Pagtanggi sa DNA test, ‘di sagot para takasan ang responsibilidad sa anak

ni PAO Chief Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | March 20, 2026

Dear Chief Acosta,

Hindi ako ang ama ng bata pero iginigiit ng dati kong kasintahan na ako ang ama. Hinamon pa  niya akong  sumailalim sa  DNA testing,  ngunit tumanggi ako. Aniya, diumano ay magpa-file siya ng kaso. Ang alam ko ay may right against self-incrimination ako. Hindi ba may paglabag sa karapatan ko kung iuutos/ipipilit na magpa-DNA test ako? – Billy

---

Dear Billy,

Ang deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) ay building block na pangunahing bumubuo sa genetic profile ng isang tao. Matatagpuan ito sa lahat ng mga cells ng tao at pareho ito sa bawat cell ng parehong indibidwal. Natatangi ang genetic na pagkakakilanlan ng bawat tao. Dahil dito, maaaring matukoy sa pamamagitan ng DNA profile ng isang tao ang kanyang pagkakakilanlan.

Ang pagsusuri ng DNA ay isang pamamaraan kung saan sinisiyasat ang DNA na nakuha mula sa biological sample mula sa isang indibidwal. Pinoproseso ang DNA upang makabuo ng isang pattern, o DNA profile. Ang DNA profile na ito ay natatangi para sa bawat tao, maliban sa kambal o identical twins. (Estate of Rogelio G. Ong vs. Minor Joanne Rodjin Diaz, G.R. No. 171713, 17 Disyembre 2007, sa panulat ni Kagalang-galang na Kasamang Mahistrado Minita Chico-Nazario)

Kaugnay nito, pinasiyahan ng ating Kagalang-galang na Korte Suprema sa kasong Rosendo Herrera vs. Rosendo Alba, represented by his mother Armi A. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, 15 Hunyo 2005, sa panulat ni Honorable Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, na walang paglabag sa right against self-incrimination sa pagkuha ng DNA sample:

“Section 17, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides that ‘no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.’ Petitioner asserts that obtaining samples from him for DNA testing violates his right against self-incrimination. Petitioner ignores our earlier pronouncements that the privilege is applicable only to testimonial evidence. Again, we quote relevant portions of the trial court’s 3 February 2000 Order with approval:

Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the respondent in a paternity case, contrary to the belief of respondent in this action, will not violate the right against self-incrimination. This privilege applies only to evidence that is ‘communicative’ in essence taken under duress (People vs. Olvis, 154 SCRA 513, 1987). The Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition on the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication (testimonial evidence) from a defendant, not an exclusion of evidence taken from his body when it may be material. As such, a defendant can be required to submit to a test to extract virus from his body (as cited in People vs. Olvis, Supra); the substance emitting from the body of the accused was received as evidence for acts of lasciviousness (US vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145); morphine forced out of the mouth was received as proof (US vs. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735); an order by the judge for the witness to put on pair of pants for size was allowed (People vs. Otadora, 86 Phil. 244); and the court can compel a woman accused of adultery to submit for pregnancy test (Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62), since the gist of the privilege is the restriction on ‘testimonial compulsion.’

The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity and filiation of children, especially of illegitimate children, is without prejudice to the right of the putative parent to claim his or her own defenses. Where the evidence to aid this investigation is obtainable through the facilities of modern science and technology, such evidence should be considered subject to the limits established by the law, rules, and jurisprudence.”

Tinalakay rito na ang right against self-incrimination ay pagbabawal o prohibisyon lamang sa paggamit ng pisikal o moral na pamimilit upang mangikil ng salaysay/testimonya o testimonial evidence mula sa isang nasasakdal – hindi kasama rito ang ebidensya na kinuha sa katawan kung ito ay mahalaga sa pagresolba ng kaso/isyu. 

Kaya, kung maipakita na may makatwirang posibilidad na ikaw nga ang ama ng bata, maaaring ipag-utos ng korte na sumailalim ka sa DNA testing, at hindi ito paglabag sa iyong right against self-incrimination.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay. 

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.