“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?
