People vs Cartuano, 255 SCRA 403 (1996)


“the court can take judicial notice of blood grouping test which can establish conclusively that a man is not the father of a child, where the child has none of the father’s phenotypes. However, blood grouping test cannot show that a man is the father of the child, as the presence of the father’s phenotypes in the child can only show the possibility that he is.”

Facts:
Cartuano was charged for 2 counts of rape against Adela Villa, a mentally retarded person which was allegedly committed in May 4, 1991 and August 20, 1991. The complaint was filed by the victim’s father, Antonio Villa who testified that he learned about the rape when he went home on August 20, 1991 and saw his 5 years old grandson crying. The child explained that he was crying because the accused threatened him with a sharp instrument and pulled her aunt Adela Villa inside the room and witnessed that he had carnal knowledge with her. Adela also testified and related how she was raped against her will. The accused provided an alibi that he could not have been at the victim’s house when the alleged rape happened because he was far away working as a farm worker where he stayed and lived with his employer. It was only after his uncle died in August 3, 1991 when he went home to their place and stayed with his aunt. He returned to his employer’s place in Aug. 19, 1991 to ask permission that he will stop working for him but he was not allowed to leave his work. But he was permitted by his employer to go home again to inform his aunt that he will continue working for his employer and came home to his aunt’s house in August 21, 1991. He was resting when the Brgy. Captain came over to invite him to the police station. The court rendered decision finding the accused guilty of two counts of rape and ordered to support the victim’s child. Assailing the decision of the trial court, the accused on appeal indicates the assignment of errors for failure of the court to give credence that the testimony of the father of the accused is purely hearsay; that the testimony of the victim is not convincing; that the court erred in holding that the father of the child of the victim is the accused and for convicting the accused despite the failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue: Whether or not the court erred in convicting the accused?



Ruling:
The SC noted that in the trial proceeding there were many inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witness, the victim’s father and most especially the victim. It finds that the trial court failed to appreciate the many inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant which gives the indication that the victim was coached. The SC also noted that although the victim was regarded as mentally retardate, the actual mental state of the victim as a retardate was not fully established by the prosecution. In addition, the complainant gave birth in the course of the trial. The court should have taken judicial notice of ordering a blood test in order to eliminate the possibility that the accused was the father of the child if none of the putative father’s phenotypes were present in the child’s blood type. However, the presence of an identical phenotype in both the father and the child does not establish paternity. The test is only used to establish the probability that the putative father may be the father of the victim’s child. This would help the court in resolving part of the issue. Because the SC did not find sufficient ground as to warrant the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, it reversed and set aside the decision of the lower court and acquitted the accused.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Popular Posts