JESSE U. LUCAS - versus - JESUS S.
LUCAS
G.R. No. 190710. June 6, 2011
NACHURA, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner, Jesse U. Lucas, filed a Petition to Establish Illegitimate
Filiation (with Motion for the Submission of Parties to DNA Testing) before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, Valenzuela City. Attached to the
petition were the following: (a) petitioners certificate of live birth; (b)
petitioners baptismal certificate; (c) petitioners college diploma, showing
that he graduated from Saint Louis University in Baguio City with a degree
in Psychology; (d) his Certificate of Graduation from the same school; (e)
Certificate of Recognition from the University of the Philippines, College of
Music; and (f) clippings of several articles from different newspapers about
petitioner, as a musical prodigy.
Respondent was not served with a copy of the petition. Nonetheless,
respondent learned of the petition to establish filiation. His counsel therefore
went to the trial court and obtained a copy of the petition. Petitioner filed
with the RTC a Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case. Hence, on
September 3, 2007, the RTC, finding the petition to be sufficient in form and
substance, issued the Order setting the case for hearing and urging anyone
who has any objection to the petition to file his opposition. The court also
directed that the Order be published once a week for three consecutive
weeks in any newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, and that
the Solicitor General be furnished with copies of the Order and the petition
in order that he may appear and represent the State in the case.
After learning of the September 3, 2007 Order, respondent filed a
motion for reconsideration. Respondent averred that the petition was not in
due form and substance because petitioner could not have personally known
the matters that were alleged therein. He argued that DNA testing cannot be
had on the basis of a mere allegation pointing to respondent as petitioners
father. Moreover, jurisprudence is still unsettled on the acceptability of DNA
evidence. The RTC, acting on respondents motion for reconsideration,
issued an Order dismissing the case. The court remarked that, based on the
case of Herrera v. Alba, there are four significant procedural aspects of a
traditional paternity action which the parties have to face: a prima facie case,
affirmative defenses, presumption of legitimacy, and physical resemblance
between the putative father and the child. The court opined that petitioner
must first establish these four procedural aspects before he can present
evidence of paternity and filiation, which may include incriminating acts or
scientific evidence like blood group test and DNA test results. The court
observed that the petition did not show that these procedural aspects were
present. Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case considering that (a)
his mother did not personally declare that she had sexual relations with
respondent, and petitioners statement as to what his mother told him about
his father was clearly hearsay; (b) the certificate of live birth was not signed
by respondent; and (c) although petitioner used the surname of respondent,
there was no allegation that he was treated as the child of respondent by the
latter or his family. The court opined that, having failed to establish a prima
facie case, respondent had no obligation to present any affirmative defenses.
Petitioner seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration to the Order
dated July 30, 2008, which the RTC resolved in his favor. Thus, on October
20, 2008, it issued the Order setting aside the courts previous order. The
court also dismissed respondents arguments that there is no basis for the
taking of DNA test, and that jurisprudence is still unsettled on the
acceptability of DNA evidence. It noted that the new Rule on DNA Evidence
allows the conduct of DNA testing, whether at the courts instance or upon
application of any person who has legal interest in the matter in litigation.
Aggrieved, respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. the CA
decided the petition for certiorari in favor of respondent. The CA held that
the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of respondent, as no
summons had been served on him. The CA remarked that petitioner filed
the petition to establish illegitimate filiation, specifically seeking a DNA
testing order to abbreviate the proceedings. It noted that petitioner failed to
show that the four significant procedural aspects of a traditional paternity
action had been met. The CA further held that a DNA testing should not be
allowed when the petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case.
ISSUE: Is a prima facie showing necessary before a court can issue a DNA
testing order?
RULING:
The statement in Herrera v. Alba that there are four significant
procedural aspects in a traditional paternity case which parties have to face
has been widely misunderstood and misapplied in this case. A party is
confronted by these so-called procedural aspects during trial, when the
parties have presented their respective evidence. They are matters of
evidence that cannot be determined at this initial stage of the proceedings,
when only the petition to establish filiation has been filed. The CAs
observation that petitioner failed to establish a prima facie casethe first
procedural aspect in a paternity caseis therefore misplaced. A prima
facie case is built by a partys evidence and not by mere allegations in the
initiatory pleading.
Clearly then, it was also not the opportune time to discuss the lack of
a prima facie case vis--vis the motion for DNA testing since no evidence
has, as yet, been presented by petitioner. More essentially, it is premature to
discuss whether, under the circumstances, a DNA testing order is warranted
considering that no such order has yet been issued by the trial court. In fact,
the latter has just set the said case for hearing.
At any rate, the CAs view that it would be dangerous to allow a DNA testing
without corroborative proof is well taken and deserves the Courts 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.
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. 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.
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.
