G.R. No. 109144. August 19, 1994.
The result of a blood grouping test may not be admissible if it conflicts with substantial oral testimonies. It only shows that the alleged father or many other people with same blood types is the father of the child.
The victim was Sandra Salcedo, a mongoloid child, with a physiological age of 15 yrs old and a mental age of 5 years old. The accused-appellant was Tumimpad and the co-accused was Prieto. The two accused lived in a 2-story officers’ quarters inside a police camp/headquarters in Oroquieta City, Misamis. The victim also lived in the same house but in the upper story. During the investigation and in open court, Sandra identified the accused as the ones who did rape her. During the trial, accused Tumimpad moved that blood tests be conducted on the victim, the child of the victim, and the two accused. These are the “Major Blood Grouping Test” and “Pheno Blood Typing.” The result showed that the child had a type “O” blood, Sandra had type “B”, accused Ruel had type “A” and the accused-appellant Tumimpad had type “O” (which is the same as the child. RTC convicted Tumimpad. He then appealed simplistically and erroneously argues that his conviction was based on the medical finding (Major Blood Grouping and Pheno Blood Typing) that he and the victim’s child had a type “O” blood.
Should Tumimpad be acquitted of the crime merely because his conviction was based on the blood grouping test? No.
Tumimpad’s conviction was based or was established mainly by testimonial evidence given by the victim herself and her relatives. The blood test only showed that the alleged father may have been the father of the child. In Jao vs. CA. the court said, “… group blood testing cannot show only a possibility that he is [the father]… in many states, the courts have recognized… the value and limitations of such tests… some were conclusive in establishing non-paternity… in few cases… intolerable results are avoided… where findings in the oral testimony conflict with the results of the test… The findings are not admissible… as they show only a possibility that the alleged father or many others with the same blood type may have been the father of the child.”