LEGAL MEDICINE (SY 2013-2014)

PEOPLE VS. YATAR (2004)

FACTS: On June 30, 1998, Kathylyn Uba stayed in her grandmothers (Isabel Dawangs) house, despite her intention to go forth Tuguegarao City, as her other formers 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, Kathylyns 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 Dawangs house, Judilyn didnt 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 (without collar) and blue pants; and noticed that the latters eyes were reddish and sharp. Accused-appellant asked about the whereabouts of Judilyns husband, as the former purports to talk with the latter. Then, Yatar immediately left when Judilyns husband arrived. In the evening, when Isabel Dawang arrived home, she found 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 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 Kathylyns 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 Kathylyns clothes and undergarments beside her body. Amongst others, a white collared shirt splattered with blood was also found 50-meters away from Isabels house. Meanwhile, semen has also been found upon 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 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 HELD Whether or not the result of the DNA testing done on the sperm specimen may be used as evidence for Yatars conviction? MAIN ISSUE 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 quos 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 victims (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. comprising the sperm specimen is identical to Yatars genotype.

examination of Kathylyns cadaver. When subjected under DNA testing, results showed that the DNA

PREPARED BY: TINA SIUAGAN

LEGAL MEDICINE (SY 2013-2014)

considered in assessing the probative weight or value to be given on evidence derived or generated from DNA testing. Such factors, are, to wit:
(a) The chain of custody, including how the biological samples were collected, how they were handled, and the possibility of contamination of the samples; (b) The DNA testing methodology, including the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure, and compliance with the scientifically valid standards in conducting the tests; (c) The forensic DNA laboratory, including accreditation qualification by of the any reputable who standards-setting institution and the analyst conducted the tests. If the laboratory is not accredited, the relevant experience of the laboratory in forensic casework and credibility shall be properly established; and (d) The reliability of the testing result, as hereinafter provided.

from the victims vaginal canal, the trial court considered the qualification of the DNA analyst, the facility or laboratory in which the DNA testing had been performed, and the methodology used in performing the DNA test. In the said case, the DNA test was done at the UP

National Science Research Institute (NSRI). The method used was Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification method by Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis, which
enables a tiny amount of DNA sequence to be replicated exponentially in a span of few hours. Hence, sufficient DNA analysis may be made easier even with small DNA samples at hand. The analyst who performed the procedure was Dr.

Maria Corazon Abogado de Ungria,

who is a duly qualified expert witness on DNA print or identification techniques. CONCLUSION: Hence, apart from the other sets of circumstantial evidence correctly appreciated by the trial court, the said DNA evidence is sufficient to be admitted as evidence to warrant the accused-appellants conviction of the crime of Rape with Homicide.

APPLICATION DAUBERT TEST: The Honorable Supreme Court in this case upheld the probative value of the DNA test result yielded from the analysis of Yatars blood sample from that of the semen specimen obtained from the cadavers 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 Yatars blood sample from that of the biological sample (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 persons DNA is the same in each cell and it does not change throughout a persons lifetime; the DNA in a persons 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

PREPARED BY: TINA SIUAGAN

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 victims body or at the crime scene. Hair and fiber from clothing, carpets, bedding, or furniture could also be transferred to the victims 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