People vs. Yatar

LEGAL MEDICINE (SY 2013-2014) comprising the sperm specimen is identical to Yatar’s

PEOPLE VS. YATAR (2004)

genotype. FACTS: On June 30, 1998, Kathylyn Uba stayed in her grandmother’s (Isabel Dawang’s) house, despite her intention to go forth Tuguegarao City, as her other former’s housemate-relatives left in the morning. At 10:00 am, accused-appellant Joel Yatar was seen at the back of the same house where Kathylyn stayed during said date. At 12:30 pm, Judilyn, Kathylyn’s first cousin saw Yatar, who was then wearing a white shirt with collar and black pants, descended from the second floor and was pacing back and forth at the back of Isabel Dawang’s house, Judilyn didn’t find this unusual since Yatar and his wife used to live therein. At 1:30 PM, Yatar called upon Judilyn, telling the latter that he would not be getting the lumber he had been gathering. This time, Judilyn noticed that Yatar is now wearing a black shirt

Yatar was accused of the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide and was convicted for the same by the Regional Trial Court of Tabuk, Kalinga. Thereafter, he made an appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court in order to assail the court a quo’s decision. On appeal, Yatar avers that: (1) the trial court erred in giving much weight to the evidence DNA testing or analysis done on him, in lieu of the seminal fluid found inside the victim’s (cadaver) vaginal canal; (2) the blood sample taken from is violative of his constitutional right against self-incrimination; and the conduct of DNA testing is also in violation on prohibition against ex-post facto laws.

(without collar) and blue pants; and noticed that the latter’s eyes were “reddish and sharp”. Accused-appellant

MAIN ISSUE

asked about the whereabouts of Judilyn’s husband, as the former purports to talk with the latter. Then, Yatar

Whether or not the result of the DNA testing done on

immediately left when Judilyn’s husband arrived. In the

the sperm specimen may be used as evidence for Yatar’s

evening, when Isabel Dawang arrived home, she found

conviction?

the lights of her house turned off, the door of the ground floor opened, and the containers, which she asked Kathylyn to fill up, were still empty. Upon

HELD

ascending the second floor to check whether the teenage girl is upstairs, Isabel found that the door therein was tied with rope. When Isabel succeeded opening the tied door with a knife, and as she groped in the darkness of the second level of her house, she felt Kathylyn’s lifeless and naked body, with some intestines protruding out from it. Soon after, police came to the scene of the crime to provide assistance. Therein, they found Kathylyn’s clothes and undergarments beside her body. Amongst others, a white collared shirt splattered with blood was also found 50-meters away from Isabel’s house. Meanwhile,

Noteworthy is the fact this case was decided on 2004, which was three (3) years before the Rules on DNA evidence took effect. The Supreme Court in this case ruled based on the US case of Daubert vs. Merrell Dow as a precedent. In the said US jurisprudence, it was ruled that pertinent evidence based on scientifically valid principles could be used, so long as the same is RELEVANT and RELIABLE. Hence, it was called then as the DAUBERT TEST.  RULE: At present, SECTION 7, RULES ON DNA

semen

has

also

been

found

upon

examination of Kathylyn’s cadaver. When subjected under DNA testing, results showed that the DNA

PREPARED BY: TINA SIUAGAN

EVIDENCE may be used as the legal basis. Sec. 7 of the Rules on DNA evidence, which took effect on 2007, provides for the factors to be

1

1

LEGAL MEDICINE (SY 2013-2014) considered in assessing the probative weight or

from the victim’s vaginal canal, the trial

value to be given on evidence derived or

court considered the qualification of the

generated from DNA testing. Such factors, are,

DNA analyst, the facility or laboratory in

to wit:

which

the

DNA testing

had

been

(a) The chain of custody, including how the

performed, and the methodology used

biological samples were collected, how

in performing the DNA test. In the said

they were handled, and the possibility of

case, the DNA test was done at the UP

contamination of the samples; (b) The

National Science Research Institute (NSRI). The method used was Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification method by Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis, which

DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples,

the

advantages

and

disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid

enables a tiny amount of DNA sequence

standards in conducting the tests; (c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including

to be replicated exponentially in a span

accreditation

reputable

of few hours. Hence, sufficient DNA

standards-setting institution and the

analysis may be made easier even with

qualification

small DNA samples at hand. The analyst

by of

any the

analyst

who

conducted the tests. If the laboratory is

who performed the procedure was Dr.

not accredited, the relevant experience

Maria Corazon Abogado de Ungria,

of the laboratory in forensic casework and

credibility

shall

be

who is a duly qualified expert witness on

properly

DNA print or identification techniques.

established; and (d) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.

 CONCLUSION: Hence,

 APPLICATION – DAUBERT TEST:

apart

from

the

other

sets

of

circumstantial evidence correctly appreciated by

The Honorable Supreme Court in this case

the trial court, the said DNA evidence is

upheld the probative value of the DNA test

sufficient to be admitted as evidence to warrant

result yielded from the analysis of Yatar’s blood

the accused-appellant’s conviction of the crime

sample from that of the semen specimen

of Rape with Homicide.

obtained from the cadaver’s vaginal canal. Accordingly, it held that the DNA evidence is both reliable and relevant. 

In ascertaining the relevance of the evidence

in

a

case,

it

must

be

determined whether or not the same directly relates to a fact in issue, as to induce belief in its existence or nonexistence. In this case, the evidence is relevant in determining the perpetrator of the crime; 

In giving probative value on the DNA testing result, yielded from the analysis of Yatar’s blood sample from that of the biological

sample

PREPARED BY: TINA SIUAGAN

(semen)

obtained

ANNOTATIONS – WHAT IS DNA? – culled from this

case 

DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms.23 A person’s DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a person’s lifetime; the DNA in a person’s blood is the same as the DNA found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue, and vaginal and rectal cells.24 Most importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic

2

2

LEGAL MEDICINE (SY 2013-2014) structure, no two individuals have the same DNA, with the notable exception of identical twins; 

DNA print or identification technology has been advanced as a uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a crime, or to exonerate a wrongly accused suspect, where biological evidence has been left. For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can assist immensely in effecting a more accurate account of the crime committed, efficiently facilitating the conviction of the guilty, securing the acquittal of the innocent, and ensuring the proper administration of justice in every case.



DNA evidence collected from a crime scene can link a suspect to a crime or eliminate one from suspicion in the same principle as fingerprints are used.26 Incidents involving sexual assault would leave biological evidence such as hair, skin tissue, semen, blood, or saliva which can be left on the victim’s body or at the crime scene. Hair and fiber from clothing, carpets, bedding, or furniture could also be transferred to the victim’s body during the assault.27 Forensic DNA evidence is helpful in proving that there was physical contact between an assailant and a victim. If properly collected from the victim, crime scene or assailant, DNA can be compared with known samples to place the suspect at the scene of the crime.

PREPARED BY: TINA SIUAGAN

3

3