Is DNA absolutely accurate in criminal actions?

No. There is no absolute accuracy on evidence in criminal actions, and so with the use of
DNA. Even the weight of evidence needed to decide criminal cases is only proof beyond
reasonable doubt.

The DNA as a means is neither absolutely accurate because of different factors that goes
with it. One of which is the proper interpretation on the results. Chances are, errors do happen
and it can be difficult for many to accept this fact. DNA evidence is not foolproof and believing it
blindly could put the wrong people in jail. DNA evidence can be unequivocal under ideal
conditions. First when officials have a large quantity of a suspect’s well-preserved genes, when
it’s clear how that DNA arrived at the crime scene, and when the labs sequencing the sample
don’t make any mistakes. Most of the DNA evidence presented in courtrooms has some degree
of ambiguity to it.

In the case of People vs Victoriano Paras, the role of DNA evidence in criminal courts and
in resolving a disputed paternity case, is discussed. The case was about a man charged with sexual
assault resulting in victim’s pregnancy and birth of a child. The accused was charge five counts of
rape committed on various dates. However inconsistencies were detected in the testimony and
subsequent cross examination on of the victim. The defense presented evidence that showed the
accused was not in Pasig during the period covered by the charges.

The strength of DNA evidence to resolve crimes is well established in different counties.
In our jurisprudence, however, was not quite so steadfast in the previous decade. In Pe Lim v.
Court of Appeals, promulgated in 1997, the Court cautioned against the use of DNA because DNA,
being a relatively new science, (had) not as yet been accorded official recognition by our courts.
Paternity (would) still have to be resolved by such conventional evidence as the relevant
incriminating acts, verbal and written, by the putative father. The first real breakthrough of DNA
as admissible and authoritative evidence in Philippine jurisprudence came in 2002 with the
Court’s En banc decision in where the rape and murder victims DNA samples from the
bloodstained clothes of the accused were admitted in evidence. The Court reasoned that the
purpose of DNA testing (was) to ascertain whether an association exist(ed) between the evidence
sample and the reference sample. The samples collected (were) subjected to various chemical
processes to establish their profile. But a year later, in People v. Janson, the Court acquitted the
accused charged with rape for lack of evidence because doubts persist(ed) in the Court’s mind as
to who (were) the real malefactors.

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, inter alia, the
following factors: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of
contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether proper
standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the
analyst who conducted the tests. Hence, this reasons alone states that a DNA testing is NOT
absolutely accurate in criminal actions.