UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Evid

E2024 Professor Jacoba

Topic: Opinion Rule; Rule 130, Sections 51 to 53; see also Rule 132, Section 22; Rule 133, Section 5; Rule on
DNA Evidence

Doctrine: Section 6. A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC provides that: "If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or
higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.

Disputable presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be contradicted and overcome by other
evidence (Rule 131, Section 3, Rules of Court). The disputable presumption that was established as a result of the
DNA testing was not contradicted and overcome by other evidence considering that the accused did not object to
the admission of the results of the DNA testing (Exhibits "A" and "B" inclusive of sub-
markings) nor presented evidence to rebut the same.

FACTS OF THE CASE

(same facts as 352 People v. Umanito)

The RTC received the Resolution of the Court and set a case for hearing to ascertain the feasibility of DNA testing
with due regard to the standards set in Sections 4(a), (b), (c), and (e) of the DNA Rules. Both AAA and BBB
(now 17 years old) testified during the hearing. They also manifested their willingness to undergo DNA
examination to determine whether Umanito is BBB’s father.

A hearing was conducted, where the public prosecutor and Umanito’s counsel manifested their concurrence to
the selection of the NBI as to the institution that would conduct the DNA testing. The RTC issued an Order on
even date directing that biological samples be taken from AAA, BBB and Umanito at the courtroom. The Order
also enjoined the NBI to strictly followed the measures laid down by the SC to protect the integrity of the
biological samples: 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.

The DNA test result shall be simultaneously disclosed to the parties in Court. The [NBI] is, therefore, enjoined
not to disclose to the parties in advance the DNA test results. The NBI was also enjoined to observe confidentiality
of the DNA profiles and other information obtained from DNA testing.

AAA, BBB, Umanito’s counsel and two NBI representatives were present at the hearing. Umanito was not able
to attend the hearing without an authority coming from the SC as per a letter from the OIC of the New Bilibid
Prisons. The parties manifested in court their willingness to the taking of the DNA sample form the accused at
his detention center at the New Bilibid Prisons.

The prosecution then presented on the witness stand NBI forensic chemist Aranas, who testified on her
qualifications as an expert witness in the field of DNA testing. Aranas was accompanied by a laboratory technician
of the NBI DNA laboratory who was to assist in the extraction of the DNA.

DNA samples were thus extracted from AAA and BBB in the presence of the Judge, the prosecutor, the counsel
for the defense, and DCA dela Cruz. DNA samples were also extracted from Umanito at the New Bilibid Prisons
by Aranas, as witnessed by the same people, as well as other personnel of the Court and the New Bilibid Prisons.

The RTC ordered the NBI to submit the result of the DNA examination within thirty (30) days after the extraction
of biological samples of Umanito, and directed its duly authorized representatives to attend a hearing on the
admissibility of such DNA evidence.

The RTC ruled that based on the results of the DNA analysis conducted by the NBI, Umanito is the biological
father of BBB.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Evid
E2024 Professor Jacoba
ISSUE/S & RATIO/S
W/N Umanito’s defense of alibi stands—NO.
• The DNA testing negated Umanito’s general theory that he did not engage in sexual relations with the
complainant. As testified to by AAA, Umanito had fathered the child she hgave birth to on April 5, 1990,
nine months after the day she was raped by Umanito.
• Umanito filed a Motion to Withdraw Appeal; by filing such motion, Umanito is deemed to have acceded
to the rulings of the RTC and CA finding him guilty of the crime of rape.
• Given the results of the Court-ordered DNA testing conforms with the conclusions of the lower courts,
and that no cause is presented for the SC to deviate from the penalties imposed, there is no reason to deny
Umanito’s Motion to Withdraw Appeal.

RULING
Motion to Withdraw Appeal granted. Instant case now closed and terminated.

NOTES
PROCEDURE OF DNA TESTING USED ITC
She further declared that using the Powerplex 16 System, Deoxyribonuncleic acid analysis of the Buccal Swabs
and Blood stained on FTA paper taken from [AAA], [BBB], and Umanito, to determine whether or not Umanito
is the biological father of [BBB], showed that there is a Complete Match in all of the fifteen (15) loci tested
between the alleles of Umanito and [BBB].

That based on the above findings, there is a 99.9999% probability of paternity that Rufino Umanito y Millares is
the biological father of [BBB] (Exhibits "A" and series and "B" and series).

After the cross-examination of the witness by the defense counsel, the Public Prosecutor offered in evidence
Exhibits "A" and sub-markings, referring to the Report of the Chemistry Division of the NBI, Manila on the DNA
analysis to determine whether or not Umanito is the biological father of [BBB] and Exhibit "B" and sub-markings,
referring to the enlarged version of the table of Exhibit "A", to establish that on the DNA examination conducted
on [AAA], [BBB] and the accused Umanito for the purpose of establishing paternity, the result is 99.9999%
probable. Highly probable.

The defense did not interpose any objection, hence, the exhibits were admitted.

1. That considering that under Section 9, A.M. No. 06-11-5- SC, if the value of the Probability of Paternity is
99.9% or higher, there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity, the instant case was set for reception of
evidence for the accused on April 29, 2008 to controvert the presumption that he is the biological father of [BBB].

During the hearing on April 29, 2008, the accused who was in court manifested through his counsel that he will
not present evidence to dispute the findings of the Forensic Chemistry Division of the NBI.

The DNA samples were collected by the forensic chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation whose
qualifications as an expert was properly established adopting the following procedure:
a) The subject sources were asked to gargle and to fill out the reference sample form. Thereafter, the
chemists informed them that buccal swabs will be taken from their mouth and five (5) droplets of blood
will also be taken from the ring finger of their inactive hand;
b) Pictures of the subject sources were taken by the NBI Chemist;
c) Buccal swabs were taken from the subject sources three (3) times;
d) Subject sources were made to sign three (3) pieces of paper to serve as label of the three buccal swabs
placed inside two (2) separate envelopes that bear their names;
e) Blood samples were taken from the ring finger of the left hand of the subject sources;
f) Subject sources were made to sign the FTA card of their blood samples. The buccal swabs and the FTA
cards were placed in a brown envelope for air drying for at least one hour.
g) Finger prints of the subject sources were taken for additional identification;
h) The subject sources were made to sign their finger prints.
i) Atty. Ramon J. Gomez, Deputy Court Administrator Reuben dela Cruz and Prosecutor Maria Nenita A.
Oplana, in that order, were made to sign as witnesses to the reference sample forms and the finger prints
of the subject sources.
j) After one hour of air drying, the Buccal Swabs and the FTA papers were placed inside a white envelope
and sealed with a tape by the NBI Chemists;
k) The witnesses, Atty. Ramon J. Gomez, Deputy Court Administrator Reuben dela Cruz, Prosecutor
Maria Nenita A. Opiana including the NBI Chemist, affixed their signatures on the sealed white
envelope;
l) The subjects sources were made to sign and affix their finger prints on the sealed white envelope;
m) The chemists affixed their signatures on the sealed envelope and placed it in a separate brown envelope;
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Evid
E2024 Professor Jacoba
n) The subjects sources were made to affix their finger prints on their identification places and reference
forms.

The same procedure was adopted by the Forensic Chemists of the NBI in the taking of DNA samples from the
accused, Umanito at the New Bilibid Prison in the afternoon of February 8, 2008. Aranas, the expert witness
testified that at the NBI the sealed envelope was presented to Ms. Demelen dela Cruz, the supervisor of the
Forensic Chemistry Division to witness that the envelope containing the DNA specimens was sealed as it reached
the NBI. Photographs of the envelope in sealed form were taken prior to the conduct of examination.

With the procedure adopted by the Forensic Chemist of the NBI, who is an expert and whose integrity and
dedication to her work is beyond reproach the manner how the biological samples were collected, how they were
handled and the chain of custody thereof were properly established the court is convinced that there is no
possibility of contamination of the DNA samples taken from the parties.

At the Forensic Laboratory of the National Bureau of Investigation, the envelopes containing the DNA samples
were opened and the specimens were subjected to sampling, extraction, amplification and analysis. Duplicate
analysis were made. The Forensic Chemist, Aranas caused the examination of the blood samples and the buccal
swabs were separately processed by Mrs. Demelen dela Cruz.

In order to arrive at a DNA profile, the forensic chemists adopted the following procedure:
(1) Sampling which is the cutting of a portion from the media (swabs and FTA paper);
(2) then subjected the cut portions for extraction to release the DNA;
(3) After the DNA was released into the solution, it was further processed using the formarine chain reaction to
amplify the DNA samples for analysis of using the Powerplex 16 System, which allows the analysis of 16 portions
of the DNA samples.

The Powerplex 16 System are reagent kits for forensic purposes; (3) After the target, DNA is multiplied, the
amplified products are analyzed using the genetic analyzer. The Powerplex 16 System has 16 markers at the same
time. It is highly reliable as it has already been validated for forensic use. It has also another function which is to
determine the gender of the DNA being examined.

Aranas, the Forensic Chemist, in her testimony explained that the DNA found in all cells of a human being come
in pairs except the mature red blood cells. These cells are rolled up into minute bodies called "chromosomes",
which contain the DNA of a person. A human has 23 pairs of chromosomes. For each pair of chromosome, one
was found to have originated from the mother, the other must have came from the father. Using the Powerplex
16 System Results, the variable portions of the DNA called "loci", which were used as the basis for DNA analysis
or typing showed the following: under "loci" D3S1358, the genotype of the locus of [AAA] is 15, 16, the genotype
of [BBB] is 15, 16, one of the pair of alleles must have originated and the others from the father. The color for
the allele of the mother is red while the father is blue. On matching the allele which came from the mother was
first determined [AAA], has alleles of 15 or 16 but in the geno type of [BBB], 15 was colored blue because that
is the only allele which contain the genotype of the accused Rufino
Umanito, the 16 originated from the mother, [AAA]. In this marker [BBB] has a genotype of 15, 16, 16 is from
the mother and 15 is from the father.

The whole process involved the determination which of those alleles originated from the mother and the rest
would entail looking on the genotype or the profile of the father to determine if they matched with those of the
child.

As earlier mentioned, DNA samples consisted of buccal swabs and blood samples taken from the parties by the
forensic chemists who adopted reliable techniques and procedure in collecting and handling them to avoid
contamination. The method that was used to secure the samples were safe and reliable. The samples were taken
and handled by an expert, whose qualifications, integrity and dedication to her work is unquestionable, hence, the
possibility of substitution or manipulation is very remote.

The procedure adopted by the DNA section, Forensic Chemistry Division of the National Bureau of Investigation
in analyzing the samples was in accordance with the standards used in modern technology. The comparative
analysis of DNA prints of the accused Umanito and his alleged child is a simple process called parentage analysis
which was made easier with the use of a DNA machine called Genetic Analyzer. To ensure a reliable result, the
NBI secured two (2) DNA types of samples from the parties, the buccal swabs as primary source and blood as
secondary source. Both sources were separately processed and examined and thereafter a
comparative analysis was conducted which yielded the same result. The National Bureau of Investigation DNA
Section, Forensic Division is an accredited DNA testing laboratory in the country which maintains a multimillion
DNA analysis equipment for its scientific criminal investigation unit. It is manned by qualified laboratory
chemists and technicians who are experts in the field, like Mary Ann Aranas, the expert witness in the instant
case, who is a licensed chemist, has undergone training on the aspects of Forensic Chemistry for two (2) years
before she was hired as forensic chemists of the NBI and has been continuously attending training seminars, and
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Evid
E2024 Professor Jacoba
workshops which are field related and who has handled more than 200 cases involving DNA extraction or
collection or profiling.

The accused did not object to the admission of Exhibits "A" and "B" inclusive of their sub-markings. He did not
also present evidence to controvert the results of the DNA analysis.

Section 6. A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC provides that: "If the value of the Probability of Paternity is 99.9% or higher,
there shall be a disputable presumption of paternity.

Disputable presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted but may be contradicted and overcome by other
evidence (Rule 131, Section 3, Rules of Court). The disputable presumption that was established as a result of the
DNA testing was not contradicted and overcome by other evidence considering that the accused did not object to
the admission of the results of the DNA testing (Exhibits "A" and "B" inclusive of sub-
markings) nor presented evidence to rebut the same.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the trial court rules that based on the result of the DNA analysis conducted
by the National Bureau of Investigation, Forensic Division, RUFINO UMANITO y
MILLARES is the biological father of [BBB].