"DNA evidence plays a very vital role in legal proceedings, especially in criminal prosecutions. Generally, courts order, either motu proprio or on application of a person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, the conduct of DNA testing if such is crucial and relevant to the issue/s at hand. Nevertheless, DNA testing may be carried out without a prior court order at the behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies. To be certain, Section 4 of A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC dated October 2, 2007, otherwise known as the “Rule on DNA Evidence”, 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 biological sample exists that is relevant to the case;
“– 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;
“– The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique;
“– The DNA testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and
“– The existence of other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy of 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.” (Emphasis and underlining supplied)
In the situation which you have shared with us, we believe that the DNA evidence, which were collected and tested, may be used in pursuing a criminal case against RR, who agreed in providing his swab sample. It is true that no less than our 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically Section 17, Article III thereof, guarantees the protection against self-incrimination, viz.:
“Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” However, it must be emphasized that the right against self-incrimination does not encompass all forms of obtention of evidence. Rather, the protection only shields a person against testimonial compulsion. It has been clearly explained in the Per Curiam Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Joel Yatar alias “Kawit”, (G.R. No. 150224, May 19, 2004):
“x x x 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.
“We ruled 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.” (Emphasis supplied)
But this goes without saying that our courts will not simply accept evidence as is. Our courts will still determine the probative value of the DNA evidence submitted before it, ensuring that there were no irregularities in the chain of custody, that appropriate procedures were undertaken in conducting the tests and the qualifications of where and who conducted the tests, as well as the reliability of the results, in consonance with the pertinent provisions of the Rule on DNA Evidence."
Reference:
https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/09/15/legal-advice/dna-collection-and-testing-may-proceed-without-court-order/2184090?fbclid=IwdGRjcAMz1upjbGNrAzPVIWV4dG4DYWVtAjExAAEe6klRWa95sXhyfJq0Cy9XhG4lr9bBG7WQJ0u1K0NjltBfZiqCkdh_2JbTnRQ_aem_b9gs5CleIQAuk-YYyCkzyQ
