SECOND DIVISION

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

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. RUFINO UMANITO,
appellant.
RESOLUTION
TINGA, J :
p

On appeal is the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals dated 15 February 2006,

arming the Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union,
Branch 67 dated 15 October 1997 nding Runo Umanito (appellant) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape, sentencing him to suer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and ordering him to indemnify the private complainant in the
sum of P50,000.00. 3
On 9 January 1990, appellant was charged with the crime of rape in a Criminal
Complaint 4 which 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 was
armed with a fan knife and by means of force and threats, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously succeeded in having a sexual
intercourse to [sic] the undersigned who is unmarried woman of good
reputation, a woman who is over 12 but below 18 years old [sic] of age, to
the damage and prejudice of the offended party.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

It was only ve (5) years later, or sometime in 1995, that appellant was arrested. It
took place when he went to the Municipal Hall of Naguilian to secure a police
clearance.
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 way
to her grandmother's home, when private complainant [AAA] 6 was
accosted by a young male. It was only later when she learned the name of
accused-appellant UMANITO. She recounted that accused-appellant
UMANITO 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

be dragged to the Home Economics Building inside the premises of the

Daramuangan Elementary School where accused-appellant UMANITO rst
undressed her [AAA] and himself with his right hand while he still clutched
the knife menacingly on his left hand. Private complainant [AAA] recounted
that she could not shout because she was afraid. She further recounted
that accused-appellant UMANITO laid her down on a bench, 4 meters long
and 24 inches wide, set the knife down, then mounted her, inserting his
penis into her [AAA's] vagina and shortly thereafter, accused-appellant
UMANITO dressed up and threatened [AAA] while poking the knife at her
neck, 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 her
grandmother's house and she noticed that it was already around 1:00
o'clock in the morning when she reached there.
SHCaDA

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

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

Appellant's version on the stand was dierent. Denying the accusations of AAA, he
claimed that on 15 July 1989, he was home the whole day, helping his family
complete rush work on picture frames ordered from Baguio. He did not step out of
their house on the evening in question, he added. 9 Concerning his relationship with
AAA, appellant admitted that he had courted her but she spurned him. He
conjectured, though, that AAA had a crush on him since she frequently visited him
at his house. 10
Finding that the prosecution had proven appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
the RTC rendered judgment against him and sentenced him to suer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua and to indemnify AAA in the sum of P50,000.00. 11 In so doing,
the court a quo held that the discrepancies in AAA's testimony did not impair her
credibility. Despite some inconsistencies in her statement, the RTC observed that
AAA's demeanor on the witness stand did not indicate any falsehood in her
narration. 12
The trial court likewise rejected appellant's defense of alibi, ruling that he did not
prove 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 was
transferred to the Court of Appeals for intermediate review. On 15 February 2006,
the appellate court armed the challenged decision. Finding AAA to be a credible
witness, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the inconsistencies in
her statements were too trivial and inconsequential to impair the credibility of her
testimony. 15
In this appeal, appellant seeks his acquittal on reasonable doubt by reason of the

belated ling of the case against him and the questionable credibility of AAA with
respect to her varying allegations.
Appellant asserts that the court a quo erred in giving full faith and credence to the
testimony of the complaining witness and in not acquitting him on reasonable
doubt. He avers that apparently AAA led the complaint against him only upon the
prodding of her mother. 16 This aspect, appellant insists, negates AAA's claim that he
was the one who raped her but rather supports his assertion that the sexual
congress AAA engaged in was with another man, her real lover who was married to
another woman. 17 Appellant further puts in issue the long delay in AAA's ling of
the complaint. 18
Appellant capitalizes on the alleged serious inconsistencies in AAA's assertions, and
further characterizes her actions and contentions as incredible and unnatural. 19 In
particular, appellant highlights AAA's contradictory declarations on when she met
appellant and the nature of their relationship. He also alludes to AAA's purportedly
inconsistent statements on whether it was appellant or she herself, upon his orders,
who took o her clothes. Finally, appellant points out the supposedly conicting
assertions of AAA on whether it was at the creek or in the school building that he
kissed her face and other parts of her body.
AaCTcI

Once again, this Court is called upon to determine whether the prosecution has
successfully met the level of proof needed to nd appellant guilty of the crime of
rape.
Among the many incongruent assertions of the prosecution and the defense, the
disharmony on a certain point stands out. Appellant, on one hand, testied that
although he had courted AAA, they were not sweethearts. Therefore, this testimony
largely discounts the possibility of consensual coitus between him and AAA. On the
other, AAA made contradictory allegations at the preliminary investigation and on
the witness stand with respect to the nature of her relationship with appellant.
First, 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 that
they were close. 20
Amidst the slew of assertions and counter-assertions, a happenstance may provide
the denitive key to the absolution of the appellant. This is the fact that AAA bore a
child 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 certainty
whether appellant is the father of AAA's child. If he is not, his acquittal may be
ordained. We have pronounced that if it can be conclusively determined that the
accused did not sire the alleged victim's child, this may cast the shadow of
reasonable doubt and allow his acquittal on this basis. 21 If he is found not to be the
father, the nding 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 to
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing 22 under the aegis of the New Rule on DNA
Evidence 23 (the Rules), which took eect on 15 October 2007, subject to guidelines
prescribed herein.

DNA print or identication technology is now recognized as a uniquely eective

means to link a suspect to a crime, or to absolve one erroneously accused, where
biological evidence is available. For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA
identication is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can
aid immensely in determining a more accurate account of the crime committed,
eciently facilitating the conviction of the guilty, securing the acquittal of the
innocent, and ensuring the proper administration of justice in every case. 24 Verily,
as we pointed out in People v. Yatar , 25 the process of obtaining such vital evidence
has become less arduous
The U.P. National Science Research Institute (NSRI), which conducted the
DNA tests in this case, used the Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
amplication method by Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis. With PCR
testing, tiny amounts of a specic DNA sequence can be copied
exponentially within hours. Thus, getting sucient DNA for analysis has
become much easier since it became possible to reliably amplify small
samples using the PCR method. 26

The ground work for acknowledging the strong weight of DNA testing was rst laid
out in Tijing v. Court of Appeals, 27 where the Court said
. . . Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless we
adopt the modern and scientic ways available. Fortunately, we have now
the facility and expertise in using DNA test for identication and parentage
testing. The University of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute
(UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the capability to conduct DNA
typing using short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. The analysis is based on
the fact that the DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies, one copy from
the 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 scientic technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is still
open to challenge. Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, courts should
not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, that
courts should apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid
of 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 it
would be useful to all concerned in the prompt resolution of parentage and
identity issues. 28

The leading case of Herrera v. Alba , 29 where the validity of a DNA test as a
probative tool to determine liation in our jurisdiction was put in issue, discussed
DNA 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 same
person. Genetic identity is unique. Hence, a person's DNA prole can
determine his identity.

DNA analysis is a procedure in which DNA extracted from a biological sample

obtained from an individual is examined. The DNA is processed to generate a
pattern, or a DNA prole, for the individual from whom the sample is taken.
This DNA prole is unique for each person, except for identical twins. We
quote relevant portions of the trial court's 3 February 2000 Order with
approval:
Everyone is born with a distinct genetic blueprint called DNA
(deoxyribonucleic acid). It is exclusive to an individual (except in the
rare occurrence of identical twins that share a single, fertilized egg),
and DNA is unchanging throughout life. Being a component of every
cell in the human body, the DNA of an individual's blood is the very
DNA in his or her skin cells, hair follicles, muscles, semen, samples
from 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 in
which the four bases appear in an individual's DNA determines his or
her physical makeup. And since DNA is a double-stranded molecule, it
is composed of two specic paired bases, A-T or T-A and G-C or CG. These are called "genes."
cHAaCE

Every gene has a certain number of the above base pairs distributed
in a particular sequence. This gives a person his or her genetic code.
Somewhere in the DNA framework, nonetheless, are sections that
dier. They are known as "polymorphic loci," which are the areas
analyzed in DNA typing (proling, tests, ngerprinting, or analysis/DNA
ngerprinting/genetic tests or ngerprinting). In other words, DNA
typing simply means determining the "polymorphic loci."
How is DNA typing performed? From a DNA sample obtained or
extracted, a molecular biologist may proceed to analyze it in several
ways. There are ve (5) techniques to conduct DNA typing. They are:
t h e RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism); "reverse dot
blot" or HLA DQ a/Pm loci which was used in 287 cases that were
admitted as evidence by 37 courts in the U.S. as of November 1994;
mtDNA process; VNTR (variable number tandem repeats); and the
most recent which is known as the PCR-([polymerase] chain reaction)
based STR (short tandem repeats) method which, as of 1996, was
availed of by most forensic laboratories in the world. PCR is the
process of replicating or copying DNA in an evidence sample a million
times through repeated cycling of a reaction involving the so-called
DNA
polymerize
enzyme. STR, on the other hand, takes
measurements in 13 separate places and can match two (2) samples
with a reported theoretical error rate of less than one (1) in a trillion.
Just like in ngerprint analysis, in DNA typing, "matches " are
determined. To illustrate, when DNA or ngerprint tests are done to
identify a suspect in a criminal case, the evidence collected from the
crime scene is compared with the "known" print. If a substantial
amount of the identifying features are the same, the DNA or

ngerprint is deemed to be a match. But then, even if only one

feature of the DNA or ngerprint is dierent, it is deemed not to
have come from the suspect.
As earlier stated, certain regions of human DNA show variations
between people. In each of these regions, a person possesses two
genetic 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 prole. Comparing
next the DNA proles of the mother and child, it is possible to
determine which half of the child's DNA was inherited from the
mother. The other half must have been inherited from the biological
father. The alleged father's prole is then examined to ascertain
whether he has the DNA types in his prole, which match the paternal
types in the child. If the man's DNA types do not match that of the
child, the man is excluded as the father. If the DNA types match,
then he is not excluded as the father (Emphasis in the original).
xxx xxx xxx
The 2002 case of People v. Vallejo discussed DNA analysis as evidence. This
may be considered a 180 degree turn from the Court's wary attitude
towards DNA testing in the 1997 Pe Lim case, where we stated that "DNA,
being a relatively new science, . . . has not yet been accorded ocial
recognition by our courts." In Vallejo, the DNA prole from the vaginal swabs
taken from the rape victim matched the accused's DNA prole. We armed
the accused's conviction of rape with homicide and sentenced him to death.
xxx xxx xxx

Vallejo discussed the probative value, not admissibility, of DNA evidence. By

2002, there was no longer any question on the validity of the use of DNA
analysis as evidence. The Court moved from the issue of according "ocial
recognition" to DNA analysis as evidence to the issue of observance of
procedures in conducting DNA analysis.
DCSTAH

In 2004, there were two other cases that had a signicant impact on
jurisprudence on DNA testing: People v. Yatar and In re: The Writ of Habeas
Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa. In Yatar, a match existed between the DNA
prole of the semen found in the victim and the DNA prole of the blood
sample given by appellant in open court. The Court, following Vallejo's
footsteps, armed the conviction of appellant because the physical
evidence, corroborated by circumstantial evidence, showed appellant guilty
of rape with homicide. In De Villa, the convict-petitioner presented DNA test
results to prove that he is not the father of the child conceived at the time of
commission of the rape. The Court ruled that a dierence between the DNA
prole of the convict-petitioner and the DNA prole of the victim's child does
not preclude the convict-petitioners commission of rape. 30

The 2004 case of Tecson v. Commission on Elections 31 likewise reiterated the

acceptance of DNA testing in our jurisdiction in this wise: "[i]n case proof of liation

or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be dicult to

obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the
illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted
to." 32
It is obvious to the Court that the determination of whether appellant is the father
of AAA's child, which may be accomplished through DNA testing, is material to the
fair 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 DNA
testing. However, while this Court retains jurisdiction over the case at bar,
capacitated as it is to receive and act on the matter in controversy, the Supreme
Court is not a trier of facts and does not, in the course of daily routine, conduct
hearings. 33 Hence, it would be more appropriate that the case be remanded to the
RTC 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 out
the matters which the trial court must determine, thus:
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 scientic 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.
The 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. 34

Given our earlier pronouncements on the relevance of the DNA testing, it would be
unbecoming of the RTC to conclude otherwise, Section 4 (d) notwithstanding. The
hearing should be conned to ascertaining the feasibility of DNA testing with due
regard to the standards set in Section 4 (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Rules.
Should the RTC nd the DNA testing feasible in the case at bar, it shall order the
same, in conformity with Section 5 of the Rules. 35 It is also the RTC which shall
determine the institution 36 to undertake the DNA testing and the parties are free

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 wish
to avail of the same to oer the results in accordance with the rules of evidence.
The RTC, in evaluating the DNA results upon presentation, shall assess the same as
evidence 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 consider
the following:
(a)
The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were
collected, how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the
samples;

(b)
The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in
analyzing 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 reputable
standards-setting institution and the qualication of the analyst who
conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant
experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be
properly 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 whether
the DNA testing methodology is reliable, the court shall consider the
following:
(a)
The falsiability of the principles or methods used, that is, whether
the theory or technique can be and has been tested;
(b)
The subjection to peer review and publication of the principles or
methods;
(c)
The general acceptance of the principles or methods by the relevant
scientific community;
(d)
The existence and maintenance of standards and controls to ensure
the correctness of data gathered;
(e)

The existence of an appropriate reference population database; and

(f)
The general degree of condence attributed to mathematical
calculations used in comparing DNA proles and the signicance and

limitation of statistical calculations used in comparing DNA profiles.

The trial court is further enjoined to observe the requirements of condentiality and
preservation of the DNA evidence in accordance with Sections 11 37 and 12 38 of the
Rules.
In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, the RTC shall consider, among
other things, the following data: how the samples were collected, how they were
handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in
analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed
in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.
39

Moreover, the court a quo must ensure that the proper chain of custody in the
handling of the samples submitted by the parties is adequately borne in the records,
i.e.: that the samples are collected by a neutral third party; that the tested parties
are appropriately identied at their sample collection appointments; that the
samples are protected with tamper tape at the collection site; that all persons in
possession thereof at each stage of testing thoroughly inspected the samples for
tampering and explained his role in the custody of the samples and the acts he
performed in relation thereto.
In light of the fact that this case constitutes the rst known application of the Rules,
the Court is especially interested in monitoring the implementation thereof in this
case, for its guidance and continuing evaluation of the Rules as implemented. For
purposes of supervising the implementation the instant resolution, the Court
designates Deputy Court Administrator Reuben Dela Cruz (DCA Dela Cruz) to: (a)
monitor the manner in which the court a quo carries out the Rules; and (b) assess
and submit periodic reports on said implementation to the Court. Towards the
fulllment of such end, the RTC is directed to cooperate and coordinate with DCA
Dela Cruz.
A nal note. In order to facilitate the execution of this Resolution, though the
parties are primarily bound to bear the expenses for DNA testing, such costs may be
advanced by this Court if needed.
ESaITA

WHEREFORE, the instant case is remanded to the RTC for reception of DNA
evidence in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. The RTC is further
directed to report to the Court the results of the proceedings below within sixty (60)
days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.

Quisumbing, Carpio, Carpio-Morales and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1.

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

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. See
People 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 the
victim's privacy. See People v. Cabalquinto, supra.

8.

Supra note 1 at 5-6.

9.

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

10.

Id. at 10.

11.

Supra note 2 at 33-34.

12.

CA rollo, p. 31.

13.

Id.

14.

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

15.

Supra note 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 In Re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for De Villa, 442 SCRA 706 (2004).

22.

In People v. Marquez (430 Phil. 383 [2002]), we characterized DNA testing as

synonymous to DNA typing, DNA ngerprinting, DNA proling, genetic tests, and
genetic 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.

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 of
Appeals , 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 nds that the requirements in Section
4 hereof have been complied with, the court shall.
(a)
Order, as appropriate, that biological samples be taken from any person
or crime scene evidence;
(b)
Impose reasonable conditions on DNA testing designed to protect the
integrity of the biological sample, the testing process and the reliability of the test
results, including a condition that the DNA test results shall be simultaneously
disclosed to parties involved in the case; and
ICASEH

(c)
If the biological sample taken is of such an amount that prevents the
conduct of conrmatory testing by the other or the adverse party and where
additional 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 to
be conducted.
. . . The grant of a DNA testing application shall not be construed as an automatic
admission into evidence of any component of the DNA evidence that may be
obtained as a result thereof.
36.

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

37.

SEC. 11. Confidentiality. DNA proles and all results or other information
obtained from DNA testing shall be condential. Except upon order of the court, a
DNA prole and all results or other information obtained from DNA testing shall
only be released to any of the following, under such terms and conditions as may
be set forth by the court:
(1)

Person from whom the sample was taken;

(2)
Lawyers representing parties in the case or action where the DNA
evidence is offered and presented or sought to be offered and presented;
(3)

Lawyers of private complainants in a criminal action;

(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 a

DNA prole without the proper court order shall be liable for indirect contempt of
the court wherein such DNA evidence was oered, presented or sought to be
offered and presented.
Where the person from whom the biological sample was taken les a written veried
request to the court that allowed the DNA testing for the disclosure of his DNA
prole and all results or other information obtained from the DNA testing, the
same 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 DNA
evidence, in its totality, including all biological samples, DNA proles and results or
other genetic information obtained from DNA testing. For this purpose, the court
may order the appropriate government agency to preserve the DNA evidence as
follows:
(a)

In criminal cases:

i.
for not less than the period of time that any person is under trial for an
offense; or,
ii.
in case the accused is serving sentence, until such time as the accused
has served his sentence; and
(b)
in all other cases, until such time as the decision in the case where the
DNA evidence was introduced has become final and executory.
The court may allow the physical destruction of a biological sample before the
expiration 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 in
writing to the disposal of the DNA evidence.
39.

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