7/25/2019 6. PP v. Umanito

1/12

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 172607. October 26, 2007.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RUFINO UMANITO,appellant.

R E S O L U T I O N

TINGA,J p:

On appeal is the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals dated 15 February 2006,affirming the Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union,Branch 67 dated 15 October 1997 finding Rufino Umanito (appellant) guilty beyondreasonable doubt of the crime of rape, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of

reclusion perpetuaand ordering him to indemnify the private complainant in thesum of P50,000.00. 3

On 9 January 1990, appellant was charged with the crime of rape in a CriminaComplaint 4which reads:

That on or about 9:00 P.M. of July 15, 1989, at Brgy[.] Daramuangan,Municipality of Naguilian, Province of La Union, Philippines and within the

jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused who wasarmed with a fan knife and by means of force and threats, did then andthere willfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeeded in having a sexualintercourse to [sic] the undersigned who is unmarried woman of goodreputation, a woman who is over 12 but below 18 years old [sic] of age, tothe damage and prejudice of the offended party.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

It was only five (5) years later, or sometime in 1995, that appellant was arrested. Ittook place when he went to the Municipal Hall of Naguilian to secure a policeclearance.

On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.

The appellate court's chronicle of the facts is as follows:

It was around 9:00 o'clock in the evening of July 15, 1989, while on her wayto her grandmother's home, when private complainant [AAA] 6 wasaccosted by a young male. It was only later when she learned the name ofaccused-appellant UMANITO. She recounted that accused-appellantUMANITO waited for her by the creek, and then with a knife pointed at[AAA]'s left side of the [sic] abdomen, he forced her to give in to his kisses,to his holding her breasts and stomach, and to his pulling her by the arm to

7/25/2019 6. PP v. Umanito

2/12

be dragged to the Home Economics Building inside the premises of theDaramuangan Elementary School where accused-appellant UMANITO firstundressed her [AAA] and himself with his right hand while he still clutchedthe knife menacingly on his left hand. Private complainant [AAA] recountedthat she could not shout because she was afraid. She further recountedthat accused-appellant UMANITO laid her down on a bench, 4 meters longand 24 inches wide, set the knife down, then mounted her, inserting hispenis into her [AAA's] vagina and shortly thereafter, accused-appellant

UMANITO dressed up and threatened [AAA] while poking the knife at herneck, not to report the incident to the police or else he said he would kill her.Accused-appellant UMANITO then left, while the victim [AAA] went on to hergrandmother's house and she noticed that it was already around 1:00o'clock in the morning when she reached there. SHCaDA

In January 1990, 6 months after the incident, private complainant [AAA's]

mother, [BBB], 7noticed the prominence on [AAA]'s stomach. It was onlythen when the victim, private complainant [AAA], divulged to her mother thealleged rape and told her the details of what had happened in July, [sic]1989. After hearing private complainant [AAA]'s story, her mother broughther to the police station. 8

Appellant's version on the stand was different. Denying the accusations of AAA, heclaimed that on 15 July 1989, he was home the whole day, helping his familycomplete rush work on picture frames ordered from Baguio. He did not step out oftheir house on the evening in question, he added. 9Concerning his relationship withAAA, appellant admitted that he had courted her but she spurned him. Heconjectured, though, that AAA had a crush on him since she frequently visited himat his house. 10

Finding that the prosecution had proven appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubtthe RTC rendered judgment against him and sentenced him to suffer the penalty ofreclusion perpetuaand to indemnify AAA in the sum of P50,000.00. 11In so doingthe court a quoheld that the discrepancies in AAA's testimony did not impair hercredibility. Despite some inconsistencies in her statement, the RTC observed thatAAA's demeanor on the witness stand did not indicate any falsehood in hernarration. 12

The trial court likewise rejected appellant's defense of alibi, ruling that he did notprove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime given

the testimonies that he and complainant were residing in the same barrio. 13

Pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo, 14 appellant's appeal before us wastransferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. On 15 February 2006,the appellate court affirmed the challenged decision. Finding AAA to be a crediblewitness, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the inconsistencies inher statements were too trivial and inconsequential to impair the credibility of hertestimony. 15

In this appeal, appellant seeks his acquittal on reasonable doubt by reason of the

7/25/2019 6. PP v. Umanito

3/12

belated filing of the case against him and the questionable credibility of AAA withrespect to her varying allegations.

Appellant asserts that the court a quoerred in giving full faith and credence to thetestimony of the complaining witness and in not acquitting him on reasonabledoubt. He avers that apparently AAA filed the complaint against him only upon theprodding of her mother. 16This aspect, appellant insists, negates AAA's claim that hewas the one who raped her but rather supports his assertion that the sexua

congress AAA engaged in was with another man, her real lover who was married toanother woman. 17Appellant further puts in issue the long delay in AAA's filing ofthe complaint. 18

Appellant capitalizes on the alleged serious inconsistencies in AAA's assertions, andfurther characterizes her actions and contentions as incredible and unnatural. 19 Inparticular, appellant highlights AAA's contradictory declarations on when she metappellant and the nature of their relationship. He also alludes to AAA's purportedlyinconsistent statements on whether it was appellant or she herself, upon his orderswho took off her clothes. Finally, appellant points out the supposedly conflicting

assertions of AAA on whether it was at the creek or in the school building that hekissed her face and other parts of her body. AaCTcI

Once again, this Court is called upon to determine whether the prosecution hassuccessfully met the level of proof needed to find appellant guilty of the crime ofrape.

Among the many incongruent assertions of the prosecution and the defense, thedisharmony on a certain point stands out. Appellant, on one hand, testified thatalthough he had courted AAA, they were not sweethearts. Therefore, this testimony

largely discounts the possibility of consensual coitus between him and AAA. On theother, AAA made contradictory allegations at the preliminary investigation and onthe witness stand with respect to the nature of her relationship with appellantFirst, she claimed that she met appellant only on the day of the purported rape;later, she stated that they were actually friends; and still later, she admitted thatthey were close. 20

Amidst the slew of assertions and counter-assertions, a happenstance may providethe definitive key to the absolution of the appellant. This is the fact that AAA bore achild as a result of the purported rape. With the advance in genetics and the

availability of new technology, it can now be determined with reasonable certaintywhether appellant is the father of AAA's child. If he is not, his acquittal may beordained. We have pronounced that if it can be conclusively determined that theaccused did not sire the alleged victim's child, this may cast the shadow ofreasonable doubt and allow his acquittal on this basis. 21If he is found not to be thefather, the finding will at least weigh heavily in the ultimate decision in this case

Thus, we are directing appellant, AAA and AAA's child to submit themselves todeoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing 22 under the aegis of the New Rule on DNAEvidence 23(the Rules), which took effect on 15 October 2007, subject to guidelinesprescribed herein.

7/25/2019 6. PP v. Umanito

4/12

DNA print or identification technology is now recognized as a uniquely effectivemeans to link a suspect to a crime, or to absolve one erroneously accused, wherebiological evidence is available. For purposes of criminal investigation, DNAidentification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It canaid immensely in determining a more accurate account of the crime committedefficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty, securing the acquittal of theinnocent, and ensuring the proper administration of justice in every case. 24 Verilyas we pointed out inPeople v. Yatar, 25the process of obtaining such vital evidencehas become less arduous

The U.P. National Science Research Institute (NSRI), which conducted theDNA tests in this case, used the Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)amplification method by Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis. With PCRtesting, tiny amounts of a specific DNA sequence can be copiedexponentially within hours. Thus, getting sufficient DNA for analysis hasbecome much easier since it became possible to reliably amplify smallsamples using the PCR method. 26

The ground work for acknowledging the strong weight of DNA testing was first laidout inTijing v. Court of Appeals, 27where the Court said

. . . Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless weadopt the modern and scientific ways available. Fortunately, we have nowthe facility and expertise in using DNA test for identification and parentagetesting. The University of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute(UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the capability to conduct DNAtyping using short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. The analysis is based onthe fact that the DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies, one copy fromthe mother and the other from the father. The DNA from the mother, the

alleged father and child are analyzed to establish parentage. Of course,being a novel scientific technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is stillopen to challenge. Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, courts shouldnot hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, thatcourts should apply the results of science when competently obtained in aidof situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny progress.

Though it is not necessary in this case to resort to DNA testing, in future itwould be useful to all concerned in the prompt resolution of parentage andidentity issues. 28

The leading case of Herrera v. Alba, 29 where the validity of a DNA test as aprobative tool to determine filiation in our jurisdiction was put in issue, discussedDNA analysis as evidence and traced the development of its admissibility in our

jurisdiction. Thus:

DNA is the fundamental building block of a person's entire genetic make-up.DNA is found in all human cells and is the same in every cell of the sameperson. Genetic identity is unique. Hence, a person's DNA profile candetermine his identity.

7/25/2019 6. PP v. Umanito

5/12

DNA analysis is a procedure in which DNA extracted from a biological sampleobtained from an individual is examined. The DNA is processed to generate apattern, or a DNA profile, for the individual from whom the sample is taken.

This DNA profile is unique for each person, except for identical twins. Wequote relevant portions of the trial court's 3 February 2000 Order withapproval:

Everyone is born with a distinct genetic blueprint called DNA

(deoxyribonucleic acid). It is exclusive to an individual (except in therare occurrence of identical twins that share a single, fertilized egg),and DNA is unchanging throughout life. Being a component of everycell in the human body, the DNA of an individual's blood is the veryDNA in his or her skin cells, hair follicles, muscles, semen, samplesfrom buccal swabs, saliva, or other body parts.

The chemical structure of DNA has four bases. They are known as A(adenine), G (guanine), C (cystosine) and T (thymine). The order inwhich the four bases appear in an individual's DNA determines his orher physical makeup. And since DNA is a double-stranded molecule, it

is composed of two specific paired bases, A-Tor T-Aand G-C or C-G. These are called "genes." cHAaCE

Every genehas a certain number of the above base pairs distributedin a particular sequence. This gives a person his or her genetic code.Somewhere in the DNA framework, nonetheless, are sections thatdiffer. They are known as "polymorphic loci," which are the areasanalyzed in DNA typing (profiling, tests, fingerprinting, or analysis/DNAfingerprinting/genetic tests or fingerprinting). In other words, DNAtyping simply means determining the "polymorphic loci."

How is DNA typing performed? From a DNA sample obtained orextracted, a molecular biologist may proceed to analyze it in severalways. There are five (5) techniques to conduct DNA typing. They are:the RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism); "reverse dotblot" or HLA DQ a/Pm loci which was used in 287 cases that wereadmitted as evidence by 37 courts in the U.S. as of November 1994;mtDNA process; VNTR (variable number tandem repeats); and themost recent which is known as the PCR-([polymerase] chain reaction)based STR (short tandem repeats) method which, as of 1996, wasavailed of by most forensic laboratories in the world. PCR is the

process of replicating or copying DNA in an evidence sample a milliontimes through repeated cycling of a reaction involving the so-calledDNA polymerize enzyme. STR, on the other hand, takesmeasurements in 13 separate places and can match two (2) sampleswith a reported theoretical error rate of less than one (1) in a trillion.

Just like in fingerprint analysis, in DNA typing, "matches" aredetermined. To illustrate, when DNA or fingerprint tests are done toidentify a suspect in a criminal case, the evidence collected from thecrime scene is compared with the "known" print. If a substantialamount of the identifying features are the same, the DNA or

7/25/2019 6. PP v. Umanito

6/12

fingerprint is deemed to be a match. But then, even if only onefeature of the DNA or fingerprint is different, it is deemed not tohave come from the suspect.

As earlier stated, certain regions of human DNA show variationsbetween people. In each of these regions, a person possesses twogenetic types called "allele," one inherited from each parent. In [a]paternity test, the forensic scientist looks at a number of these

variable regions in an individual to produce a DNA profile. Comparingnext the DNA profiles of the mother and child, it is possible todetermine which half of the child's DNA was inherited from themother. The other half must have been inherited from the biologicalfather. The alleged father's profile is then examined to ascertainwhether he has the DNA types in his profile, which match the paternaltypes in the child. If the man's DNA types do not match that of thechild, the man is excluded as the father. If the DNA types match,then he is not excludedas the father (Emphasis in the original).

xxx xxx xxx

The 2002 case ofPeople v. Vallejodiscussed DNA analysis as evidence. Thismay be considered a 180 degree turn from the Court's wary attitudetowards DNA testing in the 1997Pe Limcase, where we stated that "DNA,being a relatively new science, . . . has not yet been accorded officialrecognition by our courts." In Vallejo, the DNA profile from the vaginal swabstaken from the rape victim matched the accused's DNA profile. We affirmedthe accused's conviction of rape with homicide and sentenced him to death.

xxx xxx xxx

Vallejodiscussed the probative value, not admissibility, of DNA evidence. By2002, there was no longer any question on the validity of the use of DNAanalysis as evidence. The Court moved from the issue of according "officialrecognition" to DNA analysis as evidence to the issue of observance ofprocedures in conducting DNA analysis. DCSTAH

In 2004, there were two other cases that had a significant impact onjurisprudence on DNA testing:People v. Yatarand In re: The Writ of HabeasCorpus for Reynaldo de Villa. In Yatar, a match existed between the DNAprofile of the semen found in the victim and the DNA profile of the blood

sample given by appellant in open court. The Court, following Vallejo'sfootsteps, affirmed the conviction of appellant because the physicalevidence, corroborated by circumstantial evidence, showed appellant guiltyof rape with homicide. In De Villa, the convict-petitioner presented DNA testresults to prove that he is not the father of the child conceived at the time ofcommission of the rape. The Court ruled that a difference between the DNAprofile of the convict-petitioner and the DNA profile of the victim's child doesnot preclude the convict-petitioners commission of rape. 30

The 2004 case of Tecson v. Commission on Elections 31 likewise reiterated theacceptance of DNA testing in our jurisdiction in this wise: "[i]n case proof of filiation

7/25/2019 6. PP v. Umanito

7/12

or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult toobtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of theillegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resortedto." 32

It is obvious to the Court that the determination of whether appellant is the fatherof AAA's child, which may be accomplished through DNA testing, is material to thefair and correct adjudication of the instant appeal. Under Section 4 of the Rules, the

courts are authorized, after due hearing and notice, motu proprio to order a DNAtesting. However, while this Court retains jurisdiction over the case at barcapacitated as it is to receive and act on the matter in controversy, the SupremeCourt is not a trier of facts and does not, in the course of daily routine, conducthearings. 33Hence, it would be more appropriate that the case be remanded to theRTC for reception of evidence in appropriate hearings, with due notice to the parties

What should be the proper scope of such hearings? Section 4 of the Rules spells outthe matters which the trial court must determine, thus:

SEC. 4. Application for DNA Testing Order. The appropriate courtmay, at any time, either motu proprioor on application of any person whohas a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such ordershall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of thefollowing:

(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;

(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the type ofDNA testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to DNA testing,but the results may require confirmation for good reasons;

(c) The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;

(d) The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce newinformation that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and

(e) The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consideras potentially affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.

The Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior courtorder, at the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies,

before a suit or proceeding is commenced. 34

Given our earlier pronouncements on the relevance of the DNA testing, it would beunbecoming of the RTC to conclude otherwise, Section 4 (d) notwithstanding. Thehearing should be confined to ascertaining the feasibility of DNA testing with dueregard to the standards set in Section 4 (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Rules.

Should the RTC find the DNA testing feasible in the case at bar, it shall order thesame, in conformity with Section 5 of the Rules. 35 It is also the RTC which shalldetermine the institution 36to undertake the DNA testing and the parties are free

7/25/2019 6. PP v. Umanito

8/12

to manifest their comments on the choice of DNA testing center.

After the DNA analysis is obtained, it shall be incumbent upon the parties who wishto avail of the same to offer the results in accordance with the rules of evidence

The RTC, in evaluating the DNA results upon presentation, shall assess the same asevidence in keeping with Sections 7 and 8 of the Rules, to wit:

SEC. 7. Assessment of probative value of DNA evidence. In assessing

the probative value of the DNA evidence presented, the court shall considerthe following:

(a) The chain of custody, including how the biological samples werecollected, how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of thesamples;

(b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed inanalyzing the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure,

and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests;

(c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation by any reputablestandards-setting institution and the qualification of the analyst whoconducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevantexperience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall beproperly established; and IACDaS

(d) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.

The provisions of the Rules of Court concerning the appreciation of evidence

shall apply suppletorily.

SEC. 8. Reliability of DNA testing methodology. In evaluating whetherthe DNA testing methodology is reliable, the court shall consider thefollowing:

(a) The falsifiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whetherthe theory or technique can be and has been tested;

(b) The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles ormethods;

(c) The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevantscientific community;

(d) The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensurethe correctness of data gathered;

(e) The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and

(f) The general degree of confidence attributed to mathematicalcalculations used in comparing DNA profiles and the significance and

7/25/2019 6. PP v. Umanito

9/12

limitation of statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles.

The trial court is further enjoined to observe the requirements of confidentiality andpreservation of the DNA evidence in accordance with Sections 11 37and 12 38of theRules.

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, the RTC shall consider, amongother things, the following data: how the samples were collected, how they were

handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed inanalyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followedin conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests39

Moreover, the court a quo must ensure that the proper chain of custody in thehandling of the samples submitted by the parties is adequately borne in the recordsi.e.: that the samples are collected by a neutral third party; that the tested partiesare appropriately identified at their sample collection appointments; that thesamples are protected with tamper tape at the collection site; that all persons inpossession thereof at each stage of testing thoroughly inspected the samples fortampering and explained his role in the custody of the samples and the acts heperformed in relation thereto.

In light of the fact that this case constitutes the first known application of the Rulesthe Court is especially interested in monitoring the implementation thereof in thiscase, for its guidance and continuing evaluation of the Rules as implemented. Forpurposes of supervising the implementation the instant resolution, the Courtdesignates Deputy Court Administrator Reuben Dela Cruz (DCA Dela Cruz) to: (a)monitor the manner in which the court a quocarries out the Rules; and (b) assessand submit periodic reports on said implementation to the Court. Towards thefulfillment of such end, the RTC is directed to cooperate and coordinate with DCADela Cruz.

A final note. In order to facilitate the execution of this Resolution, though theparties are primarily bound to bear the expenses for DNA testing, such costs may beadvanced by this Court if needed. ESaITA

WHEREFORE, the instant case is remanded to the RTC for reception of DNAevidence in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. The RTC is furtherdirected to report to the Court the results of the proceedings below within sixty (60)

days from receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing, Carpio, Carpio-Morales andVelasco, Jr., JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 3-15. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas and concurred in byAssociate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.

7/25/2019 6. PP v. Umanito

10/12

2. CA rollo, pp. 20-34. Penned by Judge Jose G. Paneda.

3. Id.at 34.

4. Records, p. 1.

5. Id.

6. The real name of the victim is withheld per R.A. No. 7610 and R.A. No. 9262. SeePeople v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419.

7. The real name of the victim's mother is likewise withheld to protect her and thevictim's privacy. SeePeople v. Cabalquinto, supra.

8. Supranote 1 at 5-6.

9. TSN, 11 February 1997, pp. 6-8.

10. Id.at 10.

11. Supranote 2 at 33-34.

12. CA rollo, p. 31.

13. Id.

14. G.R. Nos. 147678-87, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 640.

15. Supranote 1 at 8, 11.

16. CA rollo, p. 58.

17. Id.See also TSN, 11 February 1997, pp. 5, 9-10, 12.

18. CA rollo, pp. 58-59.

19. Records, p. 392.

20. Id.at 3; TSN, 29 March 1995, p. 4; TSN, 13 March 1996, pp. 2-3, 20-24.

21. See InRe: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for De Villa, 442 SCRA 706 (2004).

22. InPeople v. Marquez (430 Phil. 383 [2002]), we characterized DNA testing assynonymous to DNA typing, DNA fingerprinting, DNA profiling, genetic tests, andgenetic fingerprinting.

23. A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, 15 October 2007.

24. People v. Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 504, 514.

25. G.R. No. 150224, 19 May 2004, 428 SCRA 505 (2004).

26. Id.at 515.

7/25/2019 6. PP v. Umanito

11/12

27. 406 Phil. 449 (2001).

28. Id.at 461.

29. G.R. No. 148220, 15 June 2005, 460 SCRA 197. See also Agustin v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 162571, 15 June 2005, 460 SCRA 315.

30. Id.at 209-213. Citations omitted.

31. G.R. No. 161434, 3 March 2004, 424 SCRA 277.

32. Id.at 345.

33. Carlos v. Sandoval,471 SCRA 266 (2005).

34. RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE, Sec. 4.

35. SEC. 5.DNA Testing Order. If the court finds that the requirements in Section4 hereof have been complied with, the court shall.

(a) Order, as appropriate, that biological samples be taken from any personor crime scene evidence;

(b) Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to protect theintegrity of the biological sample, the testing process and the reliability of the testresults, including a condition that the DNA test results shall be simultaneouslydisclosed to parties involved in the case; and ICASEH

(c) If the biological sample taken is of such an amount that prevents theconduct of confirmatory testing by the other or the adverse party and whereadditional biological samples of the same kind can no longer be obtained, issue an

order requiring all parties to the case or proceedings to witness the DNA testing tobe conducted.

. . . The grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automaticadmission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may beobtained as a result thereof.

36. Among the current known institutions offering DNA testing are the University ofthe Philippines Natural Science Research Institute and St. Luke's Medical Center.

37. SEC. 11. Confidentiality. DNA profiles and all results or other informationobtained from DNA testing shall be confidential. Except upon order of the court, aDNA profile and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shalonly be released to any of the following, under such terms and conditions as maybe set forth by the court:

(1) Person from whom the sample was taken;

(2) Lawyers representing parties in the case or action where the DNAevidence is offered and presented or sought to be offered and presented;

(3) Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action;

7/25/2019 6. PP v. Umanito

12/12

(4) Duly authorized law enforcement agencies; and

(5) Other persons as determined by the court.

Whoever discloses, utilizes or publishes in any form any information concerning aDNA profile without the proper court order shall be liable for indirect contempt ofthe court wherein such DNA evidence was offered, presented or sought to beoffered and presented.

Where the person from whom the biological sample was taken files a written verifiedrequest to the court that allowed the DNA testing for the disclosure of his DNAprofile and all results or other information obtained from the DNA testing, thesame may be disclosed to the persons named in the written verified request.

38. SEC. 12.Preservation of DNA evidence. The trial court shall preserve the DNAevidence, in its totality, including all biological samples, DNA profiles and results orother genetic information obtained from DNA testing. For this purpose, the courtmay order the appropriate government agency to preserve the DNA evidence asfollows:

(a) In criminal cases:

i. for not less than the period of time that any person is under trial for anoffense; or,

ii. in case the accused is serving sentence, until such time as the accusedhas served his sentence; and

(b) in all other cases, until such time as the decision in the case where theDNA evidence was introduced has become final and executory.

The court may allow the physical destruction of a biological sample before theexpiration of the periods set forth above provided that:

(a) a court order to that effect has been secured; or

(b) the person from whom the DNA sample was obtained has consented inwriting to the disposal of the DNA evidence.

39. People v. Vallejo, 431 Phil. 798, 817 (2002).