Ipakita ang simpleng tala ng item

dc.contributor.adviserAlibogha, Salex E.
dc.contributor.authorAlmeñana, Necita Joy T.
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-01T02:51:47Z
dc.date.available2021-07-01T02:51:47Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.citationAlmeñana, N. J. T. (2014). A content analysis of Supreme Court decisions on DNA Testing before and after the effectivity of the 2007 Rule on DNA Evidence (Unpublished postgraduate thesis). Central Philippine University, Jaro, Iloilo City.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12852/1146
dc.descriptionAbstract onlyen_US
dc.description.abstractDNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living microorganisms. 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. Most importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic structure, no two individuals have the same DNA, with the notable exception of identical twins. DNA Testing is the most powerful tool for human identification. Since its discovery in the mid-1980s, DNA profiling had caused a paradigm shift in the identification of victims, perpetrators and witnesses in numerous cases. Recent advances in forensic DNA testing are now paving the way for reforming the manner by which cases are resolved in courts of law through the way suspected offenders are apprehended during a criminal investigation. The Supreme Court has issued a Rule on DNA Evidence, which took effect on October 15, 2007. The Rule provided, among others, for the procedure in the application and order for DNA Testing, the Court’s assessment of the probative value of DNA evidence, the evaluation of DNA Testing results, and post-conviction DNA Testing. This study was conducted to determine the different cases decided by the Supreme Court before and after the effectivity of the 2007 Rules on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC). This study aimed to examine the salient points of the Rule on DNA Evidence by discussing the manner of presenting DNA evidence, determining the steps in DNA analysis, identifying the types of DNA testing, classifying the uses of DNA testing, and assessing the probative value and weight of DNA evidence. DNA analysis is used in the identification of dead bodies, studying the evolution of human populations, studying inherited disorders, identifying potential suspects whose DNA may match evidence left at crime scenes, exonerating persons wrongly accused of crimes, and establishment of paternity and other family relationships. There are several technologies being used in DNA analysis and these are Autosomal DNA Analysis, which may use Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP), Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), or Short Tandem Repeat (STR) techniques, Mitochondrial DNA Analysis, and Sex Chromosomal Analysis, which employs Y Chromosomal Analysis or X Chromosomal Analysis. This study employed twenty-five (25) cases decided by the Supreme Court, which involved DNA testing. The cases were arranged in chronological order. Sixteen (16) cases were decided before the effectivity of the Rule and nine (9) cases were decided after the effectivity of the Rule. Ten (10) cases involved paternity and filiation and fifteen (15) were criminal cases. Out of the sixteen (16) cases that were promulgated before the effectivity of the Rule on DNA Evidence, four (4) cases were subjected to DNA testing. Meanwhile, four (4) out of nine (8) cases promulgated after the effectivity of the Rule were subjected to DNA testing. Although the Rule on DNA Evidence provided the guidelines in the collection, handling, and storage of DNA samples, DNA results were often challenged due to the chain of custody, qualifications of the expert, reliability of the technique for testing evidence, reliability of the analyst(s) performing work, reliability of the laboratory in which testing was performed, contamination of evidence and/or test results, mishandling of evidence, human error during testing, bias in testing, lack of information regarding when and how the DNA was deposited on an item, and lack of control over the handling of the evidence prior to receipt in the laboratory.en_US
dc.format.extentx, 65 leavesen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Philippines*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ph/*
dc.subject.ddcLaw Library 340.72 Al64en_US
dc.subject.lcshDNAen_US
dc.subject.lcshDNA--Testingen_US
dc.subject.lcshEvidence (Law)en_US
dc.subject.lcshEvidenceen_US
dc.subject.lcshPhilippines. Supreme Courten_US
dc.subject.lcshJudgmentsen_US
dc.subject.lcshCourt decisions and opinionsen_US
dc.subject.lcshDNA fingerprintingen_US
dc.subject.lcshDNA--Analysisen_US
dc.subject.meshDNAen_US
dc.subject.meshDNA Fingerprintingen_US
dc.titleA content analysis of Supreme Court decisions on DNA Testing before and after the effectivity of the 2007 Rule on DNA Evidenceen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.bibliographicalreferencesIncludes bibliographical referencesen_US
dc.contributor.chairBedona, Zacarias D. Jr.
dc.contributor.departmentCollege of Lawen_US
dc.description.degreeJuris Doctoren_US
local.subjectRule on DNA Evidenceen_US
local.subjectAM No. 06-​11-5-SCen_US


Mga file sa item na ito

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Lumilitaw ang item na ito sa mga sumusunod na (mga) Koleksyon

Ipakita ang simpleng tala ng item

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Philippines
Maliban kung sa kabilang banda ay nabanggit, ang lisensya ng item na ito ay inilarawan bilangAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Philippines