ARNEL L. AGUSTIN vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS APPEALS G.R. No. 162571. June 15, 2005 CORONA, J. FACTS:
Respondents Fe Angela and her son Martin Prollamante sued Martins allege alleged d biolog biologica icall father father,, petiti petitione onerr Arnel rnel L. Agustin gustin,, for suppor supportt and support pendente support pendente lite lite before the Regional Trial Court. In their complaint, resp respon onde dent ntss alle allege ged d that that Arnel rnel supp suppos osed edl l impr impreg egna nate ted d Fe on her her th !" birthda on #o$ember %&, %'''. (espite Arnels insistence on abortion, Fe decided other)ise and ga$e birth to their child out of )edloc*, Martin, on August %%, +&&& at the Capitol Medical ospital in -ueon Cit. The babs birth certificate )as purportedl signed b Arnel as the father. Arnel shouldered the pre/natal and hospital e0penses but later refused Fes repeated re1uests for Martins support despite his ade1uate financial capacit and e$en sugges suggested ted to ha$e ha$e the child child commit committed ted for adopti adoption. on. Arnel Arnel also also denied denied ha$ing fathered the child.
In his amended ans)er, Arnel denied ha$ing sired Martin because his affair and intimac )ith Fe had allegedl ended in %''2, long before Martins conception. e claimed that Fe had at least one other secret lo$er. Arnel admitted that their relationship started in %''! but he ne$er reall fell in lo$e )ith 3Fe4 not onl because 3she4 had at least one secret lo$er, a certain 5un, but also because she pro$ed to be scheming and o$erl demanding and possessi$e. As As a result, r esult, theirs )as a storm on/and/off affair. affair. In his pre/trial brief filed on Ma %6, +&&+, Arnel $ehementl denied ha$ing sired Martin but e0pressed )illingness )illingness to consider an proposal proposal to settle the case.
Fe and Martin mo$ed for the issuance of an order directing all the parties to submit themsel$es to (#A paternit testing pursuant to Rule +2 of the Rules of Court. Arnel Arnel opposed opposed said motion b in$o*ing in$o*ing his constitution constitutional al right against self/incrimination. e also mo$ed to dismiss the complaint for lac* of cause of action, considering that his signature on the birth certificate )as a forger and that, under the la), an illegitimate child is not entitled to support if not recognied b the putati$e father.
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint and ordered the parties to submit themsel$es to (#A paternit testing at the e0pense of the applicants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. ISSUE 7hether (#A paternit testing can be ordered in a proceeding for
support )ithout $iolating petitioners constitutional right to pri$ac and right against self/incrimination.
RULING
8ignificantl, )e upheld the constitutionalit of compulsor (#A testing and the admissibilit of the results thereof as e$idence. In that case, (#A samples from semen reco$ered from a rape $ictims $agina )ere used to positi$el identif the accused 5oel 9a)it atar as the rapist. atar claimed that the compulsor e0traction of his blood sample for (#A testing, as )ell as the testing itself, $iolated his right against self/incrimination, as embodied in both 8ections %+ and %6 of Article III of the Constitution.
#or does petitioners in$ocation of his right to pri$ac persuade us. In ;ple $. Torres, )here )e struc* do)n the proposed national computeried identification sstem embodied in Administrati$e ;rder #o. !&2, )e said: In no uncertain terms, )e also underscore that the right to pri$ac does not bar all incursions into indi$idual pri$ac. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and technological ad$ancements that enhance public ser$ice and the common good... Intrusions into the right must be accompanied b proper safeguards that enhance public ser$ice and the common good. istoricall, it has mostl been in the areas of legalit of searches and seiures, and the infringement of pri$ac of communication )here the constitutional right to pri$ac has been criticall at issue. Petitioners case in$ol$es neither and, as alread stated, his argument that his right against self/incrimination is in
The case of 7ilson $. Lumb sho)s that (#A testing is so commonl accepted that, in some instances, ordering the procedure has become a ministerial act. The 8upreme Court of 8t. La)rence Count, #e) or* allo)ed a part )ho had alread ac*no)ledged paternit to subse1uentl challenge his prior ac*no)ledgment. The Court pointed out that, under the la), specificall 8ection =%> of the #e) or* Famil Court Act.
In R.?. $. C.?.7., a decision of the Mississippi 8upreme Court, (#A tests )ere used to pro$e that .7., pre$iousl thought to be an offspring of the marriage bet)een A.C.7. and C.?.7., )as actuall the child of R.?. )ith )hom C.?.7. had, at the time of conception, maintained an adulterous relationship.
In ?rie Count (epartment of 8ocial 8er$ices on behalf of Tiffan M.. $. @reg @., the "th (epartment of the #e) or* 8upreme Courts Appellate (i$ision allo)ed @.@., )ho had been ad
In @reco $. Coleman, the Michigan 8upreme Court )hile ruling on the constitutionalit of a pro$ision of la) allo)ing non/modifiable support agreements pointed out that it )as because of the difficult of determining paternit before the ad$ent of (#A testing that such support agreements )ere necessar:
As a result of (#A testing, the accurac )ith )hich paternit can be pro$en has increased significantl since the parties in this la)suit entered into their support agreement3current testing methods can determine the probabilit of paternit to ''.'''''' accurac4. o)e$er, at the time the parties before us entered into the disputed agreement, pro$ing paternit )as a $er significant obstacle to an illegitimate childBs access to child support. The first reported results of modern (#A paternit testing did not occur until %'2=. 3In fact, since its first reported results in %'2=, (#A matching has progressed to Bgeneral acceptance in less than a decadeB4. ;f course, )hile prior blood/testing methods could e0clude some males from being the possible father of a child, those methods could not affirmati$el pinpoint a particular male as being the father. Thus, )hen the settlement agreement bet)een the present parties )as entered in %'2&, establishing paternit )as a far more difficult ordeal than at present. Contested paternit actions at that time )ere often no more than credibilit contests. Conse1uentl, in e$er contested paternit action, obtaining child support depended not merel on )hether the putati$e father )as, in fact, the childBs biological father, but rather on )hether the mother could pro$e to a court of la) that she )as onl se0uall in$ol$ed )ith one man//the putati$e father. Allo)ing parties the option of entering into pri$ate agreements in lieu of pro$ing paternit eliminated the ris* that the mother )ould be unable meet her burden of proof. In Raffert $. Per*ins,D"6E the 8upreme Court of Mississippi ruled that (#A test results sho)ing paternit )ere sufficient to o$erthro) the presumption of legitimac of a child born during the course of a marriage. The foregoing considered, )e find no gra$e abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent for upholding the orders of the trial court )hich both denied the petitioners motion to dismiss and ordered him to submit himself for (#A testing. nder Rule >= of the %''6 Rules of Ci$il
Procedure, the remed of certiorari is onl a$ailable )hen an tribunal, board or officer has acted )ithout or in e0cess of its or his =, )e discussed at length the nature of such a petition and = of the said Rules. 3emphasis supplied4 In the instant case, the petitioner has in no )a sho)n an arbitrariness, passion, pre
