Don A.

So Hiong
INTERESTING PROBLEMS IN
THE
PRESENTATION
OF
EVIDENCE
I.

No direct provision on the

withdrawal of evidence.
Conditions for withdrawal
- Withdrawal shall be by leave
of court
- - Mistake in offering the
evidence (favorable to
adversary)
The Arbitration Tribunal lacks
jurisdiction over Global
Minerals because of the
following reasons:
I.
The Counterclaim is
unconscionable and
unreasonable;
II. Global Minerals is a nonsignatory to the Arbitration
Contract;
III. The Doctrine of
Companies is inapplicable to
the case; and
IV. There is an absence of
fraud and agency.
1. The Counterclaim is
unconscionable and
unreasonable.

The request to join Global

Minerals as a party to the
Arbitration must fail since
there are no grounds to
support the counterclaim
raised by the Respondent.
At the outset, there was
never a loss on the part of
Global Minerals given that
Coltan remains under its
ownership and possession.
Neither has it deteriorated
nor losts its marketability. The
alleged entitlement to
damages is in contrast to the
well-settled elements of a
valid claim for loss of profit
under New York Law1. First,
the indemnities claimed
were not caused by the
alleged breach of the
purchase contract. (indicate
mo dito yummy kung eto ba
yung galing dun sa New York
Law or application dun sa
present arbitration case) The
loss was due to a lawful order
granted by the Arbitral
1 International Commercial
Arbitration in New York edited by
James H. Carter, John Fellas citing
Tom Doherty Assocs, Inc. v Saban
Enter., 60 F 3.d 27,38 (2d
Cir.1995) 306-307

Tribunal whom, as previously

discussed, has valid authority
to grant the Interim Relief.
Second, the claim is was also
not also proven with
reasonable certainty as the
alleged loss of profit wais
merely anchored based on the
supposed improvement in the
marketability of Coltan. Even
the effect of the developing
situations in Xanadu, which,
as claimed by Respondent,
would result to the decrease of
the marketable price of the
Coltan, is purely speculative
and self-serving2. Still
Assuming Arguendo to be true
(Even assuming said claim to
be true kung same pa rin pa
rin ng thought kung gamitin
mo tong phrase na to, mas ok
kung gamitin mo tong phrase
na to ), the alleged
development in Xanadu is
beyond the control and
fault of the Claimant, the
parent company, as well as
the Emergency Arbitrator.
Lastly, there were no previous
stipulations between the

2 DamageClaim No. 38

parties that damages forrom

loss of profit may be claimed3.
Consequently, the
RESPONDENT cannot hold the
CLAIMANT or Global Minerals
liable for profit whichprofit
was never realized. The
amount asserted is
unconscionable, speculative
and without basis.
Similarly, the joinder against
Global Minerals wasis
unnecessary for the reason
that Vulcan LTD has sufficient
credit to cover the
Respondents claim in the
event of a successful litigation.
Vulcan has a line of credit ( o
credit line?) amounting to USD
5 million inwith a bank in
Equatoriana guaranteed by
their parent company4. As
defined, credit line is an
arrangement between a
financial institution,
usually a bank, and a
customer that establishes
a maximum loan balance
that the bank will permit
the borrower to maintain5.
As a resultHence, the

borrower, at any time, can

draw the line of credit
( credit line? O
interchangeable sila?) at any
time for to whatever purpose
as long as the debtor willdoes
not exceed the maximum
amount set in the agreement6.
Therefore,hus the joinder is
prematurely filed since the
insolvency of the CLAIMANT
which is sought to be
prevented is nonexistent.
2.Non-Signatory.
As oppose to the Respondents
claim, Global Minerals is
beyond the jurisdiction of the
Arbitral tribunal because it did
not gave its consent consent
to the Arbitration Contract
between Vulcan LTD and
Mediterraneo Mining SOE.
Global Minerals is a nonsignatory not a signatory or
party to the Arbitration
Contract, perfected on
28.03.2014 (March 28, 2014).
The Contract expressly
provided for only two parties,

3 Ibid. Page

5
http://www.investopedia.com/term
s/l/lineofcredit.asp

4 Proclamation Order No. 2, No 9

6 Ibid

as mentioned in Article 1
therein;
Article 1: Contracting Parties:;
Seller: Mediterraneo Mining
SOE, 5-6 Mineral Street,
Capital City, Mediterraneo
Buyer: Vulcan Coltan Ltd, 21
Magma Street, Oceanside ,
Equatoriana7
The Respondents position is
runs violative of the wellsettled principle of privity of
contracts, which maintains.
Under this principle, contracts
give rights and imposes
liabilities on the concerned
parties. Only they are given
the right to sue each other
according to the contract
terms8. The truth of the
matter is Global Minerals
merely signed the
purchase contract as an
endorser whereto which it
bound itself to guarantee the
fulfillment of the Claimants
obligation to pay. In fact, if
7 Exhibit C 1
8 Black Law Dictionary
http://thelawdictionary.org/privity
-of-contract/

Global Minerals intended to be

bound by the contract it would
have easily done so. It could
have named itself as one of
the contracting parties as
mentioned.
In the case of Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America v.
Ironall Factories Co., it was
ruledstated that Arbitration is
a matter of contract and, in
spite of the strong policy in its
favor, a party cannot be
compelled to arbitrate any
dispute which he has not
agreed to submit.9
Hence, the cornerstone of the
arbitration process10 lies on
the mutual consent of the
parties therein who
stipulated such agreement.
Consequently, the Arbitration
agreement cannot be
extended to the parties of the
principal contract who did not
9 Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America v. Ironall Factories Co.
(C.A. 6, 1967), 386 F.2d 586,
10 VARADY TIBOR ET AL.,
INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL
ARBITRATION: A TRANSNATIONAL
PERSPECTIVE, (Thomson/West
2006)

gave their consent to be

bound by the arbitration.
(Consequently, the Arbitration
agreement cannot be
extended to entities or
personalities who did not
consent to be bound therein.check mo kung same thought
to nung sayo mas appropriate
ata pag ito ginamit mo )
Consistent with this is the
Principle of Separability
whichSeparability wherein
denotes that Arbitration
clauses included in a contract
are to be treated as
independent or separate
contracts11.
According to the UNCITRAL
Model Law on International
Commercial Arbitration:;
Article 16. Competence of
arbitral tribunal to rule on its
jurisdiction
(1)The arbitral tribunal may
rule on its own jurisdiction,
including any objections
with respect to the
existence or validity of the
arbitration agreement. For
11 UNCITRAL 2012 Digest of Case
Law on the Model Law on
International Commercial
Arbitration

that purpose, an
arbitration clause which
forms part of a contract
shall be treated as an
agreement independent of
the other terms of the
contract. A decision by the
arbitral tribunal that the
contract is null and void
shall not entail ipso jure
the invalidity of the
arbitration clause12. (alam
ko may format yung pag quote
ng ganito smaller font ata, di
ko lang sure kung same yun sa
moot court)
According to Blacks Law
dictionary, a contract of
guarantee means to
undertake collaterally to
answer for the payment of
another's debtor the
performance of another's duty,
liability, or obligation. It is an
independent contract to the
Arbitration Agreement13.
(Check mo yung quotation mo
dito? Kasi yung footnote mo
after nung phrase na wala na
12 Official Records of the General
Assembly, Fortieth Session,
Supplement No. 17 (A/40/17), annex
I; United Nations publication, Sales No.
E.95.V.18

sa quotation mark kung di

siya magkasunod, pwede mo
lagyan ng ellipses if under
same quote siya ) In
Hanseat OLG Hamburg, (eto
nay ung ful title?) the court
ruled that An arbitration
agreement is effective only
between the parties and their
successors, however, does not
bind a guarantor debt
transferee and guarantors, as
their guilt is independently
beside the principal debt and
private legal fate has 14.
Same A similar ruling was
applied in Grundstad v. Ritt
where , in which thatit was
decided that a non-signatory
guarantor to an agreement
containing the arbitration
13
http://thelawdictionary.org/guaran
ty/
14 Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht
Hamburg, Germany, 6 Sch 04/01, 8
November 2001, available on the
Internet at http://www.disarb.de/de/47/datenbanken/rspr/hanse
at-olg-hamburg-az-6-sch-04-01datum-2001-11-08-id145. Zller /
Geimer, Code of Civil Procedure, 22
ed., 1029 para. 60

provision is not bound by that

provision15.
As in this case, Global Minerals
only intended to be abound
itself as a mere guarantor and
not a contracting party to the
case. It was established , that
even from the negotiations,
Global Minerals was consistent
in insisting its position that
Vulcan would becomebe the
sole party to the contract16.
Nonetheless, as the parent
company, Global Minerals
undertook to facilitate the
accomplishment of the
Respondents demands. (what
demands?) Accordingly (o as a
result?), Global Minerals opted
to secure the Claimants
payment by arranging a letter
of credit (credit line) with its
standard bank, the RST Trade
Bank Ltd17, as response to the
Respondents request that
Global Minerals guarantee the
fulfillment of the payment
15 Grundstad v. Ritt, 106 F.3d 201
(7th Cir. 1997)

obligations 18 . (Better ata na

ganito: Nonetheless, as the
parent company, Global
Minerals undertook to facilitate
the accomplishment of the
Respondents demands that
the former guarantee the
fulfillment of the obligation. As
a result, Global Minerals opted
to secure the Claimants
payment by arranging a letter
of credit (credit line) with its
standard bank, the RST Trade
Bank Ltd19.) TThe
RESPONDENT was well aware
that Global Minerals, from its
deeds and express
declarations, only elected to
act as a mere endorser or
guarantor.
Conversely, Global Minerals
cannot be deemed to be
directly involved in the
negotiations and performance
of the contract. From the
details of the case, it was
shown that, as the parent
company, Global Minerals
merely introduced the
Claimant to the market.
Global Minerals assisted in the

16Proclamation Order No. 2, No 7

18 Stament of Facts, Respondent, No 7

17 Proclamation Order No. 2, No 17

19 Proclamation Order No. 2, No 17

negotiations but did not

engage itself as a direct party.
This can be inferred from the
separate and distinct
obligations which that were
tasked to the Subsidiary and
Parent Company- Vulcan, to
pay the obligation and Global
Minerals to secure its line of
credit. In light of the newness
of CLAIMANT to the market, it
iss near impossible to enter
into a contract without
additional securities20. There
wasis also no indication that
the parent company is a third
party beneficiary since the
Claimant enjoys its autonomy
in all of its transactions and
dealings.
*soy, check mo footnotes mo.
Di ko alam kasi kung may
format kayo or what. In any
case, pag nag cite ka ng
website, ilagay mo kung kelan
mo na retrieve yung info
tapos check mo lang din yung
pag quote mo di ko
ginalaw quotations mo kasi
alam ko namang tama
galing mo dude. mwah
20 Reply to Counterclaim, Statement
of Facts, No 5.

* tapos be consistent pala sa

name nung mga parties kung
Global lang or Global Minerals
ba
Legal Basis
For Object or Documentary
Section 6.Power of the court
to stop further evidence.
The court may stop the
introduction of further
testimony upon any
particular point when the
evidence upon it is already
so full that more witnesses
to the same point cannot
be reasonably expected to
be additionally persuasive.
But this power should be
exercised with caution. (6)
For Testimony
Section 39.
Striking out
answer. Should a witness
answer the question before
the adverse party had the
opportunity to voice fully
its objection to the same,
and such objection is found
to be meritorious, the
court shall sustain the
objection and order the
answer given to be stricken
off the record.

On proper motion, the court

may also order the striking out
of answers which are
incompetent, irrelevant, or
otherwise improper. (n)
Section 12.
Party may not
impeach his own witness.
Except with respect to
witnesses referred to in
paragraphs (d) and (e) of
Section 10, the party
producing a witness is not
allowed to impeach his
credibility.
A witness may be considered
as unwilling or hostile only if
so declared by the court upon
adequate showing of his
adverse interest, unjustified
reluctance to testify, or his
having misled the party into
calling him to the witness
stand.
The unwilling or hostile
witness so declared, or the
witness who is an adverse
party, may be impeached by
the party presenting him in all
respects as if he had been
called by the adverse party,
except by evidence of his bad

character. He may also be

impeached and crossexamined by the adverse
party, but such crossexamination must only be
on the subject matter of
his examination-in-chief.
(6a, 7a)
II.

If a party introduced
evidence of particular facts
without objection,
additional evidence on that
particular fact may be
permitted even objected.
But failure to object to
other evidence is not a
waiver provided the
evidence is incompetent.

III. Failure to object by a party

does not preclude the
judge, in his own initiative,
to exclude evidence
provided it be;
- Incompetent , Irrelevant,
Unreliable
- Misleading and Prejudicial
- It is not valuable for any
situation
- He deems that exclusion is in
the interest of justice

SOME PROBLEMS IN THE

PRESENTATION OF
EVIDENCE
1. POLYGRAPH

Fact: Polygraph is not a lie

detector, it is simply an
instrument used by the
examiner in the process of lie
detection. It measures and
records the reactions of people
being tested.
Nowadays this method is
rejected by the courts because
it has not attained scientific
acceptance as a reliable and
accurate mean of ascertaining
the truth
There has been no scientific
proof that lying ultimately
produce physiological
reactions
Highly - dependent on the
examiner
It may be in violation of the
right against self-incrimination
because the nature of the
evidence being presented is
testimonial in nature.

2. MEDICO LEGAL WITNESS

Medical diagnosis is not an
exact science, and all of the

limitations and biases of the

examiner, together with the
intrinsic lack of mathematical
certainty and the great
number of variables involved
make most diagnosis at best
opinions.
Because medical opinions may
differ, the opposing counsel
can often shift the conflict
constructively from the
medical arena to the
clients personal integrity and
veracity, particularly when the
client is highly credible.
Proof of the following facts
establishes the qualification of
a physician and surgeon as an
expert witness in a specialized
branch of medicine.
a.License to practice
b.Date the license was obtained
c. Educational qualifications
(internship, med. School,
residency, advance degrees)
d.Membership in groups
e.Authorship
f. Teaching career
g.Years of experience
h.Familiarity in the field of
patients condition
Provided in Civil Cases;

Section 24. Disqualification

by reason of privileged
communication. The
following persons cannot
testify as to matters
learned in confidence in the
following cases:
(c) A person authorized to
practice medicine,
surgery or obstetrics
cannot in a civil case,
without the consent of the
patient, be examined as
to any advice or
treatment given by him
or any information
which he may have
acquired in attending
such patient in a
professional capacity,
which information was
necessary to enable
him to act in capacity,
and which would
blacken the reputation
of the patient;
3. CHILD WITNESS
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A
CHILD WITNESS A.M. No. 00407-SC
MEANING OF CHILD WITNESS

o Any person who at the time

of giving testimony is less
than 18 years;
o In child abuse cases, a child
includes one over 18 years
but is found by the court as
(a) Unable to fully take care of
himself, or
(b) Protect himself from
abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation, or
discrimination
(c) Because of a physical or
mental disability or
condition.
APPLICABILITY OF THE RULE
o Shall apply in all criminal
proceedings and
noncriminal proceedings
involving child witnesses.
[Sec. 1]
o The ROC provisions on
deposition, conditional
examination of witnesses
and evidence shall be
applied suppletorily. [Sec.
32]
COMPETENCY OF A CHILD
WITNESS
Every child is presumed
qualified to be a witness. To

rebut the presumption of

competence enjoyed by a
child, the burden of proof lies
on the party challenging his
competence. [Sec. 6(b)]
Requisites of Competency of a
Child as Witness
[People v. Mendoza (1996)]:
(1) Capacity of observation;
(2) Capacity of recollection;
(3) Capacity of communication.
When the court finds that
substantial doubt exists
regarding the ability of the
child to
perceive/remember/
communicate, distinguish
truth from falsehood, or
appreciate the duty to tell
the truth in court, a
competency exam shall be
conducted.
The age of the child by itself
is not a sufficient basis for a
competency examination. [Sec.
6(a)]
The court has the duty of
continuously assessing the
competence of the child
throughout his testimony.
[Sec. 6(f)]

EXAMINATION OF A CHILD
WITNESS
o In open court [Sec. 11]
o Alternative Modes
(a) Live-Link TV Testimony, in
Criminal Cases
where Child is a Victim or a
Witness [Sec. 25]
(i) If there is a substantial
likelihood that the
child would suffer trauma from
testifying in
the presence of the accused,
his counsel or
the prosecutor.
(ii) Trauma must be of a kind
which would
impair the completeness or
truthfulness of
the childs testimony.
(b) Videotaped Deposition of a
Child Witness
[Sec. 27]
(i) If the court finds that the
child will not be
able to testify in open court at
trial, it shall
issue an order that the
deposition of the
child be taken and preserved
by videotape.

(ii) The rights of the accused

during trial,
especially the right to counsel
and to
confront and cross-examine the
child, shall
not be violated during the
deposition.
LIVE-LINK TV TESTIMONY OF
A CHILD WITNESS [SEC. 25]
Live-link television testimony,
in criminal cases where the
child is a victim or a witness
The court may order that the
testimony of the child be
taken by live-link television if
there is a substantial
likelihood that the child would
suffer trauma from testifying
in the presence of the accused,
his counsel or the prosecutor.
The trauma must be of a kind
which would impair the
completeness/truthfulness of
the childs testimony.
If it is necessary for the child
to identify the accused at
trial, the court may allow the
child to enter the courtroom
for the limited purpose of
identifying the accused, or
the court may allow the child
to identify the accused by

observing the image of the

latter on a television monitor.
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
A CHILD WITNESS [SEC. 27]
If the court finds that the child
will not be able to testify in
open court at trial, it shall
issue an order that the
deposition of the child be
taken and preserved by
videotape.
The rights of the accused
during trial, especially the
right to counsel and to confront
and cross-examine the child,
shall not be violated during
the deposition.
4. PARAFFIN
Paraffin has been considered as
inconclusive by the Court
because scientific expert
concur in the view that paraffin
test have prove extremely
unreliable in use (Riano)
The presence of Nitrates should
be taken only as an indication
of a possibility or even
probability but not infalliability
that a person has fired a gun.

A negative paraffin result is not

conclusive proof that a person
has not fired a gun. It is
possible to fire a gun and yet
be negative for nitrates, as
when the culprit is wearing
gloves or he washes his
hands afterwards. Here,
since Ron submitted
himself for paraffin testing
only two days after the
shooting, it was likely he
had already washed his
hands thoroughly, thus
removing all traces of
nitrates therefrom (People
v. Brecinio, G.R. No.
138534, Mar. 17, 2004).
5. BALLISTICS
The study of the motion and
projectile
Interior: within firearm
Exterior: after leaving the
muzzle
-Expert testimony is required,
Thus credibilty of an expert is
open to challenge.
Points to assail:
Circumstances of the
discovery of the firearm

Circumstances of the
discovery of the bullet
Methods of handling
Chain of custody
Integrity of the Laboratory
6. WIRE- TAPPING
Any communication obtained
by a person, not being
authorized by all the parties to
any private communication, by
tapping any wire/cable or using
any other
device/arrangement to secretly
overhear/intercept/record such
information by using any
device, shall not be admissible
in evidence in
any judicial/quasijudicial/
legislative/
administrative hearing or
investigation. [Secs. 1 and 4,
R.A. 4200 (Wire- Tapping Act)]
7. EPHEMERAL ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATIONS
Refers to telephone
conversations, text messages,
chatroom sessions, streaming
audio, streaming video, and
other electronic forms of
communication the evidence of

which is not recorded or

retained.
[Sec. 1(k), Rule 2, Rules on
Electronic Evidence]
How proven:
(1) By the testimony of a
person who was a party to the
same;
(2) By the testimony of a
person who has personal
knowledge thereof; or
(3) In the absence or
unavailability of such
witnesses, by other competent
evidence [Sec. 2, Rule 11,
Rules on Electronic Evidence]
When recorded, the
communication ceases to be
ephemeral and shall be proven
in the same manner as proving
audio, photographic and video
evidence [Sec. 2, Rule 11,
Rules on Electronic Evidence].
8. DEMONSTRATIVE
EVIDENCE
Not the actual thing, rather it
represents or
demonstrates the real
thing, e.g., photographs,

motion pictures and

recordings [Riano]
Audio, photographic and video
evidence of events, acts or
transactions shall be
admissible provided they shall
be:
(1) Shown, presented or
displayed to the court; and
(2) Identified, explained or
authenticated:
(a) By the person who made
the recording,
(b) By some other person
competent to testify on the
accuracy thereof [Sec. 1, Rule
11, Rules on Electronic
Evidence]
Photographs, when presented
in evidence, must be identified
by the photographer as to its
production and testified as to
the circumstances under which
they were produced. The value
of this kind of evidence lies in
its being a correct
representation or reproduction
of the original, and its
admissibility is determined by
its accuracy in portraying the
scene at the time of the crime.

The photographer, however, is

not the only witness who can
identify the pictures he has
taken. The correctness of the
photograph as a faithful
representation of the object
portrayed can be proved prima
facie, either by the testimony
of the person who made it or
by other competent witnesses
who can testify to its exactness
and accuracy, after which the
court can admit it subject to
impeachment as to its
accuracy. (Sison v. People, G.R.
Nos. 108280-83, Nov. 16,
1995).
8. HANDWRITTING
Experts are not necessary
Handwriting experts are usually
helpful in the examination of
forged documents because of
the technical procedure
involved in analyzing them, but
resort to these experts is not
mandatory or indispensable.
A finding of forgery does not
depend entirely on the
testimonies of handwriting
experts, because the judge
must conduct an examination
of the questioned signature in

order to arrive at a reasonable

conclusion as to its
authenticity. The opinions of
handwriting experts are not
binding upon courts, especially
when the question involved is
mere handwriting similarity or
dissimilarity, which can be
determined by a visual
comparison of specimens of
the questioned signatures with
those of the currently existing
ones (Pontaoe v. Pontaoe, G.R.
No. 15958, Apr. 22, 2008).
Section 50.
Opinion of
ordinary witnesses. The
opinion of a witness for which
proper basis is given, may be
received in evidence regarding

(b) A handwriting with which

he has sufficient familiarity;
and
9. FINGERPRINT
Strong inculopatory evidence.
Reliable and dependable
means of idenfifying persons.
-Expert testimony is required,
Thus credibilty of an expert is
open to challenge.

Elements of proof
Similarity of the prints
Integrity of the
photograph
demonstrating the print
Credibility of the
examiner
Integrity of the laboratory
10. DNA
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE
[A.M. No. 06-11-5 SC]
MEANING OF DNA
The totality of the DNA profiles,
results and other genetic
information directly generated
from DNA testing of biological
samples. [Sec. 3c]
APPLICATION FOR DNA
TESTING ORDER
With prior court order
(1) The appropriate court may,
at any time, either (i) motu
proprio or (ii) on application of
any person who has a legal
interest in the matter in
litigation, order a DNA testing.
(2) Such order shall issue after
due hearing and notice to the
parties upon a showing of the
following:

(a) A biological sample exists

that is relevant to the case;
(b) The biological sample:
(i) was not previously 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 valid technique;
(d) The DNA testing has the
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 of
integrity of the DNA testing.
[Sec. 4]
Without prior court order
This Rule shall not preclude a
DNA testing, without need of a
prior court order, at the behest
of any party. [Sec. 4]
POST-CONVICTION DNA
TESTING
How obtained:
(1) Without need of prior court
order

(2) Available to the prosecution

or any person convicted by
final and executory judgment
Requisites:
(1) A biological sample exists
(2) Such sample is relevant to
the case
(3) The testing would probably
result in the reversal or
modification of the judgment of
conviction.
[Sec. 6]
Remedy if Results Favorable to
the Convict Convict or the
prosecution may file a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus in
the court of origin, CA or SC or
any member of said courts.
[Sec. 10]
General Rule: If the court, after
due hearing, finds the petition
meritorious, it shall reverse or
modify the judgment of
conviction and order the
release of the convict. [Sec. 10]
Exception: If continued
detention is justified for a
lawful cause. [Sec. 10]
ASSESSMENT AND PROBATIVE
VALUE OF DNA EVIDENCE AND
ADMISSIBILITY

Factors in assessing the

probative value of DNA
evidence
(1) Chain of custody
(a) How the biological samples
were collected
(b) How they were handled
(c) Possibility of contamination
(2) DNA testing methodology
(a) Procedure followed in
analyzing the samples
(b) Advantages and
disadvantages of the procedure
(c) Compliance with
scientifically valid standards in
conducting the tests
(3) Forensic DNA laboratory
(a) Accreditation by any
reputable standardssetting
institution
(b) Qualification of the analyst
who conducted the tests
(c) If not accredited, relevant
experience of the laboratory in
forensic work and its credibility
(4) Reliability of the testing
result [Sec. 7]

Vallejo Standard
In assessing the probative
value of DNA evidence, courts
should consider the following:
(a) How the samples were
collected
(b) How they were handled
(c) The possibility of
contamination of the samples
(d) The procedure followed in
analyzing the samples, whether
the proper standards and
procedures were followed
(e) Qualification of the analyst
who conducted the tests
[People v. Vallejo (2002)]
RULES ON EVALUATION OF
RELIABILITY OF THE DNA
TESTING METHODOLOGY
Factors that determine the
reliability of the DNA
Testing Methodology
(1) Falsifiability of the principles
or methods used
(2) Subject to peer review and
publication of the principles or
methods

(3) General acceptance of the

principles or methods by the
scientific community
(4) Existence and maintenance
of standards and controls to
ensure the correctness of data
generated
(5) Existence of an appropriate
reference population database
(6) General degree of
confidence attributed to
mathematical calculations used
in comparing DNA profiles
(7) Significance and limitation
of statistical calculations used
in comparing DNA profiles
Sources:
HANDBOOK ON TRIAL
PRACTICE
RULES ON EVIDENCE (RIANO)
UST GOLDEN NOTES
UP SIKLAB NOTES
RULES ON EVIDENCE
RULE ON DNA EVIDENCE [A.M.
NO. 06-11-5 SC]
RULE ON EXAMINATION OF A
CHILD WITNESS A.M. NO. 00407-SC
WIRE TAPPING ACT