Scribd
Upload
47 views2 pages

Agustin V. Court of Appeals: in Ascertaining The Probative Value of DNA Evidence, Courts Should Consider The Following

Fe Angela and her son Martin sued Arnel Agustin, alleging he was Martin's biological father. Arnel initially supported Martin but later denied paternity. Fe and Martin requested a DNA test, but Arnel invoked his right against self-incrimination and opposed testing. The Court ruled that while DNA evidence has become more accepted, it is not conclusive in proving paternity. The Court also found that requiring DNA testing would not violate Arnel's right against self-incrimination, as that right protects against legally extracting admissions of guilt, not biological samples.

Uploaded by

Darren Ruelan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
47 views2 pages

Agustin V. Court of Appeals: in Ascertaining The Probative Value of DNA Evidence, Courts Should Consider The Following

Fe Angela and her son Martin sued Arnel Agustin, alleging he was Martin's biological father. Arnel initially supported Martin but later denied paternity. Fe and Martin requested a DNA test, but Arnel invoked his right against self-incrimination and opposed testing. The Court ruled that while DNA evidence has become more accepted, it is not conclusive in proving paternity. The Court also found that requiring DNA testing would not violate Arnel's right against self-incrimination, as that right protects against legally extracting admissions of guilt, not biological samples.

Uploaded by

Darren Ruelan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

AGUSTIN V.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. 137757

FACTS:

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

ISSUE:

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

COURT RULING:

The Court in this case listed down several jurisprudence which lead to the advancement of DNA
testing, which started in Pe Lim v. Court of Appeals which says that DNA testing has not yet been
accorded recognition by the courts. In Tijing v. Court of Appeals, the court opened the possibility of
DNA testing. In People v. Vallejo, the court ruled that the purpose of DNA testing was to ascertain
whether or not an association existed between evidence sample and reference sample. In People v.
Janson, the court ruled that the evidence is inadmissible because of the doubt as to who are the real
malefactors. In Tecson v. Comelec, the court rule dthat it will be unlikely to obtain DNA testing from
the physical residue of a long dead parent.

In ascertaining the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider the following:

(1) how the samples are collected

(2) how they are handled

(3) whether they are contaminated or not


(4) the procedure followed

(5) the qualification of the analyst.

Moreover, foreign jurisprudence provide in Daubert v. Merell Dow that evidence based on science is
admissible as long as it is relevant and reliable. As to whether it violates the accused's right against
self-incrimination, the court ruled in the negative; as self-incrimination is a legal process of extracting
from the lips of the accused the admission of guilt, which the court is against at.

You might also like