Evidence - Agustin v. Court of Appeals

CASE DIGEST: EVIDENCE

Case Title: Citation:

Agustin v. Court of Appeals G.R. 137757 ≠

FACTS: Fe Angela and her son Martin sued Arnel Agustin, the alleged biological father of the latter; for support and support pendente lite before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Fe Angela alleged that Arnel courted Fe on her 34th birthday and impregnated her. After Fe Angela delivered birth, Arnel allegedly signed the child's birth certificate as the father. He gave support initially but refused later on and even denied being the father. In pre-trial brief, Arnel still denied being Martin's father yet expressed his proposal to settle the case. Meanwhile, Fe and Martin moved for the issuance of order directing all parties to submit themselves to DNA. However, Arnel invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination and opposed the said motion. ≠

ISSUE: Whether or not the DNA is not recognized by the Court as a conclusive means of proving parternity, and whether or not DNA testing violates Arnel's right against self-incrimination? ≠

COURT RULING: The Court in this case listed down several jurisprudence which lead to the advancement of DNA testing, which started in Pe Lim v. Court of Appeals which says that DNA testing has not yet been accorded recognition by the courts. In Tijing v. Court of Appeals, the court opened the possibility of DNA testing. In People v. Vallejo, the court ruled that the purpose of DNA testing was to ascertain whether or not an association existed between evidence sample and reference sample. In People v. Janson, the court ruled that the evidence is inadmissible because of the doubt as to who are the real malefactors. In Tecson v. Comelec, the court rule dthat it will be unlikely to obtain DNA testing from the physical residue of a long dead parent. In ascertaining the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider the following: (1) how the samples are collected (2) how they are handled (3) whether they are contaminated or not (4) the procedure followed (5) the qualification of the analyst. Moreover, foreign  jurisprudence provide in Daubert v. Merell Dow that evidence based on science is admissible as long as it is relevant and reliable. As to whether it violates the accused's right against self-incrimination, the court ruled in the negative; as self-incrimination is a legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused the admission of guilt, which the court is against at.

1