JESSE U. LUCAS
vs. JESUS S. LUCAS
G.R. No. 90710,
June 6, 2011
“x
x x.
At
any rate, the CA’s view that it would be dangerous to allow a DNA testing
without corroborative proof is well taken and deserves the Court’s attention.
In light of this observation, we find that there is a need to supplement the
Rule on DNA Evidence to aid the courts in resolving motions for DNA testing
order, particularly in paternity and other filiation cases. We, thus, address
the question of whether a prima facie
showing is necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing order.
The
Rule on DNA Evidence was enacted to guide the Bench and the Bar for the
introduction and use of DNA evidence in the judicial system. It provides the
“prescribed parameters on the requisite elements for reliability and validity (i.e., the proper procedures, protocols,
necessary laboratory reports, etc.), the possible sources of error, the available
objections to the admission of DNA test results as evidence as well as the
probative value of DNA evidence.” It seeks “to ensure that the evidence
gathered, using various methods of DNA analysis, is utilized effectively and
properly, [and] shall not be misused and/or abused and, more importantly, shall
continue to ensure that DNA analysis serves justice and protects, rather than
prejudice the public.”[1]
Not
surprisingly, Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence merely provides for
conditions that are aimed to safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the DNA
testing. Section 4 states:
“SEC.
4. Application for DNA Testing Order. – The appropriate court may, at any time, either motu proprio or on application of any
person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA
testing. Such order shall issue after due hearing and notice to the
parties upon a showing of the following:
(a) A biological sample exists that is relevant
to the case;
(b) The biological sample: (i)
was not previously subjected to the type of DNA 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 new information that is relevant to the proper
resolution of the case; and
(e) The existence of other
factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting the
accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing.
This Rule shall
not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at the behest
of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit or proceeding
is commenced.”
This
does not mean, however, that a DNA testing order will be issued as a matter of
right if, during the hearing, the said conditions are established. In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA testing
order, there must be a show cause hearing wherein the applicant must first present
sufficient evidence to establish a prima
facie case or a reasonable possibility of paternity or “good cause” for the
holding of the test. [2] In
these states, a court order for blood testing is considered a “search,” which,
under their Constitutions (as in ours), must be preceded by a finding of
probable cause in order to be valid. Hence, the requirement of a prima facie case, or reasonable
possibility, was imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a finding of
probable cause. The Supreme Court of Louisiana eloquently explained —
“Although
a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional prohibition
against unreasonable searches and seizures is still applicable, and a proper
showing of sufficient justification under the particular factual circumstances
of the case must be made before a court may order a compulsory blood test.
Courts in various jurisdictions have differed regarding the kind of procedures
which are required, but those jurisdictions have almost universally found that
a preliminary showing must be made before a court can constitutionally order
compulsory blood testing in paternity cases. We agree, and find that, as a preliminary matter,
before the court may issue an order for compulsory blood testing, the moving
party must show that there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As
explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to
the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing
must be held in which the court can determine whether there is sufficient
evidence to establish a prima
facie case which warrants
issuance of a court order for blood testing.[3]”
The
same condition precedent should be applied in our jurisdiction to protect the
putative father from mere harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the
motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of
paternity.Notwithstanding these, it should be stressed that the issuance of a
DNA testing order remains discretionary upon the court. The court may, for
example, consider whether there is absolute necessity for the DNA testing. If
there is already preponderance of evidence to establish paternity and the DNA
test result would only be corroborative, the court may, in its discretion,
disallow a DNA testing.
X x
x.”
[1] Rationale of the Rule on DNA
Evidence.
[2] State ex rel. Department of Justice and Division of Child Support v.
Spring, 201 Or.App. 367, 120 P.3d 1 (2005); State v.
Shaddinger, 702 So.2d 965, (1998); State in the Interest of A.N.V. v. McCain, 637 So.2d 650 (1994); In the Interest of J.M., 590 So.2d 565 (1991); Schenectady
County Department of Social Services on Behalf of Maureen E. v. Robert “J,”
126 A.D. 2d 786, 510 N.Y.S. 2d 289 (1987); State ex rel. McGuire v. Howe, 44 Wash. App. 559, 723 P.2d 452 (1986)
