PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee,
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
-
versus - CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA,
and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
RUFINO UMANITO ,
Appellant. Promulgated:
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga, J.:
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
That on or about
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
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 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
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
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
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 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.
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 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 –
x x x 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
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 specific paired bases, A-T or T-A and G-C or C-G. These are called “genes.”
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 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).
x x x x
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, x x x has not yet been accorded official recognition by our
courts.” In
x x x x
In 2004, there were two other cases
that had a significant 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 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
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 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:
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
(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 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.
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.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution,
and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[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.
[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,
[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.
[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.
[29]G.R.
No. 148220,
[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 in the case; and
(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.
x x x 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
[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
(b) the person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented in writing to the disposal of the DNA evidence.