MEJIA, Wendilyn B.

GROUP 2
STS 1 – C March 2, 2011

ESSAY ANALYSIS: “DNA Forensics in the Philippines”

The Philippines, an archipelagic country of over 92 million people (USAID 2008), is a

member state of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Unlike Thailand, Malaysia,
Singapore and Indonesia, the Philippines does not yet have a national DNA database or any
legislation that would facilitate its establishment. The Philippine Supreme Court has recognised
the admissibility of DNA evidence in court and has provided judicial guidelines for the
collection, handling and storage of biological samples in the Rule on DNA Evidence, which it
promulgated in 2007 (Supreme Court of the Philippines 2007). Forensic DNA testing in criminal
investigations is performed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), an agency under the
Department of Justice, and the Philippine National Police (PNP), an agency under the
Department of Interior and Local Government. A third DNA laboratory, which is based at the
University of the Philippines (UP), not only performs forensic DNA testing in both criminal and
civil cases but also validates DNA testing procedures and conducts research on the genetics of
the Philippine population. The three DNA laboratories operate independently and are under the
control and supervision of the institutions to which they are attached.

The Philippine Council for Advanced Science and Technology Research and
Development (PCASTRD) is one of the sectoral councils of the Department of Science and
Technology (DOST) tasked to develop, integrate, and coordinate the national research system for
the advanced science and technology (S&T) sector in the country.

DNA technology is upon us. We are four long years of genetic advancement from 1997
when in the case of Lim vs. CA (270 SCRA 1), a party could not establish paternity by means of
DNA testing as the Supreme Court, in an obiter dictum, commented on the novelty of the
technique and the lack of facilities in the country. Today, the use of DNA technology has gained
acceptance in the field of forensic and life sciences, and courts in the USA, Europe and Asia
have availed of DNA evidence in deciding cases. There is no reason, then, why DNA proof,
when relevant under our Rules on Evidence, should be treated differently in the Philippines.

Before discussing DNA evidence, let us first talk about another popular forensic
evidence, fingerprint. Fingerprint is the pattern of skin on the end of fingers and thumbs. By
putting ink on the fingertips and pressing them on a piece of paper, an arrangement of lines is
seen and there is fingerprint evidence. Fingerprint, 109 years old today, and unique to an
individual, is a powerful and proven identifier. For instance, if the evidence found at the crime
scene is an individual's right thumbprint, and a suspect is identified, the right thumbprint or the
"known" print is compared to that found. If the fingerprint is different, it is considered as an
"exclusion" or not that of the suspect. But if the pattern of the skin in the thumb is the same, it is
deemed a "match".

1
 Fingerprints have probative force, but for many heinous crimes such as rape and murder,
no fingerprints are left behind. Hence, there was a need to look for other identifying biological
markers that can be taken from blood, tissue or semen. Tests for protein, cell surface, and blood
groupings came about but were nowhere as remarkable as fingerprint until it was possible to read
DNA.

DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid is the genetic blueprint exclusive to a particular

individual. When DNA testing is carried out on a crime scene, it is performed on certain
locations (loci) in a DNA sample. When a suspect's DNA is analyzed, it is done so at the same
loci to make a valid comparison. If a single feature is different, it is excluded and the suspect is
considered innocent. Otherwise, there is basis to prosecute.

In DNA paternity testing, the DNA profiles of the mother and the child are obtained to
determine which half of the child's DNA was inherited from the mother. The other half is
inherited from the father. If the man does not have DNA types in his profiles that match the
paternal types in the child, he is excluded. If he has, he is not excluded as the father.

In the same vein, DNA evidence, as a tool for identification in criminal cases, works both
ways. It may help clear a suspect from criminal liability or serve as proof to convict an accused.
For very young victims of crimes, DNA evidence compensates for their limited or delayed
memory and capability to testify in court. However, while a DNA test result may reveal that A
was in the crime scene, it cannot tell how many hours A was there. It may disclose that B had sex
with C but it cannot say that B forced C. Lastly, even if DNA evidence puts D in the murder
scene, it cannot speak who as between D and X pulled the knife first.

In as much as the responsibility of the courts is to provide the search for truth, when that
process can be aided by forensic science that yields reliable results, the interests of the justice
system and society are served. Besides, every person has the right to enjoy the benefits and
application of scientific progress (Art. 15, International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights) more significantly when claiming rights to due process and to be presumed
innocent under the Constitution. And, every child seeking to enforce the right to know and be
cared for by his/her parents pursuant to Art. 7, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, may
avail of proof allowed by the Rules on Evidence and any method other than those provided for
under Article 172, Par. 2(2) of the Family Code, such as DNA paternity test, to prove parentage.

What are the issues raised against DNA evidence in the Philippines? First, there is no
substantive law on DNA. I believe that this is not necessary. The use of DNA evidence, just like
paraffin and fingerprint tests, need not be the subject of legislation as it is something that the
courts can take judicial notice of under Rule 129, Section 2, Rules of Court. Its existence and
reliability is either of public knowledge or capable of unquestionable demonstration by an expert
witness.

The belief that the country is not technically ready for DNA technology used to be
another issue against its use. Fortunately, the technique can now be performed in the Philippines.
There are at least four (4) laboratories that conduct DNA typing which are: the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI); University of the Philippines Natural Sciences Research Institute

2
(UPNSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory; St. Luke's Medical Center; and National Kidney Institute
of the Philippines, Laboratory Medicine Department. Efforts are underway to set up similar
laboratories in the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory Service and at the Makati
Medical Center.

The third argument opposed to DNA evidence is that the same allegedly violates a
person's right against self-incrimination and the right to privacy. In 1987, however, the Supreme
Court has held in People vs. Olvis (154 SCRA 513) that what is prohibited by the Constitution is
the use of compulsion to extract communication or testimonial evidence from an accused, and
not the taking of evidence from his body when it may be material. The ruling was reiterated in
the 2000 case of People vs. Paynor (261 SCRA 615). The right to privacy, that is to some great
extent a component of the right against self-incrimination will be, in the light of all these, a non-
issue.

Lastly, an objection is interposed to DNA evidence because there is no Frye or Daubert

court hearing in the Philippines that sets the guidelines for its application. Under Rule 128 of the
Rules of Court, for evidence to be admissible, it only has to be relevant. But, to somehow
establish a standard in competency of DNA analysis as proof, we can adopt the Daubert and Frye
tests. Such require courts to make preliminary assessment of whether the testimony's underlying
reasoning or methodology is scientifically valid (RELIABILITY) and if it can be applied to facts
at issue (RELEVANCE). The considerations include the following:
1) the technology can be and has been tested;
2) subject to peer review and publication;
3) known or potential error rate?
4) existence and maintenance of standards controlling operation, and adding the single
requirement in the Frye test;
5) has attracted widespread acceptance within the relevant scientific community.

Who are the duty-holders in the application of DNA evidence? First, are the judges and
the justices who act as the gatekeepers. They must receive training on the proper application of
DNA technology that will be of help to them when accepting or rejecting the expert's opinion
and in evaluating the factors leading to that conclusion.

The DNA expert witness also plays a pivotal role in the use of the evidence in court. The
witness must be properly qualified as an expert. The gathering and chain of custody of the DNA
sample must be protected from contamination so that the court will consider it in resolving the
issues and in deciding the case. The expert witness must also be aware of the fact that when
DNA evidence is rejected in the lower court, it is abuse of discretion on the part of the judge that
must be proved on appeal.

Moreover, it is incumbent upon the DNA expert witness to work closely with the lawyers
educating them about the technology. The witness must be prepared for cross-examination by the
opposing party, using prior and consistent expert testimony. When testifying, the expert witness
must anticipate questions that sometimes call for answers beyond the scope of area of expertise.
In fine, the witness must make sure that as an expert, terms have been defined for the record

3
confident in what he/she knows and knows that the opinion evidence counts because he/she is
the expert.

What is the future of DNA evidence in the country? The 1999 Supreme Court
pronouncement in the case of Andal vs. People (G.R. No. 138269-69, 26 May 1999) stating that
DNA typing is a more accurate and authoritative means of identification than eye-witness
testimony, was adopted in the recent case of People vs. Penaso (G.R. No. 121980, 23 February
2000).

In the year 2001 case of Tijing vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 125901, 8 March 2001),
the Supreme Court confirmed that the country has the facility and expertise in using DNA test
for identification and parentage testing. The High Court went on to state that courts should apply
the results of science when completely obtained in aid of situations presented since to reject such
result would be to deny progress.

As a final note, the Hon. Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., has remarked that: "Thus, in
no small measure do we appreciate Doctor (Franklin M.) Zweig's acceptance of our invitation for
him to share not only his knowledge of life sciences, but his experiences as well, in initiating
judges to the new marvels of science that will inevitably invade their courtrooms.”

REFERENCES:
“Cells, Genes, DNA Take Center Stage", Supreme Court Benchmark, Vol. I, No. IV, Page 3,
November-December 2000 Issue.
Chan Robles. Virtual Law Library. “Rule on DNA Evidence. Retrieved from
www.chanrobles.com on February 28, 2011.
De Ungria M. C. and Jose, J. M. “Forensic DNA profiling and databasing: the Philippine
experience.” Pp. 309-330. Online Publication Date: November 2010.
Philippine Council for Advanced Science and Technology Research and Development
(PCASTRD). “DNA forensics training to enhance RP law enforcement, justice system.”
Posted on 18 November 2009 01:39. Retrieved from
http://www.pcastrd.dost.gov.ph/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=101:dna-forensics-training-to-enhance-rp-law-
enforcement-justice-system&catid=19:news&Itemid=106 on February 28, 2011.
Vilches, N. C. February 2002. “DNA Technology and Philippine Courts.” Thailand Lawyers
Attorneys, and Legal Services. Retrieved from
http://asialaw.tripod.com/articles/dnavilches.html on February 28, 2011.