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, affirming the Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang,
La Union, Branch 67 dated 15 October 1997 finding Rufino 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 five (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 first undressed her [AAA] and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 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. 10
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. 11 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. 12
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. 13
Pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo , 14 appellant's appeal before
us was transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. On 15
February 2006, the appellate court affirmed 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. 15
In this appeal, appellant seeks his acquittal on reasonable doubt by
reason of the belated filing 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 filed the complaint
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 against him only upon the prodding of her mother. 16 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. 17 Appellant
further puts in issue the long delay in AAA's filing 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. 19 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 inconsistent statements on
whether it was appellant or she herself, upon his orders, who took off her
clothes. Finally, appellant points out the supposedly conflicting 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, testified 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. 20
Amidst the slew of assertions and counter-assertions, a happenstance
may provide the definitive 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. 21 If he is found not to be the father, the
finding 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 22 under the aegis of the New Rule on
DNA Evidence 23 (the Rules), which took effect on 15 October 2007, subject
to guidelines prescribed herein.
DNA print or identification 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 identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and
exculpatory evidence. It can aid immensely in determining a more accurate
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the conviction of the
guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper
administration of justice in every case. 24 Verily, as we pointed out in People
v. Yatar , 25 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) amplification method by Short Tandem Repeat (STR)
analysis. With PCR testing, tiny amounts of a specific DNA sequence
can be copied exponentially within hours. Thus, getting sufficient DNA
for analysis has become much easier since it became possible to
reliably amplify small samples using the PCR method. 26

The ground work for acknowledging the strong weight of DNA testing
was first laid out in Tijing v. Court of Appeals, 27 where the Court said —
. . . Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods
unless we adopt the modern and scientific ways available. Fortunately,
we have now the facility and expertise in using DNA test for
identification 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 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
scientific 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. 28

The leading case of Herrera v. Alba, 29 where the validity of a DNA test
as a probative tool to determine filiation 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 profile 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 profile, for the individual
from whom the sample is taken. This DNA profile 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

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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
specific 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
(profiling, tests, fingerprinting, or analysis/DNA
fingerprinting/genetic tests or fingerprinting). 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 five (5) techniques to
conduct DNA typing. They are: the RFLP (restriction fragment
length polymorphism); "reverse dot blot" or HLA DQ 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 fingerprint analysis, in DNA typing, "matches"

are determined. To illustrate, when DNA or fingerprint 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 fingerprint 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 each parent. In [a] paternity test, the forensic scientist looks at a
number of these variable regions in an individual to produce a
DNA profile. Comparing next the DNA profiles 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 profile is
then examined to ascertain whether he has the DNA types in his
profile, 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 official recognition by our courts." In Vallejo, the DNA profile
from the vaginal swabs taken from the rape victim matched the
accused's DNA profile. We affirmed 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 "official 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 significant impact
on jurisprudence on DNA testing: People v. Y atar and In re: The Writ of
Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa. In Yatar, a match existed
between the DNA profile of the semen found in the victim and the DNA
profile of the blood sample given by appellant in open court. The Court,
following Vallejo's footsteps, affirmed the conviction of appellant
because the physical evidence, corroborated by 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 profile of the
convict-petitioner and the DNA profile of the victim's child does not
preclude the convict-petitioner’s commission of rape. 30

The 2004 case of Tecson v. Commission on Elections 31 likewise

reiterated the acceptance of DNA testing in our jurisdiction in this wise: "[i]n
case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish
or would be difficult 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." 32
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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. 33 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 scientific 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. 34

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 confined 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 find the DNA testing feasible in the case at bar, it shall
order the same, in conformity with Section 5 of the Rules. 35 It is also the
RTC which shall determine the institution 36 to undertake the DNA testing
and the parties are free to 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:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 qualification 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 falsifiability 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 confidence attributed to
mathematical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles and the
significance and limitation of statistical calculations used in comparing
DNA profiles.

The trial court is further enjoined to observe the requirements of

confidentiality and preservation of the DNA evidence in accordance with
Sections 11 37 and 12 38 of the Rules.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, the RTC shall
consider, among 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and
the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests. 39
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 identified 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 first 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 fulfillment
of such end, the RTC is directed to cooperate and coordinate with DCA Dela
Cruz.
A final 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the victim's privacy. See People v. Cabalquinto, supra.
8. Supra note 1 at 5-6.
9. TSN, 11 February 1997, pp. 6-8.
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. —

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 (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 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:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 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

(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. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com