Jesse U. Lucas v. Jesse S. Lucas

 JESSE U. LUCAS v. JESUS S. LUCAS G.R. No. 190710, June 6, 2011, SECOND DIVISION (Nachura,  J.)  Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and  seizures is still applicable, and a proper showing of sufficient justification under the particular factual circumstances of the  case must be made before a court may order a compulsory blood test.

 Jesse U. Lucas (Jesse), filed a Petition to Establish Filiation Filiation with a Motion for the Submission of Parties to DNA Testing before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Jesse narrated his mother’s account of her history with Jesus S. Lucas (Jesus) and attached several copies of his personal documents.  Though Jesus was not summoned and was not served a copy of the petition, he nevertheless nevertheless learned of it and obtained for himself a copy. He then filed a Special Appearance and Comment manifesting among others that the petition was adversarial in nature and therefore summons should be served on him as respondent. Unbeknownst to Jesus on the day before he filed his Comment, Jesse filed a Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case which the RTC found to be sufficient in form and hence set the case for hearing. Reconsideration arguing that DNA  After learning of the RTC’s order,  Jesus filed a Motion for Reconsideration testing cannot be had on the basis of a mere allegation pointing to him as Jesse ’s father.  Acting on Jesus’ Motion for Reconsideration, the RTC dismissed the case and held that Jesse failed to establish compliance with the four procedural aspects for a paternity action enumerated in the case of  Herrera v. Alba .  This prompted Jesse to file a Motion for Reconsideration Reconsideration of his own which the RTC granted. A new hearing was scheduled where the RTC held that ruling on the grounds relied upon by Jesse for filing  the instant petition is premature considering that a full-blown trial has not yet taken place.  Jesus filed a Motion for Reconsideration Reconsideration which was denied by the RTC. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA ruled in favor of Jesus, it noted that Jesse failed to show that the four significant aspects of a traditional paternity action had been met and held that DNA testing should not be allowed when the petitioner has failed to establish a  prima facie case. ISSUE:

 Whether or not a prima facie showing is necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing order. HELD:

Petition GRANTED. Misapplication of Herrera v. Alba by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals.

 The statement in Herrera v. Alba  that there are four significant procedural aspects in a traditional paternity case which parties have to face has been widely misunderstood and misapplied in this case. A party is confronted by these so-called procedural aspects during trial, when the parties have presented their respective evidence. They are matters of evidence that cannot be determined at this initial stage of  the proceedings, when only the petition to establish filiation has been filed. The CA’s observation that petitioner failed to establish a  prima facie  case — the the first procedural aspect in a paternity case — is is

therefore misplaced. A  prima facie  case is built by a party’s evidence a nd not by mere allegations in the initiatory pleading. Section 4 of the Rule on DNA evidence.

 The Rule on DNA Evidence was enacted to guide the Bench and the Bar for the introduction and use of DNA evidence in the judicial system. It provides the “prescri bed parameters on the requisite elements for reliability and validity ( i.e., the proper procedures, protocols, necessary laboratory reports, etc.), the possible sources of error, the available objections to the admission of DNA test results as evidence as  well as the probative value of DNA evidence.” evidence.” It seeks “to ensure that the evidence gathered, using various methods of DNA analysis, is utilized effectively and properly, [and] shall not be misused and/or abused and, more importantly, shall continue to ensure that DNA analysis serves justice and protects, rather than prejudice the public.” Not surprisingly, Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence merely provides for conditions that are aimed to safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the DNA testing. Section 4 states: 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 order a DNA testing. Such order shall issue after after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing of the following: following: (a) A biological sample sample exists that is relevant to the case;(b) case;(b)  The biological sample: sample: (i) was not previously subjected 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; (c)  The DNA testing uses a scientifically scientifically valid technique; technique; (d) The DNA testing has the scientific scientific potential to produce new information that is relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and (e) The existence of  other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially affecting the accuracy or 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.  This does not mean, however, that a DNA testing order will be issued as a matter of right if, during the hearing, the said conditions are established. established. Court order for blood testing equivalent to “search” under the Constitution.

In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA testing order, there must be a show cause hearing wherein the applicant must first present sufficient evidence to establish a  prima facie  case or a reasonable possibility of pate rnity or “good cause” for the holding of the test. In these states, a court order for blood testing is considered a “search,” which, under their Constitutions (as in ours), must be preceded by a finding of probable cause in order to be valid. Hence, the requirement of a  prima facie case, or reasonable possibility, was imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a finding of probable cause.  The Supreme Court of Louisiana eloquently explained ; “ Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is still applicable, and a proper showing of sufficient justification under the particular factual circumstances of the case must be made before a court may order a compulsory blood test. Courts in various jurisdictions have differed regarding the kind of procedures which are required, but those jurisdictions have almost universally  found that a preliminary showing must be made before a court can constitutionally order compulsory  blood testing in paternity cases. We agree, and find that, as a preliminary matter, before the court may  issue an order for compulsory blood testing, the moving party must show that there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing must be held in which the court can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a  prima facie  case which warrants issuance of a court order for blood testing .” .”

 The same condition condition precedent precedent should be applied applied in our jurisdiction to protect protect the putative putative father from mere harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.