Based on the legal judgment provided, the extraction of DNA samples can be conducted, but with specific considerations. The Court clarified that the results of DNA profiling are considered physical evidence, and the collection of such bodily substances does not violate constitutional protections against self-incrimination. The Court emphasized that DNA profiling is different from testimonial acts, as it involves examining physical evidence rather than eliciting personal knowledge or verbal testimony.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the amended provisions of the law explicitly include DNA profiling as a modern and scientific technique permissible during investigations, provided it is conducted in accordance with law. The Court also highlighted that the collection of bodily substances such as blood, semen, and hair samples—used for DNA analysis—is generally acceptable when done under lawful procedures, and does not amount to an infringement of personal liberty or dignity.

Therefore, DNA profiling, as a form of medical examination involving the analysis of bodily substances, is permissible and does not face constitutional hurdles, provided it is conducted lawfully and with respect for procedural safeguards. The Court distinguished this from testimonial responses, which are protected under the right against self-incrimination.

In summary, DNA collection is allowed, but the process must adhere to legal procedures and safeguards to ensure it does not violate constitutional rights.