNA typing
simply means determining the "polymorphic loci."

How is DNA typing performed? From a DNA sample obtained or

extracted, a molecular biologist may proceed to analyze it in several ways.
There are ve (5) techniques to conduct DNA typing. They are: the RFLP
(restriction fragment length polymorphism); "reverse dot blot" or HLA DQ
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 a/Pm loci which was used in 287 cases that were admitted as evidence by
37 courts in the U.S. as of November 1994; mtDNA process; VNTR (variable
number tandem repeats); and the most recent which is known as the PCR-
([polymerase] chain reaction) based STR (short tandem repeats) method
which, as of 1996, was availed of by most forensic laboratories in the
world. PCR is the process of replicating or copying DNA in an evidence
sample a million times through repeated cycling of a reaction involving the
so-called DNA polymerize enzyme. STR, on the other hand, takes
measurements in 13 separate places and can match two (2) samples with
a reported theoretical error rate of less than one (1) in a trillion.
Just like in ngerprint analysis, in DNA typing, " matches" are
determined. To illustrate, when DNA or ngerprint tests are done to identify
a suspect in a criminal case, the evidence collected from the crime scene is
compared with the "known" print. If a substantial amount of the identifying
features are the same, the DNA or fingerprint is deemed to be a match . But
then, even if only one feature of the DNA or ngerprint is different, it is
deemed not to have come from the suspect .
As earlier stated, certain regions of human DNA show variations
between people. In each of these regions, a person possesses two genetic
types called "allele," one inherited from each parent. In [a] paternity test, the
forensic scientist looks at a number of these variable regions in an
individual to produce a DNA pro le. Comparing next the DNA pro les of
the mother and child, it is possible to determine which half of the child's
DNA was inherited from the mother. The other half must have been
inherited from the biological father. The alleged father's pro le is then
examined to ascertain whether he has the DNA types in his pro le, which
match the paternal types in the child. If the man's DNA types do not match
that of the child, the man is excluded as the father. If the DNA types
match, then he is not excluded as the father (Emphasis in the original).
xxx xxx xxx

The 2002 case of People v. Vallejo discussed DNA analysis as evidence.

This may be considered a 180 degree turn from the Court's wary attitude towards
DNA testing in the 1997 Pe Lim case, where we stated that "DNA, being a
relatively new science, . . . has not yet been accorded o cial recognition by our
courts." In Vallejo, the DNA pro le from the vaginal swabs taken from the rape
victim matched the accused's DNA pro le. We a rmed the accused's conviction
of rape with homicide and sentenced him to death.

xxx xxx xxx

Vallejo discussed the probative value, not admissibility, of DNA evidence.
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 "o cial
recognition" to DNA analysis as evidence to the issue of observance of
procedures in conducting DNA analysis. DCSTAH

In 2004, there were two other cases that had a signi cant impact on
jurisprudence on DNA testing: People v. Yatar and In re: The Writ of Habeas
Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa. In Yatar, a match existed between the DNA pro le of
the semen found in the victim and the DNA pro le of the blood sample given by
appellant in open court. The Court, following Vallejo's footsteps, a rmed the
conviction of appellant because the physical evidence, corroborated by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 circumstantial evidence, showed appellant guilty of rape with homicide. In De
Villa, the convict-petitioner presented DNA test results to prove that he is not the
father of the child conceived at the time of commission of the rape. The Court
ruled that a difference between the DNA pro le of the convict-petitioner and the
DNA pro le of the victim's child does not preclude the convict-petitioner’s
commission of rape. 3 0

The 2004 case of Tecson v. Commission on Elections 3 1 likewise reiterated the

acceptance of DNA testing in our jurisdiction in this wise: "[i]n case proof of liation or
paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be di cult to obtain,
DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate
child and any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to." 3 2
It is obvious to the Court that the determination of whether appellant is the father
of AAA's child, which may be accomplished through DNA testing, is material to the fair
and correct adjudication of the instant appeal. Under Section 4 of the Rules, the courts
are authorized, after due hearing and notice, motu proprio to order a DNA testing.
However, while this Court retains jurisdiction over the case at bar, capacitated as it is to
receive and act on the matter in controversy, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts
and does not, in the course of daily routine, conduct hearings. 3 3 Hence, it would be
more appropriate that the case be remanded to the RTC for reception of evidence in
appropriate hearings, with due notice to the parties.
What should be the proper scope of such hearings? Section 4 of the Rules spells
out the matters which the trial court must determine, thus:
SEC. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order . — The appropriate court
may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any person who has a
legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue
after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following:
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type
of DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing, but
the results may require confirmation for good reasons;
(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
(d) The DNA testing has the scienti c potential to produce new
information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider
as potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.
The Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court
order, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a
suit or proceeding is commenced. 3 4

Given our earlier pronouncements on the relevance of the DNA testing, it would
be unbecoming of the RTC to conclude otherwise, Section 4 (d) notwithstanding. The
hearing should be con ned to ascertaining the feasibility of DNA testing with due
regard to the standards set in Section 4 (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Rules.
Should the RTC nd the DNA testing feasible in the case at bar, it shall order the
same, in conformity with Section 5 of the Rules. 3 5 It is also the RTC which shall
determine the institution 3 6 to undertake the DNA testing and the parties are free to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 manifest their comments on the choice of DNA testing center.
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.
The RTC, in evaluating the DNA results upon presentation, shall assess the same as
evidence in keeping with Sections 7 and 8 of the Rules, to wit:
SEC. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence. — In
assessing the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the court shall
consider the following:

(a) The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were
collected, how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the
samples;
(b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in
analyzing the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and
compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests;
(c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any
reputable standards-setting institution and the quali cation of the analyst who
conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience of
the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established;
and IACDaS

(d) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.

The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of
evidence shall apply suppletorily.
SEC. 8. Reliability of DNA testing methodology. — In evaluating
whether the DNA testing methodology is reliable, the court shall consider the
following:
(a) The falsi ability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether
the theory or technique can be and has been tested;
(b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or
methods;

(c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the

relevant scientific community;

(d) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to

ensure the correctness of data gathered;

(e) The existence of an appropriate reference population database;

and

(f) The general degree of con dence attributed to mathematical

calculations used in comparing DNA pro les and the signi cance and limitation
of statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles.

The trial court is further enjoined to observe the requirements of con dentiality
and preservation of the DNA evidence in accordance with Sections 11 3 7 and 12 3 8 of
the Rules.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, the RTC shall consider, among
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 other things, the following data: how the samples were collected, how they were
handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in
analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in
conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. 3 9
Moreover, the court a quo must ensure that the proper chain of custody in the
handling of the samples submitted by the parties is adequately borne in the records,
i.e.: that the samples are collected by a neutral third party; that the tested parties are
appropriately identi ed at their sample collection appointments; that the samples are
protected with tamper tape at the collection site; that all persons in possession thereof
at each stage of testing thoroughly inspected the samples for tampering and explained
his role in the custody of the samples and the acts he performed in relation thereto.
In light of the fact that this case constitutes the rst known application of the
Rules, the Court is especially interested in monitoring the implementation thereof in this
case, for its guidance and continuing evaluation of the Rules as implemented. For
purposes of supervising the implementation the instant resolution, the Court
designates Deputy Court Administrator Reuben Dela Cruz (DCA Dela Cruz) to: (a)
monitor the manner in which the court a quo carries out the Rules; and (b) assess and
submit periodic reports on said implementation to the Court. Towards the ful llment of
such end, the RTC is directed to cooperate and coordinate with DCA Dela Cruz.
A nal note. In order to facilitate the execution of this Resolution, though the
parties are primarily bound to bear the expenses for DNA testing, such costs may be
advanced by this Court if needed. ESaITA

WHEREFORE, the instant case is remanded to the RTC for reception of DNA
evidence in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. The RTC is further directed to
report to the Court the results of the proceedings below within sixty (60) days from
receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Carpio, Carpio-Morales and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-15. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas and concurred in by
Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.
2. CA rollo, pp. 20-34. Penned by Judge Jose G. Paneda.
3. Id. at 34.
4. Records, p. 1.
5. Id.
6. The real name of the victim is withheld per R.A. No. 7610 and R.A. No. 9262. See People
v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
7. The real name of the victim's mother is likewise withheld to protect her and the victim's
privacy. See People v. Cabalquinto, supra.
8. Supra note 1 at 5-6.
9. TSN, 11 February 1997, pp. 6-8.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 10. Id. at 10.
11. Supra note 2 at 33-34.
12. CA rollo, p. 31.

13. Id.
14. G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
15. Supra note 1 at 8, 11.
16. CA rollo, p. 58.
17. Id. See also TSN, 11 February 1997, pp. 5, 9-10, 12.
18. CA rollo, pp. 58-59.
19. Records, p. 392.
20. Id. at 3; TSN, 29 March 1995, p. 4; TSN, 13 March 1996, pp. 2-3, 20-24.
21. See In Re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for De Villa, 442 SCRA 706 (2004).

22. In People v. Marquez (430 Phil. 383 [2002]), we characterized DNA testing as
synonymous to DNA typing, DNA fingerprinting, DNA profiling, genetic tests, and genetic
fingerprinting.
23. A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, 15 October 2007.
24. People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 504, 514.
25. G.R. No. 150224, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 505 (2004).
26. Id. at 515.
27. 406 Phil. 449 (2001).
28. Id. at 461.
29. G.R. No. 148220, 15 June 2005, 460 SCRA 197. See also Agustin v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 162571, 15 June 2005, 460 SCRA 315.
30. Id. at 209-213. Citations omitted.
31. G.R. No. 161434, 3 March 2004, 424 SCRA 277.
32. Id. at 345.
33. Carlos v. Sandoval, 471 SCRA 266 (2005).
34. RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE, Sec. 4.
35. SEC. 5. DNA Testing Order. — If the court finds that the requirements in Section 4 hereof
have been complied with, the court shall. —
(a) Order, as appropriate, that biological samples be taken from any person or crime
scene evidence;
(b) Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to protect the integrity of the
biological sample, the testing process and the reliability of the test results, including a
condition that the DNA test results shall be simultaneously disclosed to parties involved
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 in the case; and ICASEH

(c) If the biological sample taken is of such an amount that prevents the conduct of
confirmatory testing by the other or the adverse party and where additional biological
samples of the same kind can no longer be obtained, issue an order requiring all parties
to the case or proceedings to witness the DNA testing to be conducted.
. . . The grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic
admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be obtained
as a result thereof.
36. Among the current known institutions offering DNA testing are the University of the
Philippines Natural Science Research Institute and St. Luke's Medical Center.
37. SEC. 11. Confidentiality . — DNA profiles and all results or other information obtained
from DNA testing shall be confidential. Except upon order of the court, a DNA profile and
all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall only be released to any
of the following, under such terms and conditions as may be set forth by the court:
(1) Person from whom the sample was taken;

(2) Lawyers representing parties in the case or action where the DNA evidence is offered
and presented or sought to be offered and presented;
(3) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action;

(4) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and

(5) Other persons as determined by the court.
Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any information concerning a DNA
profile without the proper court order shall be liable for indirect contempt of the court
wherein such DNA evidence was offered, presented or sought to be offered and
presented.

Where the person from whom the biological sample was taken files a written verified
request to the court that allowed the DNA testing for the disclosure of his DNA profile
and all results or other information obtained from the DNA testing, the same may be
disclosed to the persons named in the written verified request.
38. SEC. 12. Preservation of DNA evidence. — The trial court shall preserve the DNA
evidence, in its totality, including all biological samples, DNA profiles and results or other
genetic information obtained from DNA testing. For this purpose, the court may order the
appropriate government agency to preserve the DNA evidence as follows:
(a) In criminal cases:
i. for not less than the period of time that any person is under trial for an offense; or,

ii. in case the accused is serving sentence, until such time as the accused has served his
sentence; and

(b) in all other cases, until such time as the decision in the case where the DNA evidence
was introduced has become final and executory.

The court may allow the physical destruction of a biological sample before the
expiration of the periods set forth above provided that:
(a) a court order to that effect has been secured; or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 (b) the person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in writing to the
disposal of the DNA evidence.
39. People v. Vallejo, 431 Phil. 798, 817 (2002).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com