ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[B.M. No. 984.June 25, 2002]
IN RE:PETITION TO TAKE THE 1999 BAR EXAMS.
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 25 2002.
B.M. No. 984(In re: Petition to Take the 1999 Bar Examinations, Julius R. Cesar, Petitioner.)
Julius R. Cesar passed the 1999 Bar Examinations but was not allowed to take the lawyer's oath on 3 May 2000 in view of the Letter-Complaint dated 24 January 2000 of Tuesday Marie Castro charging him with Immorality and Grave Misconduct.
Castro alleged that she and petitioner were former lovers; that she bore him a son named Michael Angelo Castro on 5 May 1999; that even prior to Michael's birth petitioner acknowledged paternity of Michael in an Amicable Settlement dated 13 March 1999 executed before the Lupong Tagapayapa, Office of the Barangay Captain, Cogon District, Tagbilaran City, and promised to give him financial support until he reached the age of majority; that petitioner again acknowledged paternity of Michael in the latter's Certificate of Live Birth; and that petitioner at first gave financial support immediately after Michael's birth but had recently refused to do so on the ground that he did not father the child.
In his Comment petitioner admitted that he and complainant were once lovers. However from the very start he already entertained doubts that he fathered complainant's son because four months had already elapsed after his break-up with complainant when he was suddenly informed by the latter's aunt that complainant was pregnant. Moreover, complainant was seen with different male companions during the four-month period. Petitioner alleged that he acknowledged paternity of Michael before the Office of the Barangay Captain because he was then under a lot of pressure as he was about to graduate and take the Bar Examinations, and also because he was made to believe that he was the father of Michael. He signed the Amicable Settlement dated 13 March 1999 only on the condition that he and complainant would undergo DNA testing to resolve his doubts regarding the child's paternity. With respect to Michael's Certificate of Live Birth, he claimed that he signed the portion titled "Acknowledgement/Admission Of Paternity" because he was pressured by complainant's uncle and aunt when they arrived at his boarding house in Manila while he was reviewing for the 1999 Bar Examinations and scared him into signing the document, boasting at the same time that they had "access" to the Supreme Court. As he was then unemployed, his parents religiously gave financial support to Michael for seven (7) months after his birth but stopped giving support in December 1999 when complainant and her parents unreasonably refused to go through with the DNA test despite the fact that petitioner's parents would be the ones to defray the cost and other incidental expenses. Petitioner insisted that his purpose in seeking a DNA test was not to disown Michael whom he and his parents have already come to love nor to escape responsibility when it was really due. He just wanted to know the truth and remove his doubts regarding Michael's paternity. Petitioner promised to abide with the result of the DNA test and to give financial support as religiously as before, even more, if Michael was proved to be his son. [1] cralaw
We directed complainant to explain her reasons for refusing to undergo DNA testing in our Resolution of 25 September 2001.
In her Compliance/Comments dated 15 October 2001 complainant denied ever agreeing to a DNA testing. She claimed that the results thereof are unreliable since petitioner himself admitted that it is not 100% accurate in proving paternity. Moreover, a DNA testing is unnecessary in view of the obvious physical similarity between petitioner and Michael as well as petitioner's past acknowledgement in the Amicable Settlement dated 13 March 1999 and in Michael's Certificate of Live Birth.
In his Reply to the foregoing Compliance/Comments petitioner alleged that although not 100% accurate, a DNA test nevertheless has a probability value of 95% and any percentage above that would prove paternity.Besides, his purpose in insisting on a DNA testing was not to prove his paternity of Michael but to disprove it. In this respect, i.e., as to non-paternity, a DNA test is conclusive. [2] cralaw
We referred this matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for report and recommendation on 26 February 2002.
In its Report and Recommendation dated 11 April 2002, the OBC recommended that the oath-taking of petitioner as a member of the Bar be held in abeyance until such time that he manifested his willingness and readiness to resume giving support to his child with complainant. In so recommending the OBC noted that while petitioner asserted an alleged agreement to submit to DNA testing during the confrontation before the Office of the Barangay Captain of Cogon District, Tagbilaran City, there was absolutely no mention at all of the alleged agreement in the Amicable Settlement executed to evidence the settlement. The OBC viewed the omission as surprising and quite suspect considering that petitioner, being then a graduating law student, would have been the very first to insist that the agreement be reduced into writing if indeed there was one.
The issue before us is whether petitioner possesses the good moral character required to be admitted to the Philippine Bar. Complainant presented prima facie evidence tending to show that petitioner does not possess such character since he refused to give financial support to a child he has legally acknowledged to be his own. But petitioner claims otherwise, that is, he possesses the good moral character required to be admitted to the Bar since his refusal to give support is entirely justified by valid reasons. Aside from the fact that he was merely forced into acknowledging paternity of Michael, he wanted to remove first his reasonable doubts regarding the child's paternity through DNA Testing.
We take judicial notice of the fact that DNA typing or deoxyribonucleic acid (the cellular component identified as the vehicle of generational transference of heritable traits) [3] cralaw typing is fast becoming an important procedure not only in the field of medical science but in criminal law and paternity disputes as well. In fact, only recently in the case of People v. Vallejo [4] cralaw we affirmed the admissibility of DNA evidence in sustaining the death conviction for rape with homicide of an accused whose DNA profile was found in the vaginal swabs taken from the victim.
In paternity disputes, the DNA extracted from a biological sample (e.g. blood, muscle tissue) of an individual is analyzed to generate what is known as the "DNA profile" which is unique for all individuals except those derived from identical twins. By analyzing the DNA profile paternity can be determined because of the fact that the DNA of each child/person has two copies, one obtained from the mother and the other, from the father. Once the DNA from the mother has been established, the remaining DNA fragment must be consistent with that observed from the alleged father. Otherwise if the child possesses a copy not observed in the alleged father, then the alleged father cannot be the father of the child. [5] cralaw In such case, because of the scientific impossibility of the alleged father being the father of the child, the result of the DNA test is to be accorded conclusiveness in the same way that traditional blood typing is conclusive as to non-paternity as held in Jao v. Court of Appeals [6] cralaw since to hold otherwise would be tantamount to rejecting a scientific fact. Courts should apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said results is to deny progress. [7] cralaw
Considering the foregoing and the fact that petitioner promised to abide by the result of the DNA test as well as to shoulder the expenses therefor, we find petitioner's proposal for a DNA testing to be quite reasonable and complainant's aversion to the test surprising. If her claim that petitioner fathered her child is really true, she has no reason to fear the result of the test for it would be another evidence in her favor. Moreover this case should be decided on a strong foundation of truth and justice rather than on blind adherence to prima facie rules. We prefer to regard this administrative case as a quest for truth and justice rather than as a mere game of rules. No rule is intended to be so rigid as to embarrass the administration of justice in its endeavor to ascertain the truth. [8] cralaw
Finding the proposal of petitioner for DNA testing at his expense to be fair and reasonable, unless the test is conducted and the results thereof submitted to this Court within forty-five (45) days from notice hereof, the Court will be constrained to grant the petition of JULIUS R. CESAR to be allowed to take his oath as a lawyer and to be admitted to the Philippine Bar.(Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban and Quisumbing, JJ., are abroad on official business.)
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Comments and Opposition dated 24 April 2000, pp. 7-8.
[2] cralaw Citing Jao v. court of Appeals, No. L-49162, 28 July 1987, 152 SCRA 359.
[3] cralaw Inman, Keith and Rudin, Norah, An Introduction to Forensic DNA Analysis (U.S.: CRC Press LLC, 1997), p. 19.
[4] cralaw G. R. No. 144656, 9 May 2002.
[5] cralaw A Primer on DNA-based Paternity Testing issued by the DNA Analysis Laboratory, Natural Sciences Research Institute, University of the Philippines.
[6] cralaw Jao v. Court of Appeals, No. L-49162, 152 SCRA 359, 365-366.
[7] cralaw Ibid.
[8] cralaw Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62, 69 (1920).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
