G.R. No.

109144 August 19, 1994

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MORENO L. TUMIMPAD, accused-appellant.
Facts: Tumimpad and Prieto were charged with the crime of rape committed against a 15-year old
Mongoloid child Sandra Salcedo, daughter of Lt. Col. Teofisto Salcedo and Pastora Salcedo. She
had a mind of a five-year old child, who still needed to be fed and dressed up. Her vocabulary was
limited and most of the time she expressed herself by motions.
Four security men were assigned to him (Col. Salcedo), two of whom were accused Constable Ruel
Prieto and accused-appellant Moreno Tumimpad.
Sandra complained of constipation. She was brought to a doctor in Oroquieta City for a checkup.
Medication was given to Sandra but her condition did not improve. She was again brought to a
doctor for a second check up. The result revealed that Sandra was pregnant. On January 11, 1990,
Sandra gave birth to a baby boy who was named Jacob Salcedo. Hence, the filing of the
complaint 6 by Mrs. Pastora Salcedo.
During the investigation conducted by the CIS and the police, Sandra pointed out with hesitation
Moreno Tumimpad and Ruel Prieto as the assailants. Mrs. Pastora Salcedo testified that she
requested her two daughters-in-law, Joy Salcedo and Celsa Salcedo, to ask Sandra the identity of
the persons who sexually molested her. 9
During the trial, the accused moved that a blood test, both "Major Blood Grouping Test" and "Pheno
Blood Typing" be conducted on the offended party, her child Jacob and the two accused. The result
of the test conducted by the Makati Medical Center showed that Jacob Salcedo has a type "O"
blood, Sandra Salcedo type "B", accused Ruel Prieto type "A" and accused-appellant type "O".
Both accused anchored their defense on mere denial contending that it was impossible for them to
have committed the crime of rape and they cannot be convicted for the crime based solely by blood
test and that they have the same blood type.
After trial on the merits, the trial court convicted Moreno Tumimpad of the crime charged but
acquitted the other accused, Ruel Prieto, on reasonable doubt, stating that he "has a different type of
blood with (sic) the child Jacob Salcedo as his type of blood is "A", while that of child Jacob Salcedo
is type "O".
Issue: w/n the lower court erred in convicting the accused-appellant base on major blood grouping
test known as ABO and RHS test, not a paternal test known as chromosomes or HLA test.
Ruling: The appeal is devoid of merit. The court is not convinced.

Accused-appellants' culpability was established mainly by testimonial evidence given by the victim
herself and her relatives. The blood test was adduced as evidence only to show that the alleged
father or any one of many others of the same blood type may have been the father of the child.

G.R. No. L-14752

April 30, 1963

FRANCISCO R. CARIO, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, (1st
Division), respondents.
Facts: Accused was charged with the crime of rebellion with murders, arsons, robberies and
kidnappings, for having, as a high ranking officer and/or member of the Communist Party of the
Philippines and of the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps
(Huks), agreed in conspiracy with 31 others who were charged with the same crime in other criminal
cases then pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila, for the purpose of overthrowing the
Government and disrupting its activities..
He was alleged to have been sending or furnishing cigarettes and food supplies to the Huks and
helped them to having $6,000 changed to Philippine money and helping Huks to open accounts.
He vigorously denied any participation therein
The CFI of Manila declared that the appellant is guilty as an accomplice in the crime of rebellion or
insurrection. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court. Hence, this instant
appeal.
Issue: w/n Carino is guilty as accomplice in the crime of rebellion or insurrection.
Ruling: No. We cannot agree to the above conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the abovementioned acts of appellant constitute acts of cooperation in the execution of the act of overthrowing
the government.
In the crime of rebellion or insurrection, the Code expressly declares that there must be a public
uprising and the taking up of arms. The act of sending or furnishing cigarettes and food supplies to a
famous Huk does not prove intention to help him in committing rebellion or insurrection. Neither is
the act of having $6,000 changed to Philippine money or in helping Huks to open accounts, by
themselves show an intent or desire to participate or help in an uprising or rebellion. Appellant's work
was as a public relations officer of the bank of which he was an employee, and the work above
indicated performed by him was a part of his functions as an employee of the bank.

These acts by themselves do not and cannot carry or prove any criminal intent of helping the Huks in
committing the crime of insurrection or rebellion. The law is to the effect that good faith is to be
presumed. No presumption of the existence of a criminal intent can arise from the above acts which
are in themselves legitimate and legal. Said acts are by law presumed to be innocent acts while the
opposite has not been proved.