DIGEST ON DNA CASES:

SUBMITTED TO:
PROFESSOR: DOCTOR LEAL
LEGAL MEDICINE
SUBMITTED BY:
AMELING, PHILIP RAY
CARIASO, SHELLEY ANN
SIRUNO, PAUL NIKKO
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. VALLEJO
382 SCRA 1922!!2"
FACTS:
On July 10, 1999 (Rosario, Cavite), at about 1pm, 9-year old Daisy Diolola went to her
neihbor!s house to see" help in an assinment# $t was a %aturday# &erri'o (alle)o, the neihbor,
helped Daisy in her assinment# *t +pm o, the same day, Daisy!s mom noti'ed that her 'hild wasn!t
home yet# %he went to (alle)o!s house and Daisy wasn!t there# -pm, still no word o, Daisy!s
whereabouts# .he ne/t mornin, Daisy!s body was ,ound tied to a tree near a river ban"# *pparently,
she was raped and therea,ter stranled to death#
$n the a,ternoon o, July 11, the poli'e went to (alle)o!s house to 0uestion the latter as he was
one o, the last persons with the vi'tim# 1ut prior to that, some neihbors have already told the poli'e
that (alle)o was a'tin stranely durin the a,ternoon o, July 10# .he poli'e re0uested ,or the 'lothes
that (alle)o wore the day Daisy disappeared# (alle)o 'omplied and the 'lothes were submitted ,or
pro'essin#
.he person who pro'essed the 'lothin was 2et 1yron 1uan, a 3orensi' 1ioloist o, the 41$#
*t the instan'e o, the lo'al ,is'al, he also too" bu''al swabs (mouth5'hee" swabs) ,rom (alle)o and a
vainal swab ,rom Daisy!s body ,or D4* testin# Dr# 1uan ,ound that there were bloodstains in
(alle)o!s 'lothin 6 1lood .ype *, similar to that o, the vi'tim, while (alle)o!s 1lood .ype is O#
1uan also ,ound that the vainal swab ,rom Daisy 'ontained (alle)o!s D4* pro,ile#
7eanwhile, (alle)o already e/e'uted a sworn statement admittin the 'rime# 1ut when trial
'ame, (alle)o insisted that the sworn statement was 'oer'ed8 that he was threatened by the 'ops8 that
the D4* samples should be inadmissible be'ause the body and the 'lothin o, Daisy (in'ludin his
'lothin 6 whi'h in e,,e't is an admission pla'in him in the 'rime s'ene 6 thouh not dis'ussed in the
'ase) were already soa"ed in smir'hy waters, hen'e 'ontaminated# (alle)o was 'onvi'ted and was
senten'ed to death by the trial 'ourt#
ISSUE: 9hether or not the D4* samples athered are admissible as eviden'e#
HELD:
:es# .he %upreme Court ruled that the ,indins o, Dr# 1uan are 'on'lusive# .he 'ourt reiterated
that even thouh D4* eviden'e is merely 'ir'umstantial, it 'an still 'onvi't the a''used 'onsiderin
that it 'orroborates all other 'ir'umstantial eviden'e athered in this rape-slay 'ase# .he %upreme
Court also elu'idated on the admissibility o, D4* eviden'e in this 'ase and ,or the ,irst time
re'oni;ed its evidentiary value in the 2hilippines# *t all events, even i, a''used-appellant was truth,ul
and his assailed 'on,essions are inadmissible, the 'ir'umstantial eviden'e, as already shown, is
su,,i'ient to establish his uilt beyond all reasonable doubt# .he prose'ution witnesses presented a
mosai' o, 'ir'umstan'es showin a''used-appellant!s uilt# .heir testimonies rule out the possibility
that the 'rime was the handiwor" o, some other evil mind# .hese witnesses have not been shown to
have been motivated by ill will aainst a''used-appellant#
On the other hand, no other witness not related to a''used-appellant was ever 'alled to
'orroborate his 'laim# .he de,ense presented only a''used-appellant!s sister, *imee (alle)o, to
'orroborate his story# 9e have held time and aain that alibi 'annot prosper i, it is established mainly
by the a''used and his relatives, and not by 'redible persons# $t is well settled that alibi is the wea"est
o, all de,enses as it is easy to 'ontrive and di,,i'ult to disprove# 3or this reason, this Court loo"s with
'aution upon the de,ense o, alibi, espe'ially when, as in this 'ase, it is 'orroborated only by relatives
or ,riends o, the a''used#
.he %upreme Court *,,irmed the de'ision o, the Reional .rial Court#
IN RE: THE #RIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR REYNALDO DE VILLA
G.R. 1$88!2
N%&'()'* 1+, 2!!,
FACTS:
*ileen 7endo;a, 1<, was raped by her un'le, Reynaldo de (illa in her home in 2asi# =er
prenan'y prompted the ,ilin o, 'hares by her parents aainst de (illa#
De (illa allees that be'ause o, his si'"ness and old ae rendered him in'apable o, ere'tion
and the 7endo;a>s bear a rude aainst him# =is said he was in his hometown %an ?uis, ?auna at
time o, 'rime#
.he R.C ,ound De (illa uilty beyond reasonable doubt o, 0uali,ied rape, and senten'ed him
to death#
Case automati'ally elevated to %C ,or automati' review due to penalty imposed#
June de (illa, son o, a''used, alleed that de,ense 'ounsel only learned o, D4* testin to
resolve paternity issue at time o, penden'y o, %C automati' review# =is < 7otion ,or Re'onsiderations
o, the 'ase prayin ,or D4* tests to be 'ondu'ted were denied# D4* tests obtained ,rom 1illy de (illa,
randson o, Reynaldo, and ?eahlyn showed that De (illa 'ould not have sired the latter#
June thus ,iled petition ,or 9rit o, =abeas Corpus ,or his ,ather#

ISSUES: 9hether or 4ot 9rit o, =abeas Corpus is a proper remedy in the instant 'ase#
9hether or not D4* test is relevant in the 'ase#
HELD: 4o#

On the issue o, writ o, habeas 'orpus as proper remedy@
individual is illeally deprived o, his ,reedom o, movement or pla'ed under some ,orm o, illeal
restraint however, 'annot be used to dire'tly assail a )udment rendered by a 'ompetent 'ourt or
tribunal whi'h, havin duly a'0uired )urisdi'tion, was not deprived or ousted o, this )urisdi'tion
$t is the nullity o, an assailed )udment o, 'onvi'tion due to said la'" o, )urisdi'tion whi'h ma"es it
sus'eptible to 'ollateral atta'" throuh =abeas Corpus#
3eria v# C* do'trine allowed =C as post-'onvi'tion remedy only when there e/ists@ Deprivation
o, a 'onstitutional riht resultin in the restraint8 Court had no )urisdi'tion8 2enalty bein e/'essive, is
voided#
June did not allee any o, the three 'onditions in Feria to avail o, =abeas Corpus# .he proper remedy
should have been 'ertiorari or appeal
On the issue o, the relevan'e o, the D4* test as to de (illa!s uilt@
2renan'y is not an essential element o, 'rime o, rape# Results o, D4* test 'ould not
'on'lusively determine de (illa!s uilt ,or the 'rime o, rape.he %upreme Court a,,irmed R.C de'ision,
modi,ied by awardin moral damaes# %C ,ound date o, birth o, *ileen!s 'hild, ?eahlyn medi'ally
'onsistent with time o, rape#2etition ,or habeas 'orpus and motion ,or new trial dismissed#
TOMMIE LEE ANDRE#S, A--'../01, &. STATE OF FLORIDA, A--'..''
C/2' N%. 8+32144
C%5*1 %6 A--'/. %6 F.%*78/, F7619 D721*7:1
$33 S%. 28 8,1; 13 F./. L. #''<.= 234,
O:1%)'* 2!, 1988
FACTS:
*n Orlando,3lorida woman awo"e durin the niht o, 3ebruary <1, 19A-,when a man )umped
on top o, her and held a sharp blade aainst her ne'"# .he intruder threw a sleepin ba over her
head and threatened to "ill her i, she loo"ed at him# .he vi'tim struled and re'eived 'uts on her
,a'e, ne'", les, and ,eet# .he intruder raped the woman and ,led with her purse#.he vi'tim 'ould
only identi,y her atta'"er only as a stron bla'" male#
.he %tate o, 3lorida 'onvi'ted .ommie ?ee *ndrews o, aravated battery, se/ual battery, and
armed burlary o, a dwellin# .he prose'ution o,,ered three types o, eviden'e at trial#, in'ludin D4*
print identi,i'ation eviden'e# .he D4* test introdu'ed over the de,endant>s ob)e'tion, 'ompared
D4* ,rom *ndrew>s blood and D4* obtained ,rom the vi'tim>s blood with the D4* ,ound in the vi'tim>s
vaina# * mole'ular eneti'ist ,rom ?i,e'odes, the 'ommer'ial laboratory that per,ormed the
test,testi,ied to a mat'h between the D4* o, *ndrews>s blood and D4* obtained ,rom the vi'tim>s
vaina#
*ndrews appealed the 'onvi'tion, 'hallenin the trial 'ourt>s admittan'e o, D4* identi,i'ation
eviden'e# .he ,i,th distri't Court o, *ppeal upheld the admissibility o, the D4* ,inerprint#
ISSUE: 9hether or not the D4* ,inerprint is admissible
HELD: :es
.he trial 'ourt did not abuse its dis'retion in rulin the test results admissible in this 'ase# $n
'ontrast to eviden'e derived ,rom hypnosis, truth serum and polyraph, eviden'e derived ,rom D4*
print identi,i'ation appears based on proven s'ienti,i' prin'iples# $ndeed, there was testimony that
su'h eviden'e has been used to e/onerate those suspe'ted o, 'riminal a'tivity# &iven the eviden'e in
this 'ase that the test was administered in 'on,ormity with a''epted s'ienti,i' pro'edures so as to
ensure to the reatest deree possible a reliable result, appellant has ,ailed to show error on this
point#
9e ,ind no merit in appellant>s remainin points on appeal# .he ob)e'ted to 'omment by the
prose'utor was in response to appellant>s arument that there was an inno'ent e/planation ,or
appellant>s ,inerprints ,ound on the window s'reen# .he prose'utor 'ommented in response that no
eviden'e had been presented whi'h provided an inno'ent e/planation# *ppellant>s relian'e on
Carawan v. State ,or the proposition that he 'ould not be 'onvi'ted on both the aravated battery and
the se/ual battery 'hares is mispla'ed# Carawan spe'i,i'ally applied only to separate punishments
arisin ,rom one act, not one transaction# .he 'hares o, aravated battery and se/ual battery arose
,rom dis'rete a'ts 'ommitted durin one transa'tion and separate 'onvi'tions and punishment are
appropriate here# 3indin no error, the 'onvi'tions and senten'es are *33$R7BD#
U071'8 S1/1'2 &. J/<%)'1>
9$$ F.28 +84 ?28 C7*. 1992@
FACTS:
* vermont womanwas "idnapped and raped in a semi-trailer tru'"# 2oli'e identi,ied Randolph
Ja"obet;,a tru'" driver, as a suspe't in the 'rime# O,,i'ers sear'hed the trailer that Ja"obet; had
hauled on the niht o, the 'rime and ,ound hairs mat'hin those o, the vi'tim# *,ter arrestin Ja"obet;,
law en,or'ement o,,i'ials sent a sample o, his blood to the 31$ laboratory in 9ashinton, D#C#, ,or
D4* analysis and ,or 'omparison with D4* ta"en ,rom semen ,ound in the vi'tim shortly a,ter the
'rime#
*t Ja"obet;>s trial, an 31$ e/pert testi,ied that the blood and semen samples were a Cmat'h,C
'on'ludin that there was one 'han'e in D00million that the semen samples 'ould have 'ome ,rom
someone other than Ja"obet;# 1ased on this and other stron eviden'e, Ja"obet; was 'onvi'ted and
senten'ed to almost D0 years in prison#
Ja"obet; appealed the de'ision, 'laimin that D4* pro,ilin was unreliable and that it should
not be admitted as eviden'e# $n the ,irst ma)or ,ederal de'ision on D4* pro,ilin, the E#%# Court o,
*ppeals ,or the %e'ond Cir'uit upheld the lower 'ourt>s de'ision to admit the D4* eviden'e
ISSUE: 9hether or not the eviden'e is admissible#
HELD: :es
Jude 1illins undertoo" an overall analysis o, the admissibility 0uestion under 3ed#R#Bvid#
F0D to determine whether the probative value o, the eviden'e was substantially outweihed by un,air
pre)udi'e to the de,endant# =e ruled that it was not# 7oreover, he 'on'luded that the )ury would not be
overwhelmed, 'on,used, nor misled by this eviden'e#
1ased on the thorouh analysis by the distri't 'ourt, we 'on'lude that it did not abuse its
dis'retion by admittin the results o, the D4* analysis into eviden'e# Jude 1illins is to be
'ommended ,or his 'are,ul, e/haustive 'onsideration o, this issue# 9e do thin", however, that
althouh the distri't 'ourt e/pressly stated that it was applyin the 9illiams standard, the 'ourt>s
,indins would satis,y not only the 3rye standard, but the .wo 1ulls and Castro standard as well# 3or
the purpose o, uidin other trial )udes in the se'ond 'ir'uit who may ,a'e this 0uestion in the ,uture,
we do not thin" that su'h e/tensive hearins and ,indins should be 'ondu'ted in every 'ase# Jude
1illins, himsel,, re'oni;ed that the eneral theories o, eneti's whi'h support D4* pro,ilin are
unanimously a''epted within the s'ienti,i' 'ommunity# $n addition, the spe'i,i' te'hni0ues used by the
31$ lab in R3?2 analysis are 'ommonly used by s'ientists in mi'robioloy and eneti's resear'h #
# .he E#%# %upreme Court later de'lined to hear an appeal#
S1/1' &. #%%8/..
38$ S.E.28 2$3 #. V/. 1989"
FACTS:
len Dale 9oodall stands 'onvi'ted o, nineteen 'riminal 'ounts arisin ,rom thetwo atta'"s on
women in the =untinton area# Counts one throuh seven 'hared ,irst deree se/ual assault as to
the ,irst vi'tim@
G1H 'ount eiht 'hared ,irst deree se/ual abuse as to the ,irst vi'tim8
G<H 'ount nine 'hared "idnappin o, the ,irst vi'tim8
GDH and 'ount ten 'hared aravated robbery o, the ,irst vi'tim8
GFH Counts eleven throuh ,i,teen 'hared ,irst deree se/ual assault o, the se'ond vi'tim# Counts
si/teen and seventeen 'hared ,irst deree se/ual abuse o, the se'ond vi'tim, 'ount eihteen
'hared "idnappin o, the se'ond vi'tim, and 'ount nineteen 'hared aravated robbery o, the
se'ond vi'tim#
.he eviden'e aainst 7r# 9oodall in'luded blood analysis o, the de,endant, 'ompared to
semen samples re'overed ,rom the vi'tims8 body hair and beard hair ,rom the de,endant 'ompared to
hair re'overed ,rom the 'ar where vi'tim one was atta'"ed8 an out-o,-'ourt voi'e identi,i'ation o, the
de,endant by vi'tim two8 a partial visual identi,i'ation by vi'tim two8 a distin'tive smell about the
assailant noted by both vi'tims, ,ound also at the de,endant>s wor"pla'e8 vi'tim two>s identi,i'ation o,
the assailant>s hair 'olor, 'ompared to the de,endant>s8 vi'tim one>s identi,i'ation o, the pants worn by
the assailant as similar to the de,endant>s8 both vi'tims> testimony that the assailant was
un'ir'um'ised, as was the de,endant8 and, vi'tim two>s identi,i'ation o, the de,endant>s boots and
)a'"et as similar to the assailant>s#
1e,ore trial, the de,endant souht to have the trial 'ourt order an e/perimental new blood test
"nown as D4* print analysis# 1e'ause no e/pert testimony was o,,ered by the de,endant to show the
validity or reliability o, the D4* test, the trial 'ourt re,used to order the test# *,ter trial, the de,ense
raised this issue aain, and a D4* test was ,inally per,ormed# .he test 'ompared D4* samples ,rom
the de,endant>s own blood with D4* samples re'overed ,rom semen o, the assailant# .he test proved
in'on'lusive#
ISSUE:
9hether or not the D4* print analysis tests is admissible#
HELD:
4o
*s to D4* typin analysis, we ,ind that the reliability o, these tests is now enerally a''epted
by eneti'ists, bio'hemists, and the li"e# .his does not, however, mean that D4* tests should always
be admitted# B/pert testimony may be re'eived to impea'h the parti'ular pro'edures employed in a
spe'i,i' test or the reliability o, results obtained# 3or e/ample, in the 'ase at bar the laboratory wasn>t
able to isolate a D4* print ,rom the semen# .here bein nothin to 'ompare to the de,endant>s D4*
print, su'h eviden'e would not meet the eneral relevan'e test ,or admission o, eviden'e#
9e do ,ind that 'onvi'tion under ,ive o, the nineteen 'ounts must be reversed# Counts I$ and
I( o, the indi'tment 'hared the de,endant with ,irst-deree se/ual assault o, the se'ond vi'tim (on
1J 3ebruary 19A-)# * 'onvi'tion ,or ,irst-deree se/ual assault re0uires proo, o, non-'onsensual
se/ual inter'ourse when serious bodily in)ury is in,li'ted or when the de,endant Cemploys a deadly
weapon in the 'ommission o, the a't#
.he prose'ution>s theory was that the assailant used a "ni,e in both atta'"s to threaten the
vi'tims# .he 'hare was well supported in the 'ase o, the ,irst vi'tim# 1ut ,or the se'ond vi'tim, there
was no eviden'e that a "ni,e was used to threaten the vi'tim or eviden'e that the de,endant had about
his person a deadly weapon# *lthouh there was some eviden'e that the vi'tim>s bra was 'ut, this was
insu,,i'ient eviden'e ,rom whi'h the )ury 'ould have ,ound that the de,endant CemployedC a deadly
weapon# .he )ury thus should not, as to the se'ond vi'tim, have been instru'ted on se/ual assault in
the ,irst deree# * 'hare o, se/ual assault in the se'ond deree re0uires no showin o, an in)ury or a
weapon, and thus the )ury 'ould have 'onvi'ted the de,endant on ,ive 'ounts o, that o,,ense# .he error
was pre)udi'ial, and re0uires reversal o, those 'ounts# D4* testin at a later date 'on'luded that
9oodall was not the perpetrator, whi'h ,or'ed the 'ourts to release him ,rom prison
P'%-.' &. C/21*%
$,$ N.Y.S.28 98$ S5-. C1. 1989"
FACTS:
$n 3ebruary 19A-, (ilma 2on'e and her two-year-old dauhter were stabbed to death in their
1ron/ apartment# 2oli'e 0ui'"ly ,ound a suspe't, Jose Castro, who was said to have le,t the s'ene in
a hurry# Durin their investiation, dete'tives ,ound a small stain o, dried blood on 7r Castro>s wat'h#
?i,e'odes, one o, the ,ew laboratories o,,erin D4*-pro,ilin servi'es at the time, was as"ed to
per,orm the ne'essary analysis# .he 'ompany soon de'lared a mat'h between the mother>s D4*
pattern and that ,ound on the wat'h#1ut 7r Castro>s lawyers 0uestioned ?i,e'odes> ,indin#
.hey enlisted the help o, several s'ientists, in'ludin Bri' ?ander o, the 9hitehead $nstitute in
Cambride, 7assa'husetts, who went on to be'ome a leadin liht in the e,,ort to se0uen'e the
human enome# .he de,en'e team ,ound numerous problems with ?i,e'odes> pro'edures# 9hen it
'ompared the mother>s pro,ile to that ,ound on the wat'h, ,or e/ample, two e/tra, non-mat'hin bands
were dis'overed that ?i,e'odes had simply dis'ounted as 'ontamination without ,urther tests#
7oreover, on 'loser inspe'tion, not all the other bands mat'hed a,ter all# ?i,e'odes> s'ientists
'on'eded that they had simply 'ompared the pro,iles by eye, rather than ettin a 'omputer to ma"e
an ob)e'tive 'omparison# .he de,en'e also 0uestioned ?i,e'odes> assertion that the 'han'es were
1A9m to one aainst an unrelated person mat'hin the mother>s pro,ile# $n ,a't, 'al'ulatin the
probability o, a random mat'h with a spe'i,i' pro,ile 'an be very 'ompli'ated, and depends on the
rarity o, a person>s mini-satellite si;es at ea'h lo'us within a iven ethni' population# Ender s'rutiny,
?i,e'odes> numbers did not add up# $n an unpre'edented de'ision, e/perts ,rom the prose'ution
areed, and both sides deemed the D4* eviden'e in'on'lusive#
ISSUE: 9hether or not the D4* eviden'e is in'on'lusive
HELD: 4o
.he 'ourt determined that D4* identi,i'ation theory and pra'ti'e are enerally a''epted
amon the s'ienti,i' 'ommunity# .he 'ourt determined that D4* tests 'ould be 'ondu'ted and allowed
into eviden'e as lon as they showed the blood on the de,endant>s wat'h was not his, but tests 'ould
not be 'ondu'ted to show the blood beloned to one o, the vi'tims #
B7..= J/:< THOMAS &. STATE.
CR3943!8+4.
D':78'8: D':'()'* 3!, 1999
FACTS:
.he appellant, 1illy Ja'" .homas, appeals ,rom his 'onvi'tions ,or the 'apital o,,enses o,
murder o, 1#9#?# durin a rape in the ,irst deree, ('hared in Count $ o, the indi'tment) and o, murder
o, 1#9#?# durin a burlary in the ,irst deree,.he )ury unanimously re'ommended death on .homas>s
'onvi'tion under Count $ and re'ommended, by a vote o, 10 to <, death on .homas>s 'onvi'tion under
Count $$# .he trial 'ourt subse0uently senten'ed .homas to death, a,ter 'onsiderin the )ury>s
re'ommendations and ,indin the ,ollowin aravatin 'ir'umstan'es@ that the 'apital o,,enses were
'ommitted by a person under senten'e o, imprisonment, as eviden'ed by .homas>s two prior
'onvi'tions# One o, the 'apital o,,enses was 'ommitted while .homas was enaed in the 'ommission
o, rape, one o, the 'apital o,,enses was 'ommitted while .homas was enaed in the 'ommission o,
burlary, and the 'apital o,,enses were espe'ially heinous, atro'ious, or 'ruel 'ompared to other
'apital o,,enses, $n reard to any possible mitiatin 'ir'umstan'es, the trial 'ourt>s order states@
K.he Court ,inds that the de,endant 'hose to adopt the testimony o, his mother and ,ormer wi,e,
o,,ered durin the penalty phase, as to his ,amily status as mitiatin ,a'tors .homas appealed the
de'ision#
ISSUE: 9hether or not the D4* eviden'e is a dire't or 'ir'umstantial eviden'e#
HELD:
$t is 'ir'umstantial eviden'e# .he de,endant asserted that he was entitled to a 'ir'umstantial
eviden'e instru'tion about the state>s D4* eviden'e# .he attorney eneral,without 'itin any authority
,responded that .homas>s arument 'ompletely inored very dire't eviden'e presented by the state,
su'h as D4* mat'hin, D4* population statisti's and ,inerprint eviden'e#
.he 'ourt observed that ,inerprint eviden'e was still enerally 'onsidered 'ir'umstantial
eviden'e #.he 'hara'teri;ation applied well to D4* eviden'e# .he 'ourt noted that a limited sear'h o,
'ase law on the 0uestion o, the nature o, the D4* eviden'e as 'ir'umstantial than as dire't# 1e'ause
there was some little, leal authority ,or the 'on'lusion that D4* eviden'e was non 6 'ir'umstantial or
dire't eviden'e, there was some validity to the position that any error in not instru'tin the )ury on the
reasonable hypothesis o, inno'en'e instru'tion is not plain,not 'lear or obvious under the law#
.here,ore the plain error test was not satis,ied#
PEOPLE V. YATAR
,28 SCRA $!,
FACTS:
Lathlyn Eba, was the nie'e o, the wi,e o, a''used-appellant Joel :atar# %he used to stay with
her randmother $sabel Dawan# On June D0, 199A, :atar was seen by Judilyn, a 'ousin o, Lathlyn at
the ba'" o, the $sabel!s house and saw him aain at 1<#D0 des'endin ,rom the se'ond ,loor o, the
said house and pa'in ba'" and ,orth# *t 1#D0, Judilyn saw :atar wearin a di,,erent shirt ,rom earlier
and noti'ed that his eyes were Kred and sharpM# *''used-appellant as"ed about the whereabouts o,
Judilyn!s husband, as the ,ormer purports to tal" with the latter# .hen, :atar immediately le,t when
Judilyn!s husband arrived#
.hat niht, $sabel Dawan went home and was surprised to see that the lihts at her house
were o,,# %he tried to as'end to the se'ond ,loor o, her house in an attempt to loo" ,or Lathlyn but
,ound that the door was lo'"ed and tied therein# %u''eeded in openin it with a "ni,e, she went
upstairs and ,elt Lathlyn!s li,eless and na"ed body, with some intestines protrudin out ,rom it# %oon
a,ter, poli'e 'ame to the s'ene o, the 'rime to provide assistan'e# .herein, they ,ound Lathylyn!s
'lothes and underarments beside her body# *monst others, a white 'ollared shirt splattered with
blood was also ,ound +0-meters away ,rom $sabel!s house# 7eanwhile, semen has also been ,ound
upon e/amination o, Lathylyn!s 'adaver# 9hen sub)e'ted under D4* testin, results showed that the
D4* 'omprisin the sperm spe'imen is identi'al to :atar!s enotype# :atar was a''used o, the spe'ial
'omple/ 'rime o, Rape with =omi'ide and was 'onvi'ted ,or the same by the Reional .rial Court o,
.abu", Lalina#
.herea,ter, he made an appeal to the =onorable %upreme Court in order to assail the 'ourt a
0uo!s de'ision# On appeal, :atar avers that@
(1) the trial 'ourt erred in ivin mu'h weiht to the eviden'e D4* testin or analysis done on
him, in lieu o, the seminal ,luid ,ound inside the vi'tim!s ('adaver) vainal 'anal8
(<) the blood sample ta"en ,rom is violative o, his 'onstitutional riht aainst sel,-in'rimination8
and the 'ondu't o, D4* testin is also in violation on prohibition aainst e/-post ,a'to laws#
ISSUE:
9hether or not the result o, the D4* testin done on the sperm spe'imen may be used as eviden'e
,or :atar!s 'onvi'tionN
HELD:
.he %upreme Court in this 'ase ruled based on the E% 'ase o, Daubert vs# 7errell Dow as a
pre'edent# $n the said E% )urispruden'e, it was ruled that pertinent eviden'e based on s'ienti,i'ally
valid prin'iples 'ould be used, so lon as the same is RB?B(*4. and RB?$*1?B# =en'e, it was
'alled then as the D*E1BR. .B%.# .his 'ase was de'ided three years prior to the Rules on D4*
eviden'e too" e,,e't
*t present, %BC.$O4 -, RE?B% O4 D4* B($DB4CB may be used as the leal basis# %e'# -
o, the Rules on D4* eviden'e, whi'h too" e,,e't on <00-, provides ,or the ,a'tors to be 'onsidered in
assessin the probative weiht or value to be iven on eviden'e derived or enerated ,rom D4*
testin# %u'h ,a'tors, are, to wit@
(a) .he 'hain o, 'ustody, in'ludin how the bioloi'al samples were 'olle'ted, how they were
handled, and the possibility o, 'ontamination o, the samples8 (b) .he D4* testin
methodoloy, in'ludin the pro'edure ,ollowed in analy;in the samples, the advantaes
and disadvantaes o, the pro'edure, and 'omplian'e with the s'ienti,i'ally valid standards
in 'ondu'tin the tests8 (') .he ,orensi' D4* laboratory, in'ludin a''reditation by any
reputable standards-settin institution and the 0uali,i'ation o, the analyst who 'ondu'ted
the tests# $, the laboratory is not a''redited, the relevant e/perien'e o, the laboratory in
,orensi' 'asewor" and 'redibility shall be properly established8 and (d) .he reliability o, the
testin result, as hereina,ter provided#

DAUBERT TEST:
.he =onorable %upreme Court in this 'ase upheld the probative value o, the D4* test result
yielded ,rom the analysis o, :atar!s blood sample ,rom that o, the semen spe'imen obtained ,rom the
'adaver!s vainal 'anal# *''ordinly, it held that the D4* eviden'e is both reliable and relevant#

$n as'ertainin the relevan'e o, the eviden'e in a 'ase, it must be determined whether or not
the same dire'tly relates to a ,a't in issue, as to indu'e belie, in its e/isten'e or non-e/isten'e# $n this
'ase, the eviden'e is relevant in determinin the perpetrator o, the 'rime8

$n ivin probative value on the D4* testin result, yielded ,rom the analysis o, :atar!s blood
sample ,rom that o, the bioloi'al sample (semen) obtained ,rom the vi'tim!s vainal 'anal, the trial
'ourt 'onsidered the 0uali,i'ation o, the D4* analyst, the ,a'ility or laboratory in whi'h the D4* testin
had been per,ormed, and the methodoloy used in per,ormin the D4* test# $n the said 'ase, the D4*
test was done at the E2 4ational %'ien'e Resear'h $nstitute (4%R$)# .he method used was
2olymerase 'hain rea'tion (2CR) ampli,i'ation method by %hort .andem Repeat (%.R) analysis,
whi'h enables a tiny amount o, D4* se0uen'e to be repli'ated e/ponentially in a span o, ,ew hours#
=en'e, su,,i'ient D4* analysis may be made easier even with small D4* samples at hand# .he
analyst who per,ormed the pro'edure wasDr# 7aria Cora;on *boado de Enria, who is a duly
0uali,ied e/pert witness on D4* print or identi,i'ation te'hni0ues#
=en'e, apart ,rom the other sets o, 'ir'umstantial eviden'e 'orre'tly appre'iated by the trial
'ourt, the said D4* eviden'e is su,,i'ient to be admitted as eviden'e to warrant the a''used-
appellant!s 'onvi'tion#
HERRERA V. ALBA
,43 SCRA 19+
FACTS:
.hirteen year-old Rosendo *lba, bein the respondent is represented by his mother *rmi *lba,
who, prior to this 'ase ,iled be,ore the trial 'ourt a petition ,or 'ompulsory re'onition, support and
damaes aainst petitioner Rosendo =errera# On - *uust 199A, petitioner ,iled his answer with
'ounter'laim where he denied that he is the bioloi'al ,ather o, respondent#2etitioner also denied
physi'al 'onta't with respondent!s mother#
$n the year <000, .he trial 'ourt ordered the parties to o under deo/yribonu'lei' a'id testin,
or D4* testin to establish whether Rosendo =errera is the bioloi'al ,ather o, Rosendo *lba#
2etitioner 0uestioned the validity =errera 0uestioned the validity o, the order as he 'laimed that D4*
testin has not yet arnered widespread a''eptan'e hen'e any result there,rom will not be admissible
in 'ourt8 and that the said test is un'onstitutional ,or it violates his riht aainst sel,-in'rimination#
ISSUE:
9hether =errera is 'orre't or not in his plea#
HELD:
4o, in 2eople (# (alle)o, where D4* .est result, as de'ided in this 'ase, already admissible as
ob)e't eviden'e in the 2hilippine 'ourts in <00<#
.he %upreme Court re'oni;ed D4* analysis as admissible eviden'e# On the other hand, as
to determinin the weiht and probative value o, D4* test results, the %upreme Court provides, whi'h
is now "nown as the (alle)o &uidelines@
$n assessin the probative value o, D4* eviden'e, there,ore, 'ourts should 'onsider, amon other
thins, the ,ollowin data@ (1) how the samples were 'olle'ted8 (<) how they were handled8 (D) the
possibility o, 'ontamination o, the samples8 (F) the pro'edure ,ollowed in analy;in the samples8 (+)
whether the proper standards and pro'edures were ,ollowed in 'ondu'tin the tests8 and (J) the
0uali,i'ation o, the analyst who 'ondu'ted the tests#
.he above test is derived ,rom the Daubert Test whi'h is a do'trine adopted ,rom E% )urispruden'e
(Daubert v# 7errell Dow 2harma'euti'als, $n'#) .he Daubert .est is a test to be employed by 'ourts
be,ore admittin s'ienti,i' test results in eviden'e# 7ore spe'i,i'ally, the Daubert .est in0uires@
1# 9hether the theory or te'hni0ue 'an be tested8
<# 9hether the pro,,ered wor" has been sub)e'ted to peer review8
D# 9hether the rate o, error is a''eptable8 and
F# 9hether the method at issue en)oys widespread a''eptan'e#
=owever, the %upreme Court de'lared that a 99#9O D4* .est result will not be the most
'on'rete eviden'e and 'on'lusive proo,, the (alle)o &uidelines must still be 'omplied with#
7oreover, =errera 'annot invo"e sel,-in'rimination on the rounds that, the riht aainst sel,-
in'rimination is )ust a prohibition on the use o, physi'al or moral 'ompulsion to e/tort 'ommuni'ation
(testimonial eviden'e) ,rom a de,endant, not an e/'lusion o, eviden'e ta"en ,rom his body when it
may be material# .here is no Ktestimonial 'ompulsionM in the ettin o, D4* sample ,rom =errera#
AGUSTIN V CA
,4! SCRA 31$
FACTS:
2rior to the appeal by *ustin was a petition be,ore the Pue;on City Reional .rial 'ourt ,or
support and support pende lite by 3e *nela 2rollamante representin 7artin 2rollamante, the alleed
son o, herein appellant# $n their 'omplaint, respondent 3e 'laimed that she was imprenated by
*ustin on her DF
th
birthday# *ustin advised respondent to have an abortion in whi'h the latter
re,used# 3e eventually ave birth to 7artin, the baby!s birth 'erti,i'ate was purportedly sined by *rnel
as the ,ather# *rnel shouldered the pre-natal and hospital e/penses but later re,used 3e!s repeated
re0uests ,or 7artin!s support despite his ade0uate ,inan'ial 'apa'ity and even suested to have the
'hild 'ommitted ,or adoption# *rnel also denied havin ,athered the 'hild#
Demandin ,or support, 3e has been le,t with an in)ured le by *rnel who sped o,, with his van,
whi'h had been reported to the poli'e# %everal months later, 3e was dianosed with leu"emia and
has, sin'e then, been underoin 'hemotherapy# 3e and 7artin then sued *rnel ,or support#
3e and 7artin moved ,or the issuan'e o, an order dire'tin all the parties to submit themselves to
D4* paternity testin, whi'h *rnel opposed by invo"in his 'onstitutional riht aainst sel,-
in'rimination and movin to dismiss the 'omplaint ,or la'" o, 'ause o, a'tion# .he trial 'ourt denied the
7.D and ordered the parties to submit themselves to D4* paternity testin at the e/pense o, the
appli'ants# .he Court o, *ppeals a,,irmed the trial 'ourt, thus this petition#
ISSUES:
1# 9hether the respondent 'ourt erred in denyin the petitioner!s 7otion to Dismiss#
<# 9hether the 'ourt erred in dire'tin parties to sub)e't to D4* paternity testin and was a
,orm o, unreasonable sear'h#
HELD:
1# 4o, the 'omplaint by the respondents had a 'ause o, a'tion in whi'h the elements o, the 'ause
o, a'tion were 'omplied with, to wit, (1) the plainti,,!s primary riht and the de,endant!s
'orrespondin primary duty, and (<) the deli't or wron,ul a't or omission o, the de,endant, by
whi'h the primary riht and duty have been violated# .he 'ause o, a'tion is determined not by
the prayer o, the 'omplaint but by the ,a'ts alleed#
2. 4o# the %upreme Court stru'" down the proposed national 'omputeri;ed identi,i'ation system
embodied in *dministrative Order 4o# D0A in Ople v. Torres, we said@
In no uncertain terms, we also underscore that the right to privacy does not bar
all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to stile scientiic and
technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good..#M
$ntrusions into the riht must be a''ompanied by proper sa,euards that enhan'e
publi' servi'e and the 'ommon ood#
=istori'ally, it has mostly been in the areas o, leality o, sear'hes and sei;ures, and the
in,rinement o, priva'y o, 'ommuni'ation where the 'onstitutional riht to priva'y has been
'riti'ally at issue# 2etitioner!s 'ase involves neither and, as already stated, his arument that
his riht aainst sel,-in'rimination is in )eopardy holds no water#
PACE V. STATE
1999 #L 1!8+!18
FACTS:
Convi'ted by a )ury o, ,our 'ounts o, mali'e murder, ,our 'ounts o, ,elony murder, ,our 'ounts
o, rape, and two 'ounts o, aravated sodomy is the D< year-old ?yndon 3it;erald 2a'e# * D4*
e/pert determined that 2a'e!s D4* pro,ile mat'hed the D4* pro,ile ta"en ,rom the sperm in the
7'*,ee, 7artin, 7'?endon and 1ritt murders# .he e/pert testi,ied that the probability o, a 'oin'idental
mat'h o, this D4* pro,ile is one in +00 million in the 7'*,ee, 7artin, and 1ritt 'ases, and one in 1+0
million in the 7'?endon 'ase#
.he de,endant, while under investiation ,or another murder, o, one 7ary =udson, had sined
a 'onsent ,orm that states, K$ ,ully understand that these hair and bodily ,luid samples are to be used
aainst me in the 'ourt o, law and $ am in areement to ive those hair samples ,or ,urther use in this
parti'ular investiation#M .he ,orm ,urther stated that pa'e was a suspe't in a murder that o''urred on
%eptember 1-, 199< and the Kname o, the murder vi'tim in this 'ase is 7ary =udson# .here was no
mention o, the ,oreoin ,our murders# .he 31$ and the &1$ 'rime labs were subse0uently unable to
mat'h 2a'e!s D4* or hair to any eviden'e ,rom the =udson murder, but were able to obtain mat'hes
with eviden'e ,rom the 7'*,ee, 7'?endon, 7artin and 1ritt Case#
2a'e 'laimed that he did not voluntarily 'onsent to the drawin o, his blood ,or use in the
investiation o, the ,our murders ,or whi'h he was 'onvi'ted, and arued that the poli'e thus
e/'eeded the bounds o, his 'onsent by usin his blood ,or investiations o, murders other than the
=udson murder# =owever, the 'ourt observed, unli"e an implied 'onsent warnin, the ,orm does not
limit the use o, blood or hair to only the =udson murder investiation or to any other purpose, and
there is no eviden'e that 2a'e pla'ed any limits on the s'ope o, his 'onsent# .he poli'e were not
re0uired to e/plain to pa'e that his blood or hair 'ould be used in prose'utions# 3urther, li"e a
,inerprint, D4* remains the same no matter how many times blood is drawn and tested and a D4*
pro,ile 'an be used to in'ulpate or e/'ulpate suspe'ts in other investiations without additional
invasive pro'edures# $t would not be reasonable to re0uire law en,or'ement personnel to obtain
additional 'onsent or another sear'h warrant every time a validly obtained D4* pro,ile is used ,or
'omparison in another investiation#
.he rapid )udi'ial a''eptan'e o, D4* identi,i'ation te'hnoloies does not mean that all leal
issues involvin it are resolved# $t must be remembered that D4* eviden'e, as power,ul and de,initive
as it is 'hara'teri;ed is )ust eviden'e nonetheless# $t is typi'ally 'ateori;ed as 'ir'umstantial
eviden'e, li"e ,inerprints, ballisti's, hair, ,iber and the rest o, the ,orensi' eviden'e 'orpus, as
opposed to dire't eviden'e o, the the ,a't whi'h it is o,,ered, normally presen'e and parti'ipation at a
'rime s'ene# .his is an important 'on'eptual di,,eren'e whi'h may be belied in the eyes o, )uries by
the reputation that D4*, li"e ,inerprints has ained over the past de'ade#
SURREPTITIOUS DNA COLLECTING
CALIFORNIA V. GREEN#OOD
FACTS:
9hen investiator $nvestiator Jenny %tra'ner o, ?auna 1ea'h 2oli'e Department learned
,rom various sour'es that 1illy &reenwood miht be sellin illeal drus out o, his sinle-,amily home,
%tra'ner as"ed the neihborhood>s reular trash 'olle'tor to pi'" up the plasti' arbae bas that
&reenwood le,t on the 'urb in ,ront o, his house# $n the arbae, she ,ound eviden'e o, dru use# %he
used that in,ormation to obtain a warrant to sear'h &reenwood>s home# 9hen o,,i'ers sear'hed the
house, they ,ound 'o'aine and mari)uana# &reenwood and Dyanne (an =outen were arrested ,or
nar'oti's tra,,i'"in based upon eviden'e obtained as a result o, a poli'e sear'h o, his trash# that the
Cali,ornia Constitution de'lared su'h sear'hes as un'onstitutional# .he lower 'ourts overturned the
'onvi'tion by statin that the sear'h o, the trash bas without warrant violated the 3ourth *mendment#
.he %tate petitioned ,or review#
ISSUE:
9hether a person has a sub)e'tive e/pe'tation o, priva'y in their arbae, that so'iety a''epts
as ob)e'tively reasonable#
HELD:
Justi'e 1yron 9hite held that no su'h sub)e'tive e/pe'tation o, priva'y e/isted# *n e/pe'tation
o, priva'y does not ive rise to 3ourth *mendment 'onstitutional prote'tion unless so'iety is prepared
to a''ept that e/pe'tation as ob)e'tively reasonable# .he respondent e/posed his arbae to the
publi' to su,,i'iently de,eat the 'laim to 3ourth *mendment 'onstitutional prote'tion# &arbae le,t at
the side o, the road is readily a''essible to animals, 'hildren, s'aveners, snoops, and other members
o, the publi'# 7oreover, the arbae was pla'ed at the 'urb ,or the purpose o, 'onveyin it to a third
party# .here,ore, the respondent 'ould have had no reasonable e/pe'tation o, priva'y in the items
dis'arded# 9hat a person "nowinly e/poses to the publi', even in his home or o,,i'e, is not a sub)e't
o, 3ourth *mendment 'onstitutional prote'tion#
POST ACONVICTION DNA TESTING
KIRK NOBLE BLOODS#ORTH CASE
FACTS:
9-year-old Dawn =amilton was playin with her 'ousin on sometime July 19AF# *s she was
loo"in ,or her 'ousin, she stopped by the la"e to wat'h two boys ,ishin by the la"e# Dawn was
approa'hed by a youn man who told her that he would help her loo" ,or her 'ousin# .he two boys
wat'hed Dawn and the straner enter the woods ne/t to the la"e# 9hen Dawn had not returned home
three hours later, her ,riends and relatives laun'hed a sear'h# .he poli'e soon dis'overed her body in
the woods where she had last been seen alive# %he had been abdu'ted, stranled, se/ually molested
and beaten to death with a ro'"#
.he prin'ipal eviden'e purportin to lin" 1loodsworth to the 19AF 'rime was the testimony o,
,ive witnesses who pla'ed him either with the vi'tim or near the s'ene o, the 'rime at the time it was
believed to have o''urred# $n addition, the prose'ution introdu'ed ,orensi' eviden'e purportin to lin"
a pair o, his shoes to mar"s on the vi'tim!s body#
.he 7aryland Court o, *ppeals overturned 1loodsworth!s 'onvi'tion in 19AJ a,ter ,indin that the
prose'ution had illeally withheld potentially e/'ulpatory eviden'e ,rom the de,ense, 1loodsworth v#
%tate, D0- 7d# 1JF (19AJ)# =owever, 1loodsworth was retried, aain 'onvi'ted, and senten'ed to two
li,e terms# .hat 'onvi'tion and senten'e was a,,irmed on appeal, 1loodsworth v# %tate, -J 7d# *pp# <D
(19AA)#
$n 199<, however, Centurion 7inistries o, 2rin'eton, 4ew Jersey, helped 1loodsworth obtain
'ourt approval ,or testin o, bioloi'al material preserved ,rom the 'rime with a then-emerin D4*
te'hnoloy "nown as 2CR (polymerase 'hain rea'tion)# .he tests, per,ormed by Bdward .# 1la"e, o,
3orensi' %'ien'e *sso'iates, in Ri'hmond, Cali,ornia, in'ontrovertibly established 1loodsworth!s
inno'en'e# *,ter the 31$ 'on,irmed the results, 1loodsworth was released June <A, 199D# =e was the
,irst E#%# death row prisoner to be e/onerated by D4*# $n De'ember 199F, 7aryland &overnor 9illiam
Donald %'hae,er ranted 1oodsworth a ,ull pardon based on inno'en'e#
4ine years later, in the sprin o, <00D, a 1altimore County ,orensi' bioloist who was studyin
eviden'e ,rom the 'ase ,ound stains on a sheet that had not been analy;ed# $nvestiators ordered
D4* testin and ran the results throuh the national D4* database, whi'h lin"ed Ru,,ner to the 'rime#
1loodsworth, who had been the prison librarian in his later years o, in'ar'eration, had reularly
delivered boo"s to Ru,,ner and the two had li,ted weihts toether# Ru,,ner arrived in prison )ust a
month a,ter 1loodsworth and "new about 1loodsworth!s 'ase, his attempts to win a new trial, and his
'laim o, a'tual inno'en'e# =owever, Ru,,ner said nothin to lead 1loodsworth to suspe't that Ru,,ner
had "illed Dawn =amilton# 1loodsworth learned the news ,rom prose'utors shortly be,ore Ru,,ner was
,ormally 'hared with the 'rime on %eptember +, <00D#
HARVEY V. HORAN
FACTS:
*pril D0, 1990, James =arvey was 'onvi'ted and senten'ed to twenty-,ive years ,or the rape
and ,i,teen years ,or ,or'ible sodomy# .he rape "it revealed the presen'e o, spermata;oa on the
vi'tim>s mouth smear, vainal smear, thih smear and in two swab samples# .he 'ourt ranted the
plainti,, an e/tension o, time until January <F, 1991 to ,ile a petition ,or appeal, but the latter ,ailed to
do so#
*s the respondent ,ailed to order D4* testin the bioloi'al eviden'e 'onstituted a deprivation
o, due pro'ess, allein that a ,ailure to order D4* testin on the bioloi'al eviden'e 'onstituted a
deprivation o, due pro'ess, the plainti,, ,iled a a'tion aainst the &overnor o, (irinia in the 'ourt on
3ebruary <+, 199F# Court ruled that the plainti,, should re,ile his 19AD 'laims as a petition ,or writ o,
habeas 'orpus, plainti,, did so, allein that the &overnor had re,used to order the D4* test whi'h
'ould prove plainti,,>s inno'en'e# .he 'ourt dismissed plainti,,>s petition on July <+, 199+, ,indin that
plainti,, had ,ailed to ,ully e/haust state remedies, as re0uired by their state#
.he $nno'en'e 2ro)e't, representin the herein petitioner, re0uested ,rom the 3air,a/ County
Commonwealth>s *ttorney>s o,,i'e ,or the eviden'e# $n 3ebruary 199A the $nno'en'e 2ro)e't 'onta'ted
Ray 7orroh, a Commonwealth>s *ttorney ,or 3air,a/ County, with a re0uest ,or assistan'e in lo'atin
the bioloi'al eviden'e, in whi'h the latter did not respond and therea,ter made another re0uest .odd
%auders, *ssistant Commonwealth>s *ttorney ,or 3air,a/ County# 7r# %aunders stated in an O'tober
1999 letter that in his opinion, i, that one o, the perpetrators o, the rape did not e)a'ulate, as plainti,,
'ontends happened, and plainti,, was e/'luded as the 'ontributor o, the eneti' material this would not
prove the plainti,,>s inno'en'e and his 'ase did not warrant post-'onvi'tion D4* testin# =owever,
plainti,, insists that the vi'tim identi,ied him at trial as the ,irst assailant# =e 'ontends that the vi'tim
testi,ied that the ,irst assailant did e)a'ulate and that the se'ond assailant did not e)a'ulate# .he
plainti,, asserts that he is a per,e't 'andidate ,or post-'onvi'tion D4* testin, 'ontendin that the
results 'ould provide e/'ulpatory results, whi'h 'ould be a basis ,or provin inno'en'e#
2lainti,, alleed in his present 'ase that de,endant, Commonwealth>s *ttorney =oran, a'tin
under 'olor o, state law, has deprived him o, his 'onstitutional riht espe'ially o, D4* testin and the
produ'tion o, the rape "it ,or the same# De,endant moved ,or the dismissal o, the 'ase, statin that the
plainti,, was not violated o, substantive due pro'ess when the *ssistant Commonwealth>s *ttorney
disareed with plainti,,>s re0uest ,or post-'onvi'tion D4* testin# .he plainti,, 'ontends that his re0uest
is not in the nature o, a writ o, habeas 'orpus be'ause he is not see"in immediate or more speedy
release# 4or does he ne'essarily demonstrate the invalidity o, his 'onvi'tion, so there,ore, the plainti,,
appropriately brouht this a'tion under Q 19AD# .he plainti,, 'on'edes that his rape 'onvi'tion may
indeed be valid8 he merely re0uests a''ess to and testin o, the bioloi'al eviden'e in order to
determine i, it is e/'ulpatory# .he plainti,, also asserts that de,endant =oran is a proper de,endant
be'ause he is responsible ,or ,ormulatin the poli'y relatin to a''ess to eviden'e and be'ause o, the
instru'tion the de,endant has provided his assistant attorneys in this 'ase# .he plainti,, arues that the
statute o, limitations has not run be'ause ea'h denial o, a''ess to the bioloi'al eviden'e 'onstitutes
an onoin 'onstitutional violation and the statute o, limitations does not bein to run until the violation
ends# .he plainti,, allees that he has also stated a 'laim ,or deprivation o, substantive due pro'ess#
=eld@
De,endant>s motion to dismiss is denied# .he plainti,, does not see" immediate release ,rom
prison and dis'laims any 'hallene to his 'onvi'tion at this time, 'on'edin that the D4* tests may
show his 'onvi'tion was valid# .he denial by the Commonwealth>s *ttorney, to whom (irinia
authorities have dire'ted persons a'tin on plainti,,>s behal,, o, a''ess to possibly e/'ulpatory
eviden'e states a 'laim o, denial o, due pro'ess and ives this 'ourt )urisdi'tion under F< E#%#C# Q
19AD, whi'h, unli"e a petition ,or writ o, habeas 'orpus, has no e/haustion re0uirement# $, the
eviden'e turns out to be e/'ulpatory, it may support a state petition ,or writ o, habeas 'orpus, the
timeliness o, whi'h 'an be addressed by the state 'ourt at that time
PEOPLE V. CALLACE
FACTS:
$n January 19A+ a teenae irl was wal"in to her 'ar in the par"in lot o, a shoppin 'enter#
%he was a''osted by two men at "ni,e point and ,or'ed into a nearby 'ar# One man, alleedly Calla'e,
se/ually assaulted the vi'tim repeatedly while the other man wat'hed ,rom the ,ront seat# .he se'ond
man was never identi,ied#
* %u,,ol" County )ury too" one hour to 'onvi't ?eonard Calla'e o, sodomy (,our 'ounts), se/ual
abuse (three 'ounts), wron,ul imprisonment, and 'riminal possession o, a weapon# Calla'e re)e'ted a
plea barain that would have iven him ,our months in prison i, he pled to a lesser 'hare# On 7ar'h
<F, 19A-, Calla'e was senten'ed to <+ to +0 years in prison#
.he prose'ution based its 'ase on several points@ (1) * s"et'h by poli'e artists resembled
Calla'e8 (<) .he vi'tim identi,ied Calla'e ,rom a photo array and made an in-'ourt identi,i'ation8 (D)
.he blood roup o, the semen was type *, the same as Calla'e>s8 and (F) Calla'e>s alibi was
un'orroborated#
Calla'e>s 'onvi'tion was a,,irmed on appeal and leave to appeal to the 'ourt o, appeals was
denied# 9hile in prison, Calla'e learned about D4* testin and how it was used to ,ree a ,ormer
inmate# =e as"ed his attorney about the oriinal trial eviden'e#
Calla'e>s attorney remembered two thins ,rom the oriinal trial re'ord# 3irst, the vi'tim had
)ust pi'"ed up her )eans ,rom the 'leaners# %e'ond, the vi'tim spit out semen onto the )eans a,ter one
o, the assaults# .here,ore, any semen on those )eans would have 'ome ,rom the assailant8 i, it did not
mat'h Calla'e>s, he 'ould be ,reed# .he de,ense used this in,ormation to se'ure the )eans ,rom the
prose'ution ,or D4* testin at ?i,e'odes, $n'# On June <-, 1991, a %u,,ol" County Court )ude ranted
Calla'e>s motion to 'onsider D4* tests as Cnew eviden'eC # .he )ude also ruled that i, the samples
did not mat'h, he would hold a hearin to 'onsider post 'onvi'tion relie, ,or Calla'e#
.he R3?2 analysis per,ormed by ?i,e'odes, $n'#, on the vi'tim>s )eans showed that D4* in the
semen stains did not mat'h Calla'e>s#
ISSUE@ 9hether or not Calla'e is uilty#
HELD: 4o#
On O'tober +, 199<, Calla'e was released ,rom prison# .he prose'ution dismissed all 'hares
aainst Calla'e and de'lined to prose'ute in a new trial be'ause o, the D4* eviden'e and the
relu'tan'e o, the vi'tim to endure another trial# Calla'e served almost si/ years o, his senten'e#
I0 R': P'1717%0 1% 1/<' 19' 1999 B/* EB/(2, B.M. N%. 98, 2$ J50' 2!!2"
F/:12:
Julius R# Cesar passed the 1999 1ar B/aminations but was not allowed to ta"e the lawyer>s
oath on D 7ay <000 in view o, the ?etter-Complaint dated <F January <000 o, .uesday 7arie Castro
'harin him with $mmorality and &rave 7is'ondu't#
Castro alleed that she and petitioner were ,ormer lovers8 that she bore him a son named
7i'hael *nelo Castro on + 7ay 19998 that even prior to 7i'hael>s birth petitioner a'"nowleded
paternity o, 7i'hael in an *mi'able %ettlement dated 1D 7ar'h 1999 e/e'uted be,ore the ?upon
.aapayapa, O,,i'e o, the 1aranay Captain, Coon Distri't, .abilaran City, and promised to ive him
,inan'ial support until he rea'hed the ae o, ma)ority8 that petitioner aain a'"nowleded paternity o,
7i'hael in the latter>s Certi,i'ate o, ?ive 1irth8 and that petitioner at ,irst ave ,inan'ial support
immediately a,ter 7i'hael>s birth but had re'ently re,used to do so on the round that he did not ,ather
the 'hild#
I225':
9hether petitioner possesses the ood moral 'hara'ter re0uired to be admitted to the
2hilippine 1ar#
H'.8:
:es# $n paternity disputes, the D4* e/tra'ted ,rom a bioloi'al sample (e## blood, mus'le
tissue) o, an individual is analy;ed to enerate what is "nown as the CD4* pro,ileC whi'h is uni0ue ,or
all individuals e/'ept those derived ,rom identi'al twins# 1y analy;in the D4* pro,ile paternity 'an be
determined be'ause o, the ,a't that the D4* o, ea'h 'hild5person has two 'opies, one obtained ,rom
the mother and the other, ,rom the ,ather#
On'e the D4* ,rom the mother has been established, the remainin D4* ,rament must be
'onsistent with that observed ,rom the alleed ,ather# Otherwise i, the 'hild possesses a 'opy not
observed in the alleed ,ather, then the alleed ,ather 'annot be the ,ather o, the 'hild# n su'h 'ase,
be'ause o, the s'ienti,i' impossibility o, the alleed ,ather bein the ,ather o, the 'hild, the result o, the
D4* test is to be a''orded 'on'lusiveness in the same way that traditional blood typin is 'on'lusive
as to non-paternity as held in Jao v# Court o, *ppeals sin'e to hold otherwise would be tantamount to
re)e'tin a s'ienti,i' ,a't#
Courts should apply the results o, s'ien'e when 'ompetently obtained in aid o, situations
presented, sin'e to re)e't said results is to deny proress# Considerin the ,oreoin and the ,a't that
petitioner promised to abide by the result o, the D4* test as well as to shoulder the e/penses there,or,
we ,ind petitioner>s proposal ,or a D4* testin to be 0uite reasonable and 'omplainant>s aversion to
the test surprisin# $, her 'laim that petitioner ,athered her 'hild is really true, she has no reason to ,ear
the result o, the test ,or it would be another eviden'e in her ,avor# 7oreover this 'ase should be
de'ided on a stron ,oundation o, truth and )usti'e rather than on blind adheren'e to prima ,a'ie rules#
9e pre,er to reard this administrative 'ase as a 0uest ,or truth and )usti'e rather than as a mere
ame o, rules# 4o rule is intended to be so riid as to embarrass the administration o, )usti'e in its
endeavor to as'ertain the truth#
T':2%0 & C%('.':, ,2, SCRA 2++
F/:12:
(i'torino I# 3ornier, peititoner initiated a petition be,ore the CO7B?BC to dis0uali,y 32J and to
deny due 'ourse or to 'an'el his 'erti,i'ate o, 'andida'y upon the thesis that 32J made a material
misrepresentation in his 'erti,i'ate o, 'andida'y by 'laimin to be a natural-born 3ilipino 'iti;en when
in truth, a''ordin to 3ornier, his parents were ,oreiners8 his mother, 1essie Lelley 2oe, was an
*meri'an, and his ,ather, *llan 2oe, was a %panish national, bein the son o, ?oren;o 2ou, a %panish
sub)e't# &rantin, petitioner asseverated, that *llan 3# 2oewas a 3ilipino 'iti;en, he 'ould not have
transmitted his 3ilipino 'iti;enship to 32J, the latter bein an illeitimate 'hild o, an alien mother#
2etitioner based the alleation o, the illeitimatebirth o, respondent on two assertions - ,irst, *llan 3#
2oe 'ontra'ted a prior marriae to a 'ertain 2aulita &ome; be,ore his marriae to 1essie Lelley and,
se'ond, even i, no su'h prior marriae had e/isted, *llan 3# 2oe, married 1essie Lelly only a year
a,ter the birth o, respondent#
I225':
9hether or 4ot 32J is a natural born 3ilipino 'iti;en#
H'.8:
$t is ne'essary to ta"e on the matter o, whether or not respondent 32J is a natural-born 'iti;en,
whi'h, in turn, depended on whether or not the ,ather o, respondent, *llan 3# 2oe, would have himsel,
been a 3ilipino 'iti;en and, in the a,,irmative, whether or not the alleed illeitima'y o, respondent
prevents him ,rom ta"in a,ter the 3ilipino 'iti;enship o, his putative ,ather# *ny 'on'lusion on the
3ilipino 'iti;enship o, ?oren;o 2ou 'ould only be drawn ,rom the presumption that havin died in 19+F
at AF years old, ?oren;o would have been born sometime in the year 1A-0, when the 2hilippines was
under %panish rule, and that %an Carlos,2anasinan, his pla'e o, residen'e upon his death in 19+F, in
the absen'e o, any other eviden'e, 'ould have well been his pla'e o, residen'e be,ore death, su'h
that ?oren;o 2ou would have bene,ited ,rom the Cen masse 3ilipini;ationC that the 2hilippine 1ill had
e,,e'ted in 190<# .hat 'iti;enship (o, ?oren;o 2ou), i, a'0uired, would thereby e/tend to his son, *llan
3#2oe, ,ather o, respondent 32J# .he 19D+ Constitution, durin whi'h reime respondent 32J has
seen ,irst liht, 'on,ers 'iti;enship to all persons whose ,athers are 3ilipino 'iti;ens reardless o,
whether su'h 'hildren are leitimate or illeitimate#
1ut while the totality o, the eviden'e may not establish 'on'lusively that respondent 32J is
anatural-born 'iti;en o, the 2hilippines, the eviden'e on hand still would preponderate in his ,avor
enouh to hold that he 'annot be held uilty o, havin made a material misrepresentation in
his'erti,i'ate o, 'andida'y in violation o, %e'tion -A, in relation to %e'tion -F, o, the Omnibus Ble'tion
Code#
H'**'*/ & A.)/, ,4! SCRA 19+ 2!!$"
F/:12:
$n 7ay 199A, *rmi *lba, mother o, minor Rosendo *lba ,iled a suit aainst Rosendo =errera in
order ,or the latter to re'oni;e and support Rosendo as his bioloi'al son# =errera denied *rmi!s
alleations# $n the year <000, the trial 'ourt ordered the parties to undero a (deo/yribonu'lei' a'id )
D4* testin to establish whether or not =errera is indeed the bioloi'al ,ather o, Rosendo *lba#
=owever, =errera 0uestioned the validity o, the order as he 'laimed that D4* testin has not yet
arnered widespread a''eptan'e hen'e any result there,rom will not be admissible in 'ourt8 and that
the said test is un'onstitutional ,or it violates his riht aainst sel,-in'rimination#
I225':
9hether or not =errera is 'orre't#
H'.8:
4o# $t is true that in 199-, the %upreme Court ruled in 2e ?im vs C* that D4* testin is not yet
re'oni;ed in the 2hilippines and at the time when he 0uestioned the order o, the trial 'ourt, the
prevailin do'trine was the 2e ?im 'ase8 however, in <00< there is already no 0uestion as to the
a''eptability o, D4* test results as admissible ob)e't eviden'e in 2hilippine 'ourts# .his was the
de'isive rulin in the 'ase o, 2eople vs (alle)o (<00<)#
$n the (alle)o Case, the %upreme Court re'oni;ed D4* analysis as admissible eviden'e# On
the other hand, as to determinin the weiht and probative value o, D4* test results, the %upreme
Court provides, whi'h is now "nown as the (alle)o &uidelines@
$n assessin the probative value o, D4* eviden'e, there,ore, 'ourts should 'onsider, amon other
thins, the ,ollowin data@
1# how the samples were 'olle'ted,
<# how they were handled,
D# the possibility o, 'ontamination o, the samples,
F# the pro'edure ,ollowed in analy;in the samples,
+# whether the proper standards and pro'edures were ,ollowed in 'ondu'tin the tests,
J# and the 0uali,i'ation o, the analyst who 'ondu'ted the tests#
.he above test is derived ,rom the Daubert .est whi'h is a do'trine adopted ,rom E%
)urispruden'e (Daubert v# 7errell Dow 2harma'euti'als, $n'#) .he Daubert .est is a test to be
employed by 'ourts be,ore admittin s'ienti,i' test results in eviden'e# 7ore spe'i,i'ally, the Daubert
.est in0uires@
1# 9hether the theory or te'hni0ue 'an be tested,
<# 9hether the pro,,ered wor" has been sub)e'ted to peer review,
D# 9hether the rate o, error is a''eptable,
F# 9hether the method at issue en)oys widespread a''eptan'e
$n this 'ase, the %upreme Court de'lared that in ,iliation 'ases, be,ore paternity in'lusion 'an
be had, the D4* test result must state that the there is at least a 99#9O probability that the person is
the bioloi'al ,ather# =owever, a 99#9O probability o, paternity (or hiher but never possibly a 100O )
does not immediately result in the D4* test result bein admitted as an overwhelmin eviden'e# $t
does not automati'ally be'ome a 'on'lusive proo, that the alleed ,ather, in this 'ase =errera, is the
bioloi'al ,ather o, the 'hild (*lba)# %u'h result is still a disputable or a re,utable eviden'e whi'h 'an
be brouht down i, the (alle)o &uidelines are not 'omplied with#
9hat i, the result provides that there is less than 99#9O probability that the alleed ,ather is the
bioloi'al ,atherN
.hen the eviden'e is merely 'orroborative#
*nent the issue o, sel,-in'rimination, submittin to D4* testin is not violative o, the riht
aainst sel,-in'rimination# .he riht aainst sel,-in'rimination is )ust a prohibition on the use o, physi'al
or moral 'ompulsion to e/tort 'ommuni'ation (testimonial eviden'e) ,rom a de,endant, not an
e/'lusion o, eviden'e ta"en ,rom his body when it may be material# .here is no Ktestimonial
'ompulsionM in the ettin o, D4* sample ,rom =errera, hen'e, he 'annot properly invo"e sel,-
in'rimination#
AC52170 & CA, ,4! SCRA 31$, GR N%. 142$+1, 1$ J50' 2!!$"
F/:12:
Respondents 3e *nela and her son 7artin 2rollamante sued 7artin!s alleed bioloi'al
,ather, petitioner *rnel *ustin, ,or support and support pendente lite be,ore the Pue;on City R.C#
$n their 'omplaint, respondents alleed that *rnel 'ourted 3e, a,ter whi'h they entered into an
intimate relationship# *rnel supposedly imprenated 3e on her DFth birthday but despite *rnel!s
insisten'e on abortion, 3e de'ided to ive birth to their 'hild out o, wedlo'", 7artin# .he baby!s birth
'erti,i'ate was purportedly sined by *rnel as the ,ather# *rnel shouldered the pre-natal and hospital
e/penses but later re,used 3e!s repeated re0uests ,or 7artin!s support despite his ade0uate ,inan'ial
'apa'ity and even suested to have the 'hild 'ommitted ,or adoption# *rnel also denied havin
,athered the 'hild#
On January <001, while 3e was 'arryin ,ive-month old 7artin at the Capitol =ills &ol, and
Country Club par"in lot, *rnel sped o,, in his van, with the open 'ar door hittin 3e!s le# .his in'ident
was reported to the poli'e# %everal months later, 3e was dianosed with leu"emia and has, sin'e
then, been underoin 'hemotherapy# 3e and 7artin then sued *rnel ,or support#
3e and 7artin moved ,or the issuan'e o, an order dire'tin all the parties to submit themselves
to D4* paternity testin, whi'h *rnel opposed by invo"in his 'onstitutional riht aainst sel,-
in'rimination and movin to dismiss the 'omplaint ,or la'" o, 'ause o, a'tion#
.he trial 'ourt denied the 7.D and ordered the parties to submit themselves to D4* paternity
testin at the e/pense o, the appli'ants# .he Court o, *ppeals a,,irmed the trial 'ourt, thus this petition#
I225':
9hether the 'ourt erred in dire'tin parties to sub)e't to D4* paternity testin and was a ,orm
o, unreasonable sear'h#
H'.8:
4o# $n Ople v# .orres,the %upreme Court stru'" down the proposed national 'omputeri;ed
identi,i'ation system embodied in *dministrative Order 4o# D0A, we said@
$n no un'ertain terms, we also unders'ore that the riht to priva'y does not bar all in'ursions
into individual priva'y# .he riht is not intended to sti,le s'ienti,i' and te'hnoloi'al advan'ements that
enhan'e publi' servi'e and the 'ommon ood### $ntrusions into the riht must be a''ompanied by
proper sa,euards that enhan'e publi' servi'e and the 'ommon ood#
=istori'ally, it has mostly been in the areas o, leality o, sear'hes and sei;ures, and the
in,rinement o, priva'y o, 'ommuni'ation where the 'onstitutional riht to priva'y has been 'riti'ally at
issue# 2etitioner!s 'ase involves neither and, as already stated, his arument that his riht aainst sel,-
in'rimination is in )eopardy holds no water#
P'%-.' & U(/071%, GR N%. 1+24!+ 24 O:1%)'* 2!!+; 14 A-*7. 2!!9"
F/:12:
*round 927, private 'omplainant *** was a''osted by a youn male (whom she later "new
as Emanito)# =e waited ,or her by the 'ree", and he pointed as "ni,e at her abdomen# =e draed her
into the =ome B'onomi's 1uildin o, Daramuanan Blementary %'hool# =e undressed her while still
holdin the "ni,e# =e set her down on a ben'h, put down the "ni,e, and had se/ with her# =e dressed
up and threatened to "ill her i, she reported the in'ident# %i/ months later, *** ! s mother noti'ed the
prominen'e on her stoma'h, and it was then that she divuled to her mother the alleed rape# =er
mother brouht her to the poli'e station# (Emanito! s alibi@ =e was at home all day# Re@ ***, he
admitted that he 'ourted her but she spurned him# =e 'on)e'tured that she had a 'rush on him sin'e
she ,re0uently visited him#)
R.C rendered )udment aainst Emanito and senten'ed him to su,,er re'lusion perpetua#
Emanito !s appeal was trans,erred to the C* ,or intermediate review (as per 7ateo rulin), and C*
a,,irmed R.C# Emanito see"s a'0uittal on reasonable doubt, with the belated ,ilin o, the 'ase and
*** ! s 0uestionable 'redibility as rounds# =e also said that *** ,iled the 'omplaint only upon her
mother !s insisten'e8 this supports his 'laim that *** had se/ with another (a married man)# *lso, he
'laimed that there were several in'onsisten'ies in her assertions#
I225':
9hether Emanito is the bioloi'al ,ather o, G111H#
H'.8:
.he ,a't that *** bore a 'hild be'ause o, the purported rape may provide the de,initive "ey to
Emanito ! s absolution, sin'e it 'an now be determined with reasonable 'ertainty 9O4 he is the ,ather
o, her 'hild# *** and her 'hild are dire'ted to submit themselves to D4* testin under the aeis o, the
4ew Rule on D4* Bviden'e (*7 4o# 0J-11-+-%C) whi'h too" e,,e't on 1+ O't <00- (a ,ew days
be,ore promulation o, this 'ase)#
D4* print 5 identi,i'ation te'hnoloy is now re'oni;ed as a uni0uely e,,e'tive means to lin" a
suspe't to a 'rime, or to absolve one erroneously a''used, where bioloi'al eviden'e is available#
.he roundwor" ,or a'"nowledin the stron weiht o, D4* testin was ,irst laid out in .i)in v# C* #
=errera v# *lba dis'ussed D4* analysis as eviden'e and tra'ed the development o, its admissibility in
our )urisdi'tion# .e'son v# CO7B?BC said that in 'ase proo, o, ,iliation or paternity would be unli"ely to
establish, D4* testin 'ould be resorted to#
.he determination o, 9O4 Emanito is the ,ather (throuh D4* testin) is material to the ,air
and 'orre't ad)udi'ation o, his appeal# Ender %e'# F o, *7 4o# 0J-11-+-%C, the 'ourts are authori;ed,
a,ter due hearin and noti'e, motu proprio to order a D4* testin# =owever, sin'e %C is not a trier o,
,a'ts, it would be more appropriate that the 'ase be remanded to R.C ,or re'eption o, eviden'e#
.he hearin should be 'on,ined to as'ertainin the ,easibility o, D4* testin with due reard to the
standards set# R.C should order the D4* testin i, it ,inds it to be ,easible in this 'ase# R.C shall
determine the institution to underta"e the testin, and the parties are ,ree to mani,est their 'omments
on the 'hoi'e# *,ter the D4* analysis is obtained, it shall be in'umbent upon the parties who wish to
avail o, the same to o,,er the results in a''ordan'e with the rules o, eviden'e, whi'h shall be assessed
by R.C in "eepin with %e'tions - (*ssessment o, probative value o, D4* eviden'e) and A (Reliability
o, D4* testin methodoloy)# R.C is also en)oined to observe 'on,identiality and preservation o, D4*
eviden'e#
.o ,a'ilitate the e/e'ution o, this resolution, althouh the parties are primarily bound to bear
the e/penses ,or D4* testin, su'h 'osts may be advan'ed by %C i, needed#
E21/1' %6 O0C & D7/>, GR N%. 1+1+13 1+ D':'()'*, 2!!+"
F/:12:
.he Bstate o, Roelio On opposed on the C* order dire'tin the Bstate and Joanne Rodin
Dia; ,or D4* analysis ,or determinin the paternity o, the minor Joanne# .rial 'ourt ,ormerly rendered
a de'ision and de'lared the minor to be the illeitimate 'hild o, Roelio On with Jin"y Dia;, and
orderin him to support the 'hild until she rea'hes the ae o, ma)ority# Roelio died durin the
penden'y o, the 'ase with the C*# .he Bstate ,iled a motion ,or re'onsideration with the C*# .hey
'ontended that a dead person 'annot be sub)e't to testin# C* )usti,ied that CD4* paternity testin, as
'urrent )urispruden'e a,,irms, would be the most reliable and e,,e'tive method o, settlin the present
paternity dispute#C
I225':
9hether or not D4* analysis 'an still be done despite the death o, Roelio#
H'.8:
:es be'ause the death o, Roelio 'annot bar the 'ondu't o, D4* testin# $n 'ase o,
establishin thepaternity or ,iliation, D4* testin, whi'h e/amines eneti' 'odes obtained ,rom body
'ells o, the illeitimate 'hild and any physi'al residue o, the lon dead parent, 'ould be resorted to#
.he death o, Roelio does not ipso ,a'to neate the appli'ation o, D4* testin ,or as lon as
there e/ist appropriate bioloi'al samples o, his D4*# 4ew Rules on D4* Bviden'e allows the
'ondu't o, D4* testin by usin bioloi'al samples--orani' material oriinatin ,rom the person>s
body, ie#, blood, saliva, other body ,luids, tissues, hair, bones, even inorani' materials- that is
sus'eptible to D4* testin#
S1/1' %6 A*7>%0/ & B%C/0:
H%D / P/.% V'*8' T*'' B':/(' / B%1/07:/. #710'22 6%* 19' P*%2':517%0
F/:12:
One %unday mornin, a boy ridin his dirt bi"e throuh a dry wash in the desert saw the nude
body o, a woman, lyin ,a'e down in the brush near a 'luster o, palo verde trees# %he had been
stranled to death# * man in the vi'inity volunteered that he had seen a white tru'" leave the area
Cpretty 0ui'"C at about 1@D0 that mornin# .he poli'e ,ound a paer a ,ew ,eet ,rom the body# $t was
reistered to Barl 1oan, but used primarily by his son, 7ar", who drove a white pi'"up tru'" and lived
about 1A minutes ,rom the s'ene# $n the bed o, the tru'", poli'e ,ound two seed pods ,rom a palo
verde tree# %till other eviden'e suested that 7ar" 1oan was the 'ulprit# 1oan maintained that a
,emale hit'hhi"er had CswipedC his paer ,rom the tru'" and run away# =e denied havin been in the
area where the body was ,ound#
*n enterprisin dete'tive observed that one o, the palo verde trees -- later desinated as C2(-
D0C -- had a ,resh abrasion on one o, its lower bran'hes# =e 'onta'ted Dr# .imothy =elent)aris, a
pro,essor o, mole'ular eneti's at the Eniversity o, *ri;ona, who 'ompared D4* ,rom the seed pods
,ound in the tru'" with the D4* in seed pods ,rom the palo verde trees at the 'rime s'ene# =e also
analy;ed D4* ,rom other palo verde seed pods 'olle'ted at various sites around the 'ounty# =e
'on'luded that the seed pods ,ound in the tru'" oriinated ,rom 2(-D0#
I225':
9hether 1oan is uilty with the 'rime o, 7urder#
H'.8:
:es# .he samples ,rom the tru'" bed Cmat'hed 'ompletely with ### 2(-D0,C that he ,elt C0uite
'on,ident in 'on'ludin that these two samples ### most li"ely did 'ome ,rom G2(-D0H,C and that he was
C0uite 'om,ortableC in 'on'ludin that 2(-D0>s D4* would be distinuishable ,rom that o, Cany tree that
miht be ,urnishedC to him# Reasonin that ,orensi' s'ientists routinely testi,y about Cmat'hesC in hair,
,inerprints, and other items without ivin statisti's, and that there was no disareement about the
enerally a''eptan'e o, the laboratory te'hni0ues used to as'ertain the D4* Cmat'hC here, the 'ourt
o, appeals a,,irmed the 'onvi'tion#