Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 185708 2010-09-29	PEOPLE v. JUANITO CABIGQUEZ Y ALASTRA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is indeed a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.[36] In this case, however, the result of the DNA test is rendered inconclusive to exculpate or inculpate the appellant since the sample tested by the NBI merely contained vaginal discharges. In the laboratory test earlier conducted by Dr. Villapañe on the vaginal swab obtained from AAA's genitalia, the presence of spermatozoa was confirmed. This notwithstanding, the totality of evidence satisfactorily established that it was indeed appellant who raped AAA.
	GR No. 171713 2007-12-17	ESTATE OF ROGELIO G. ONG v. MINOR JOANNE RODJIN DIAZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
And even the death of Rogelio cannot bar the conduct of DNA testing. In People v. Umanito,[30] citing Tecson v. Commission on Elections,[31] this Court held:The 2004 case of Tecson v. Commission on Elections [G.R. No. 161434, 3 March 2004, 424 SCRA 277] likewise reiterated the acceptance of DNA testing in our jurisdiction in this wise: "[i]n case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult 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."