Rosendo Herrera filed a petition for review challenging lower court orders requiring him to undergo DNA testing in a case where he was accused of being the biological father of Rosendo Alba. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the lower court orders. It held that the right against self-incrimination only applies to testimonial compulsion and not to DNA testing, as it does not require disclosure of communicative evidence. Therefore, requiring Herrera to undergo DNA testing did not violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Rosendo Herrera filed a petition for review challenging lower court orders requiring him to undergo DNA testing in a case where he was accused of being the biological father of Rosendo Alba. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the lower court orders. It held that the right against self-incrimination only applies to testimonial compulsion and not to DNA testing, as it does not require disclosure of communicative evidence. Therefore, requiring Herrera to undergo DNA testing did not violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Rosendo Herrera filed a petition for review challenging lower court orders requiring him to undergo DNA testing in a case where he was accused of being the biological father of Rosendo Alba. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the lower court orders. It held that the right against self-incrimination only applies to testimonial compulsion and not to DNA testing, as it does not require disclosure of communicative evidence. Therefore, requiring Herrera to undergo DNA testing did not violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Rosendo Herrera filed a petition for review challenging lower court orders requiring him to undergo DNA testing in a case where he was accused of being the biological father of Rosendo Alba. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the lower court orders. It held that the right against self-incrimination only applies to testimonial compulsion and not to DNA testing, as it does not require disclosure of communicative evidence. Therefore, requiring Herrera to undergo DNA testing did not violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
CRIMPRO RULE 115
Title GR No. 148220
HERRERA vs ALBA Date: June 15, 2005 Ponente: CARPIO, J. ROSENDO HERRERA, petitioner ROSENDO ALBA, minor, represented by his mother ARMI A. ALBA, and HON. NIMFA CUESTA-VILCHES, Presiding Judge, Branch 48, Regional Trial Court, Manila, respondents Nature of the case: A petition for review to set aside the Decision dated 29 November 2000 of the Court of Appeals (appellate court) in CA-G.R. SP No. 59766. The appellate court affirmed two Orders issued by Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (trial court) in SP No. 98-88759. The Order dated 3 February 2000 directed Rosendo Herrera (petitioner) to submit to deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) paternity testing, while the Order dated 8 June 2000 denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. SUMMARY Rosendo Alba (respondent) filed a petition for compulsory recognition, support and damages against Rosendo Herrera (petitioner). During trial, respondent filed a motion to take a DNA paternity testing wherein the petitioner argued that conducting such test violates his right against self-incrimination. The SC held that the privilege (right against self-incrimination) is applicable only to testimonial evidence. FACTS On 14 May 1998, then thirteen-year-old Rosendo Alba (respondent), represented by his mother Armi Alba, filed before the trial court a petition for compulsory recognition, support and damages against petitioner. Petitioner denied that he is the biological father of respondent. Petitioner also denied physical contact with respondent’s mother. Respondent filed a motion to direct the taking of DNA paternity testing to abbreviate the proceedings. Petitioner opposed DNA paternity testing and contended that it has not gained acceptability. Petitioner further argued that DNA paternity testing violates his right against self-incrimination. The trial court granted respondents motion to conduct DNA paternity testing on petitioner, respondent and Armi Alba. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and he asserted that under the present circumstances, the DNA test [he] is compelled to take would be inconclusive, irrelevant and the coercive process to obtain the requisite specimen, unconstitutional. The trial court denied petitioner’s MR. On 18 July 2000, petitioner filed before the appellate court a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner maintained his previous objections to the taking of DNA paternity testing. The appellate court stated that the proposed DNA paternity testing does not violate his right against self-incrimination because the right applies only to testimonial compulsion. ISSUE/S Whether or not DNA paternity testing violates the accused’s right against self-incrimination RATIO No. Section 17, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Petitioner asserts that obtaining samples from him for DNA testing violates his right against self- incrimination. Petitioner ignores our earlier pronouncements that the 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 respondent in this action, will not violate the right against self-incrimination. This privilege applies only to evidence that is communicative in essence taken under duress. The Supreme Court has 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 defendant, not an exclusion of evidence taken from his body when it may be material. As such, a defendant 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 evidence for acts of lasciviousness; 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; and the court can compel a woman accused of adultery to submit for pregnancy test, since the gist of the privilege is the restriction on testimonial compulsion. The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity and filiation of children, especially of illegitimate children, is without prejudice to the right of the putative parent to claim his or her own defenses. Where the evidence to aid this investigation is obtainable through the facilities of modern science and technology, such evidence should be considered subject to the limits established by the law, rules, and jurisprudence. RULING WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 November 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 59766. We also AFFIRM the Orders dated 3 February 2000 and 8 June 2000 issued by Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. SP-98-88759. )
