They say biology is the most powerful technology ever created, and perhaps that can be considered true considering the vast applications of DNA testing and evidence.
The Rule on DNA Evidence has found interesting application in criminal law and prosecution. Its application and use could not be of more importance than in criminal proceedings. Particularly, DNA evidence has spelled out the difference between guilt and innocence, freedom and incarceration, justice, and injustice in a host of cases. This is owed largely to the recognition that DNA, as the fundamental building block of a person’s entire genetic make-up, is unique to each person. Hence, one’s DNA Profile can determine or unmask one’s identity — in the case of criminal cases, the perpetrator’s identity.
In People vs Corpuz (3 July 2017, G.R. 208013), the Supreme Court discussed the role played by DNA evidence in resolving a crime. Typically, just like in fingerprint analysis, in DNA typing, “matches” are determined. For instance, 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.
In that case, the private complainant filed a criminal complaint for rape against a private respondent. The defense moved for DNA testing, which resulted in a finding of a complete match, a 99.9999 percent Probability of Paternity. Hence, the respondent is disputably presumed to be the child’s father.
The Court found that the defense, who had moved for the testing, failed to assail the result and the dependability of the procedure before the trial court. It only questioned the test’s accuracy given that the results are not favorable to it. While indeed, the court should still assess the probative value of the DNA evidence considering 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, the defense was considered estopped from questioning the reliability of the DNA testing methodology. Furthermore, there was enough evidence to convict even without the DNA evidence.
DNA testing’s use in criminal proceedings is not only during trial. Post-conviction DNA testing is made available even, without a court order, to the prosecution or any person convicted by final and executory judgment provided that a biological sample exists, such sample is relevant to the case, and the testing would probably result in the reversal or modification of the judgment of conviction.
If the results of the post-conviction DNA testing are favorable to the convict, the latter or the prosecution may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the court of origin. The court may then reverse or modify the judgment of conviction and order the release of the convict.
The court may order the DNA evidence to be preserved in its totality, including all biological samples, DNA profiles, and results or other genetic information obtained from DNA testing, until the lapse of the period that any person is under trial for an offense; or until such time as the accused has served his sentence, in criminal cases. In all other cases, DNA evidence may be ordered preserved until such time as the decision in the case has become final and executory. The court can order the destruction of the sample before the expiration of the periods if the subject of the testing has consent in writing.
Indeed, DNA evidence has revolutionized our justice system. It proves to be a reliable bearer of the truth. One can only hope that technological advances further enhance our DNA testing capabilities in aid of modernizing and making our legal system more efficient.
First published on The Daily Tribune.
For further information, please contact:
Nilo T. Divina, Managing Partner, DivinaLaw
