Discovered in 1869 by Mr. Friedrich Miescher [a Swiss Physiological Chemist] in the nuclei of human white blood cells, the DNA [deoxyribonucleic acid] is known as the building blocks of life. It is said to carry all our genetic information. The DNA testing is being used in forensics to discover the genealogy, paternity, lineage and ancestry. The admissibility of the result of DNA test was raised as an issue in several cases that reached the Supreme Court [whose decision forms part of our legal system]. It includes the right not to be a witness against oneself, known in law as right against self-incrimination. The issue of DNA paternity testing versus the right against self-incrimination takes the fore in the 2005 case of Rosendo Herrera vs. Rosendo Alba, et al., G.R. No. 148220.
In that case, Armi Alba, mother of 13-year-old Rosendo Alba, filed a petition for compulsory recognition, support and damages claiming that Rosendo Herrera is the father of his son. Rosendo denied that he is the biological father of the child. To shorten the proceeding, Armi filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity test. To support the motion, she presented Dr. Saturnina C. Halos, head of the University of the Philippines – Natural Sciences Research Institute, a DNA analysis laboratory. She testified the process for DNA paternity testing and its accuracy rate of 99.9999% in establishing paternity [who is the father of the child]. But, Rosendo opposed Armi’s motion on the ground that DNA paternity test will incriminate him, which the Constitution prohibits. As the trial and appellate courts denied his opposition to DNA testing, Rosendo went to Supreme Court arguing that DNA testing violates his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
The Supreme Court ruled the validity and constitutionality on the use of DNA analysis as evidence. Although Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”, this privilege is applicable only to testimonial evidence.
Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the respondent in a paternity case, contrary to the belief of Rosendo, will not violate his right against self- incrimination. This privilege applies only to evidence that is “communicative” taken under duress. It ruled that the right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition on the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication [testimonial evidence] from a person, not those evidence taken from his body when it may be material. As such, there are several cases that allows evidence taken from one’s body like one can be required to submit to a test to extract virus from his body; the substance emitting from the body of the accused was received as proof for acts of lasciviousness and rape; morphine forced out of the mouth was received as proof; an order by the judge for the witness to put on pair of pants for size was allowed; and court can compel a woman accused of adultery to submit for pregnancy test. In those cases, there is no violation of the right against self-incrimination because it does not involve testimonial evidence. In those cases, the person was not forced to testify.
Recognizing the continuous advance of science and technology and it’s important use in the future on paternity dispute, it was ruled that:
“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. xxx For it was said, that courts should apply the results of science when completely 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 [the] future it would be useful to all concerned in the prompt resolution of parentage and identity issues.”
In the iconic movie “Titanic”, Rose said that “a woman’s heart is a deep ocean of secret”. But, because of DNA paternity test, knowing who is the father of the child cannot be hidden anymore.
