People v. Yatar
G.R. NO. 150224, May 19, 2004

Facts: 

The trial court convicted appellant Yatar of Rape with Homicide on the basis of the following circumstantial  evidence:  (1)  his presence at the crime scene within the timeframe of the approximate time of death of the victim; (2) at one point prior to the commission, he was seen wearing a white shirt with collar; (3) when the body of the victim was found, a dirty white shirt was seen beside her; (4) the  dirty  white  shirt  with  collar  found  at  the  crime  scene  was  stained  by  blood;  (5)  when  the  blood  stain  and accused’s  blood  was  subjected  to  DNA  testing,  it  was  found  that  it  contained  the  same  DNA;  (6)  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; (7) escaped two days after he was detained but was subsequently apprehended.

The case was forwarded to the SC for its automatic review. 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  self-incrimination under Secs. 12 and 17 of Art. III of the Constitution. 


Issue: 

Whether  or  not, the taking  of  accused’s  blood  sample  and  subjecting  the  same  to  DNA  testing  is admissible in evidence.


Held: 

Yes.

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. It must also be noted that appellant in this case submitted himself for blood sampling which was conducted in open court on March 30, 2000, in the presence of counsel.