G.R. No. 109144 August 19, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Moreno L. Tumimpad, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Constable Moreno L. Tumimpad and co-accused Constable Ruel C. Prieto were charged with the rape of Sandra Salcedo, a 15-year-old Mongoloid child with the mind of a five-year-old, occurring between the last week of March 1989 and the first week of April 1989 in Oroquieta City. The Salcedo family lived in a two-storey house inside Camp Lucas Naranjo. The victim’s father, Lt. Col. Teofisto Salcedo, was the Provincial Commander, and the accused were among his security detail. In August 1989, Sandra exhibited illness and behavioral changes. Medical examinations, including urinalysis and pelvic ultrasounds, confirmed she was pregnant. She gave birth to a baby boy, Jacob Salcedo, on January 11, 1990. During a CIS investigation, Sandra identified the accused from photographs and a police line-up. In court, she again identified them and demonstrated through gestures how she was sexually abused. Testimonies from her mother and sisters-in-law corroborated that Sandra named Tumimpad and Prieto as her assailants. A blood test showed the child had type “O” blood, Sandra type “B”, Prieto type “A”, and Tumimpad type “O”. The trial court convicted Tumimpad but acquitted Prieto on reasonable doubt, partly due to the blood type discrepancy. Tumimpad appealed, arguing the impossibility of the crime and contesting the reliance on blood grouping tests.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating the impossibility of committing the offense without detection.
2. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant based on the ABO and RHS blood grouping test instead of a paternal test like chromosomes or HLA test.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court found the crime was not impossible to commit. Testimony established that while the accused often accompanied Col. Salcedo, they were sometimes left behind and played with Sandra in the house. The victim’s positive identifications through photographs, a police line-up, and in open court were consistent and credible. On the second issue, the Court clarified that the conviction was not based on the blood test. The blood test result (showing Tumimpad and the child shared type “O” blood) was not conclusive proof of paternity but only indicated a possibility among many with the same blood type. The conviction was primarily based on the testimonial evidence from the victim and her relatives. The appeal was deemed devoid of merit, and the penalty of reclusion perpetua was upheld.