People Vs Yatar

G.R. No.
150224 May 19, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT", appellant.
FACTS:
Appellant Yatar was charged and convicted of Rape with Homicide by the trial court. The basis
of the conviction rest on circumstantial evidence gathered from the testimony of various
witnesses, to: (1) the presence of the accused at the crime scene within the timeframe of the
approximate time of death of the victim; (2) at one point prior to the commission accused was
seen wearing a white shirt with collar; (3) latter on he was seen wearing a dirty white shirt with
collar; (4) when the body of the victim was found, a dirty white shirt was seen beside her; (5)
the dirty white shirt with collar found at the crime scene was stained by blood; (6) when the
blood stain and accused’s blood was subjected to DNA testing, it was found that it contained
the same DNA; (7) that when semen found inside the victim’s body was subjected to DNA
testing, it was found to be identical to that of accused’s DNA.
In an attempt to exclude the DNA evidence, the appellant contends that the blood sample
taken from him as well as the DNA tests were conducted in violation of his right to remain silent
as well as his right against selfincrimination under Secs. 12 and 17 of Art. III of the
Constitution.
ISSUES: Whether or not, taking of accused’s blood sample and subjecting the same to DNA
testing is inadmissible in evidence as it amounts to violation of his right against
self-incrimination.
Whether or not result of the DNA testing done on the sperm specimen may be used as
evidence for Yatar’s conviction.
HELD:
Accused’s contention is untenable. The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but
against testimonial compulsion. The right against self- incrimination is simply against the legal
process of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply
where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but as part of object
evidence. It was held in People v. Rondero that although accused-appellant insisted that hair
samples were forcibly taken from him and submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for
forensic examination, the hair samples may be admitted in evidence against him, for what is
proscribed is the use of testimonial compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature
acquired from the accused under duress. Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to
fingerprinting, photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA, as there is no testimonial compulsion
involved. Under People v. Gallarde, where immediately after the incident, the police authorities
took pictures of the accused without the presence of counsel, we ruled that there was no
violation of the right against self-incrimination. The accused may be compelled to submit to a
physical examination to determine his involvement in an offense of which he is accused.
DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. A person’s
DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a person’s lifetime; the DNA in
a person’s blood is the same as the DNA found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of
hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue, and vaginal and rectal cells. No two individuals have
the same DNA, with the notable exception of identical twins.
DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can assist
immensely in effecting a more accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating
the conviction of the guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper
administration of justice in every case.
Dr. Maria Corazon Abogado de Ungria was duly qualified by the prosecution as an expert
witness on DNA print or identification techniques. Based on Dr. de Ungria’s testimony, it was
determined that the gene type and DNA profile of appellant are identical to that of the extracts
subject of examination. A DNA match exists between the semen found in the victim and the
blood sample given by the appellant in open court during the course of the trial.
Pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be used as long as it was
relevant and reliable. The DNA evidence obtained through PCR testing and utilizing STR
analysis, and which was appreciated by the court a quo is relevant and reliable since it is
reasonably based on scientifically valid principles of human genetics and molecular biology.

People Vs Yatar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Yatar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Yatar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

150224 May 19, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.JOEL YATAR alias "KAWIT", appellant.

You might also like