people of the phils. vs. alfredo pascual

7/25/2019 People of the Phils. vs. Alfredo Pascual

1/19

EN BANC

[G.R. NO. 172326 - January 19, 2009]

PEOPLE OF TE P!L!PP!NE", Plaintiffv.ALFRE#O PA"C$AL %

!L#EFON"OAccused-Appellant.

# E C ! " ! O N

LEONAR#O-#E CA"TRO, J.&

Under review is the Decision1dated December 9, 2005 of the Courtof Appeals CA! in CA"#.$. C$."%C &o. 01'9( findin) accused"appellant Alfredo *ascual + ldefonso alias -/- )uilt+ be+ondreasonable doubt of the crime of $ape with %omicide andsentencin) him to suffer the penalt+ of death. 3aid decision affirmedthat of the $e)ional rial Court $C!, ranch 211, 4andalu+on)Cit+, albeit with the modification that )ranted an additional award of*100,000.00 as civil indemnit+ to the heirs of the deceased"victim.

he conviction of accused"appellant stemmed from an Amendednformation2dated ebruar+ 2(, 2001, filed with the $C for thecrime desi)nated as $ape with %omicide and $obber+, theaccusator+ portion of which reads6

hat on or about the 25th da+ of December 2000 in the Cit+ of4andalu+on), *hilippines, a place within the 7urisdiction of this%onorable Court, the above"named accused, with lewd desi)ns, b+the use of force and intimidation, did then and there willfull+,unlawfull+ and feloniousl+, lie and have carnal 8nowled)e of one/$& *ACUA3 + A4A/, a)ainst the latter-s will and consent.

Durin) the occasion or b+ reason of the rape with intent to 8ill andta8in) advanta)e of superior stren)th, covered the face of saidvictim with a pillow, thus suffocatin) her which ultimatel+ led to herinstantaneous death. i8ewise, durin) or on occasion of the rape
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt1http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt2http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt2http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt1


2/19

with intent to )ain and b+ means of force, violence and intimidationemplo+ed upon the person of orel+n *acubas + ama+o, did thenand there willfull+, unlawfull+ and feloniousl+ ta8e, steal and carr+awa+ the followin), to wit6

a!. one 1! )old nec8lace with pendant

b!. one 1! pair of )old earrin)

c!. colle)e rin)

d!. 3ei8o lad+-s wristwatch

all in the total amount of *10,000.00 more or less, belon)in) to

victim orel+n *acubas + ama+o, to the dama)e and pre7udice ofthe latter.

:hen arrai)ned, appellant pleaded not )uilt+ to the char)e. rialthereafter ensued.

Durin) trial, the prosecution presented seven ;! witnesseselasco, a friend of the victim-s sister< *oliceofficers */!2 ernando A)uilan and *olice nspector *?nsp.!

$ussel e+sa< Dr. elimon *orciuncula, =r., the *hilippine &ational*olice *&*! medico"le)al officer< and oren@a *acubas, the victim-smother. he prosecution-s version of the facts, as narrated in thedecision under review, follows6

he incident happened in a room at the second floor of %ouse&o. ;2', allesteros 3t., aran)a+ &ew Bani)a, 4andalu+on) Cit+.he s8etch of the house h. A, p. 1' $ecords! shows it has three(! rooms< on the first floor, one occupied b+ Arlene #orospe andfamil+ eh. A"1!< the second, b+ Alfredo *ascual and his famil+h. A"2!< and the third is the residence of $odolfo =undos, =r. andhis famil+. /n the second floor is another room occupied b+ thefamil+ of the victim orel+n *acubas + ama+o alias in)"in)! andher siblin)s.


3/19

ast December 2', 2000, at around 10600 o-cloc8 in the evenin),$odolfo =undos, =r. was preparin) to celebrate noche buena with hisson and the accused"appellant, Alfredo *ascual who was withChristopher, his 2"+ear old +oun)est child. Alfredo *ascual appeared

to have had liuor alread+. or three (! instances, the accusedwould as8 permission to )o inside the house as he was alread+sleep+ and drun8 but nonetheless will return 10 to 15 minutes later,twice still with the child and onl+ to continue drin8in) ever+ time hereturned. /n the third time, he was without the child an+more andparta8e sic! of liuor until 1600 o-cloc8 a.m. when he left, leavin)$odolfo =undos, =r. alone 7ust outside the aforesaid house at ;2'allesteros 3t. h. A"!. went+ 20! minutes later, Divina*ascual, appellant-s wife, came out the house loo8in) for herhusband. :hen informed that the latter had alread+ left, Divina

started loo8in) for him inside the house and later in the billiard hall10 or 15 minutes awa+. 4oments later, Divina went passed sic! theplace where $odolfo =undos, =r. was drin8in), rushin) upstairs to thesecond floor of the house. 3oon after, =undos saw Divina chasin)Alfredo runnin) out towards the )ate at the same time as8ed sic!=undos for help sa+in) -Eu+a, tulun)an mo a8o, si o+et- referrin)to Alfredo *ascual!!. hin8in) that Alfredo *ascual was ma8in)trouble, $odolfo =undos, =r. 7oined the chase but could not catch upas Alfredo was runnin) ver+ fast. 3o Divina told him to instead )o

upstairs as the accused mi)ht have done somethin) wron) to in)"lin) orel+n! F.3.&. pp. '"11, /ctober 2', 2002G. $odolfo =undos,=r. is the husband of appellant-s older sister, aarni.

o)ether, =undos and Divina rushed to the second floor. As the placewas dar8, the+ switched on the li)ht and there the+ saw in)"lin)orel+n *acubas! flat on her bac8 on the floor almost na8ed witharms and le)s open, her pant+ and shorts down to her an8le and t"shirt pulled up above the breast with blood on the ri)ht breast. he+tried to wa8e up in)"lin) but the latter was alread+ dead. $odolfo=undos, =r. was shoc8ed at what he saw. Divina )ot h+sterical andrepeatedl+ told Arlene #orospe what happened .3.&., supra, pp.11"1'!. t did not ta8e lon) before policemen from the 3outhernCommand 3/C/! arrived.


4/19

hat same mornin) $odolfo =undos, =r. )ave his statement before*/2 ernando A)uilan h. C, p. 150 $ecords! and so did Divina#orospe *ascual h. D, p. 151!. Arlene #orospe li8ewise eecutedhis 3inumpaan) 3ala+sa+ that same da+, December 25, 2000,

before *olice nspector fren *ascua =u)o. h. , p. 1'9, $ecords!t was this witness Arlene #orospe who prepared the s8etch h.A, p. 1', $ecords!. ater in sic! that fateful mornin), policeinvesti)ators appeared in sic! the scene of the incident and too8pictures of the place and the victim while still l+in) on the floorhs. , "1 to "; and "1 to "5 , p. 152, $ecords!.

After proper police investi)ation and coordination, the victim,orel+n *acubas, was brou)ht to the *&* Crime aborator+, forautops+ and the eamination of the blood found in the place of the

incident 4edico e)al $eport &o. 3 05H 00, h. 4, p. 1H2,$ecords!. he printed underwear with suspected seminal stains wasli8ewise eamined. 4edico"e)al $eport &o. $"00;"00 h. &, p.1H(, $ecords! reveal absence of semen. n 4edico"e)al $eport &o.4 9(2 00 h. /, p. 1H', $ecords!, it was determined that thecause of death was asph+ia b+ smotherin). he same report )avethe followin) postmortem findin)s on the in7uries sustained b+ thevictim6

*/34/$4 &D

airl+ developed, fairl+ nourished, female cadaver in ri)or mortiswith postmortem lividit+ at the dependent portions of the bod+.Con7unctivae are pale. ips and nailbeds are c+anotic.

%AD

1! acerated wound, upper lip, measurin) 0. 0.5 cm, alon) theanterior midline.

2! Contusion, ri)ht chee8, measurin) 5 ' cm, ; cm from theanterior midline.

$U&E


5/19

1! Contusion, ri)ht pectoral re)ion, measurin) ( 2 cm, 11 cmfrom the anterior midline.

2! acerated wound, ri)ht nipples, measurin) 0.H 0.1 cm.

(! Contusion, ri)ht pectoral re)ion, measurin) 5 ' cm, 10 cmfrom the anterior midline.

'! Contusion, sternal re)ion, measurin) ( 1 cm, alon) the anteriormidline.

5! Contusion, left in)uinal re)ion, measurin) 5 (.5 cm, 10 cmfrom the anterior midline.

he stomach is full of partiall+ di)ested food particles.

I$4

1! Contusion, proimal (rd of the ri)ht forearm measurin) ' 2 cm,' cm lateral to its posterior midline.

2! Contusion, ri)ht rin) fin)er, measurin) 0.5 0.( cm.

A$&I, $AC%A A&D 3/*%A#U3

he lar+n, trachea and esopha)us are mar8edl+ con)ested andc+anotic with petechial hemorrha)es.

#&A

here is abundant )rowth of pubic hair, labia ma7ora are full, conveand co"aptated with pin8ish brown labia minora presentin) in

between. /n separatin) the same disclosed a flesh+ t+pe 'y()n*+' )) ')a/) /a)ra+n a 3, 6 an 9 /4 ++n*+' an a5ra) )r+r ur')), ()aur+n 1 8 0. (.

:a+na/ an )r+ ur)'ra/ ()ar ar) PO"!T!:E r)r(a;a.


6/19

C/&CU3/&6

Cau) )a' + A'y8+a 5y (')r+n.


7/19

b+ the trial court consistin) of the victim-s va)inal smear and pant+.Accordin) to her, no D&A sample from the suspect was present onthe aforesaid specimens./n cross"eamination, she declared thatbased on D&A testin), she could not determine if a woman was

raped or not. 3he further declared that in this case, it was possiblethat the stained va)inal smear prevented a complete and )oodresult for the D&A profilin). Upon bein) uestioned b+ the court, theforensic chemist confirmed that D&A testin) on the sub7ectspecimens was inconclusive and that the result was not )ood, as thespecimens submitted, i.e., the stained va)inal smear and the dirt+white pant+, had alread+ under)one serolo)ical anal+sis.9

n a decision10dated 4arch 11, 200', the trial court rendered7ud)ment, as follows6

:%$/$, findin) accused, A$D/ *A3CUA D/&3/alias -/- #U be+ond reasonable doubt of the crime of $apewith %omicide, under the circumstances prescribed in Article 2HH"Aof the $evised *enal Code, as amended, absent an+ modif+in)circumstance to a))ravate or miti)ate criminal liabilit+, the courthereb+ sentences him to suffer the penalt+ of DA%.

%e is also ordered to pa+ the heirs of the victim the amount of*hpH(,000.00 as actual dama)es< the amount of *hp50,000.00 asmoral dama)es< the amount of *hp25,000.00 as eemplar+dama)es< *hp2,000.00 as burial epenses and the amount of*hp250,000.00 for loss of earnin)s. Additional actual epensesincurred not supported b+ receipts are denied pursuant to Article2199 of the Civil Code.

n so far as the char)e of robber+ is concerned, the same is hereb+ordered D3433D, it appearin) that the valuables and otherpersonal belon)in)s of the victim are intact.

he accused is li8ewise ordered to pa+ the costs of the suit.

3/ /$D$D.11
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt8http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt11http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt8http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt9http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt10http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt11


8/19

he case was directl+ elevated to this Court for automatic review.%owever, in a $esolution12dated =ul+ 2H, 2005 and pursuant to ourrulin) in *eople v. 4ateo1(the case was transferred to the CA.

n its Decision1'dated December 9, 2005, the CA affirmed withmodification the trial court-s decision. Dispositivel+, the CA decisionreads6

& >: / A % /$#/, the appealed decision ishereb+ AFF!R>E#with the(++a+nthat the heirs of orel+n*acubas is further awarded the amount of *100,000.00 as civilindemnit+, in addition to the other dama)es in the lower court-s7ud)ment. Costs de officio.

"O OR#ERE#.

n view of the fore)oin), accused"appellant comes a)ain to thisCourt for a final review of his case.

n a $esolution15dated =une 1(, 200H, the Court reuired theparties to file their respective supplemental briefs, if the+ sodesired. n their respective 4anifestations,1Hthe parties waived thefilin) of supplemental briefs and instead merel+ adopted their earlierbriefs before the CA.

wo 2! uestions present themselves for resolution in thiscase. First,was the circumstantial evidence presented a)ainst theaccused"appellant sufficient for his convictionK Second,does theresult of the D&A eamination entitle the accused"appellant to anacuittalKcralawred

:e answer the first uestion in the affirmative.

t is settled that in the special comple crime of rape with homicide,both the rape and the homicide must be established be+ondreasonable doubt.1;n this re)ard, we have held that the crime ofrape is difficult to prove because it is )enerall+ unwitnessed andver+ often onl+ the victim is left to testif+ for herself. t becomeseven more difficult when the comple crime of rape with homicide iscommitted because the victim could no lon)er testif+. hus, in
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt12http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt13http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt14http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt15http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt16http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt17http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt12http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt13http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt14http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt15http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt16http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt17


9/19

crimes of rape with homicide, as here, resort to circumstantialevidence is usuall+ unavoidable.1

Considerin) that no one witnessed the commission of the crimechar)ed herein, the wei)ht of the prosecution-s evidence must thenbe appreciated in li)ht of the well"settled rule that an accused canbe convicted even if no e+ewitness is available, as lon) as sufficientcircumstantial evidence is presented b+ the prosecution to provebe+ond doubt that the accused committed the crime.19

Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts andcircumstances from which the eistence of the main fact ma+ beinferred accordin) to reason and common eperience.20Under3ection ', $ule 1(( of the $evised $ules of Court, circumstantial

evidence is sufficient for conviction if the followin) reuisitesconcur6

a! there is more than one circumstance< b! the facts from whichthe inferences are derived have been established< and c! thecombination of all the circumstances is such as to warrant a findin)of )uilt be+ond reasonable doubt.

>eril+, for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support aconviction, all the circumstances must be consistent with each other,consistent with the h+pothesis that accused is )uilt+ and at thesame time inconsistent with the h+pothesis that he is innocent, andwith ever+ other rational h+pothesis ecept that of )uilt.21hus, a7ud)ment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can besustained onl+ when the circumstances proved form an unbro8enchain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointin) to theaccused, to the eclusion of all others, as the culprit.

%ere, the circumstances testified to b+ the prosecution witnesses

lead to the inevitable conclusion that the accused"appellant is theauthor of the crime char)ed.

he chain of events that led to the sub7ect unfortunate incident wascandidl+ narrated b+ $odolfo =undos, =r. 3aid witness testified thaton December 2', 2000 at 10600 p.m., he, to)ether with his famil+and other relatives, was preparin) for their small celebration outside


10/19

the house< that accused"appellant who appeared to be alread+drun8! was also there to)ether with his 2"+ear"old child< thataccused"appellant sta+ed with them up to 1600 a.m. of December25< that durin) the course of his sta+ with the )roup, accused"

appellant left twice to )o inside the house but 8ept on comin) bac8to continue drin8in)< that when accused"appellant left for the thirdtime, he did not come bac8 an+more leavin) him =undos! alone ashis son, Christopher, also left to )o to some other place.223ome 20minutes later, accused"appellant-s wife, Divina, as8ed him about thewhereabouts of the accused"appellant and he instructed her to loo8for her husband in several places. %avin) failed to locate accused"appellant, Divina went bac8 inside the house.2(:hat transpired netcan be )leaned from the followin) pertinent portions of =undos-testimon+6

LJ " :hen +ou are still on that particular place where +ou aredrin8in) alone, do +ou remember an+ unusual incident thathappenedKcralawred

A " es sir.

J " :hat is that incidentK cralawred

A " -&on) umuwi na po si Divina sa 8anila non) sinabi n+a nanapapa)od na s+a, ma+a"ma+a po a+ na8ita 8o si Divina na na)"tatata8bo, dumaan po doon sa harap 8o at na)"tatata8bopatun)on) itaas po-.

J " taas n)K cralawred

A " 3econd floor sir.

J " And what happened after Divina went up stairs of the secondfloorK cralawred

A " &a8ita 8o po na na)hahabulan si Divina at +on) asawa n+a siAlfredo *ascual.


11/19

J " Did +ou see where did the+ came fromKcralawred

A " -%indi 8o po na8ita 8on) saan sila na))alin), an) na8ita 8o lan)dito po sa )ilid 8o papuntan) )ate.

J " 3o, +ou see them comin) out of that buildin) and proceedin)towards the )ateK cralawred

A " es sir.

J " And who was aheadKcralawred

A " Alfredo *ascual sir.

J " And what was Divina doin) at that timeK cralawred

A " 3he-s chasin) Alfredo *ascual.

J " Did +ou hear her sa+in) somethin)K cralawred

A " es sir.

J " :hat FdidG she sa+K cralawred

A " %umihin)i po s+a sa a8in n) tulon), sabi n+a po, -8u+a tulon)anmo a8o si o+et- 8asi an) pala+aw po ni Alfredo *ascual e o+et.

J " And what was +our interpretation then when +ou heard heras8in) for +our help, this Divina, the wife of the accusedK cralawred

A " -An) pa)8aintindi 8o po na humihin)i si Divina n) tulon), a8ala8o po na)wala 8asi lasin) po, 8a+a humihin)i po n) tulon) +on)asawa, 8a+a po! a8o po + tuma8bo doon at na8i"na8ipa)habol posa 8anila-.

J " And what happened net after thatK cralawred

A " -uma8bo rin po a8o at na8ihabol rin a8o sa 8anila, pero non)nandoon na po a8o sa 8alsada, +on) street po namin) allesteros,nasa 8ala)itnaan na po a8o, na8ita 8o na po si Divina at sinalubon)na po a8o, an) sabi sa a8in, -8u+a hindi na maabutan 8asi mabilis


12/19

tuma8bo tulun)an mo nalan) a8o, samahan mo a8o, aa8+at ta+o sataas 8asi ba8a 8un) anon) )inawa n+a don 8a+ in)"in), the victimin this case-.

J " 3o, what did +ou do when Divina as8 for +our assistanceK cralawred

A " -3inamahan 8o po, uma8+at po 8ami sa second floor at na8itanamin sa second floor, madilim, paran) walan) sindi an) m)a ilaw-.

J " :hat was the condition of the door )oin) inside the second floorwhen +ou went upKcralawred

A " /pen sir.

J " And did +ou and Divina do when +ou were alread+ inside! inthe second floorK cralawred

A " -%inanap po nami +on) m)a switches, 8asi a8o po bihiran) bihirapo a8on) ma8aa8+at don 8a+a sabi 8o 8a+ Divina hanapin natin+on) switch 8asi hindi 8o 8abisado rito, +on 8ina8apa po namin)8on) saan po +on) m)a switches, haban) 8ina8apa po namin) +on)m)a switches tapos pinupu8po8 8o po +on) din)din) tapos na)"tatawa) po a8o n) pan)alan ni in)"in), -in) saan 8a naroon-.

J " And then what happened netK cralawred

A " -an po haban) hinahanap po namin) +on) m)a switches at8ina8ato8 po namin) +on) m)a din)din) bi)la pon) sumi)aw siDivina na -8u+a hali8a dito- n) marinin) 8o po na tinatawa) +on)pan)alan 8o e lumapit po a8o 8un) saan s+a naroon-.

J " :hat happened netK cralawred

A " -&andon po s+a sa loob n) 8warto, bu8as po +on) pinto, doon

na8ita 8o po si in)"in), +on) bi8tima.

J " :here was the victim at the first time or instance that +ou sawher at that particular timeK cralawred

A " At the floor sir.


13/19

J " :hat was the ph+sical appearance of the victim when +ou firstsaw herKcralawred

A " :hen first saw the victim she was liein) sic! in the floor withopen arms sic! and open le)s and her short and pant+ was alread+loose off down to her an8le and her the! shirt is up.

J " Up to whereK cralawred

A " -&a8ataas po, labas an) 8an+an) -didi- at na8ita 8o pon) ma+du)o sa )ilid-.

J " :here did +ou find the bloodK cralawred

A " /n her left side breast sir.

J " /n that particular instance, when heard Divina callin) for help,was there alread+ li)ht inside that houseK cralawred

A " here was a li)ht sir.

J " :here was that li)ht comin) fromK cralawred

A " Came from the ceilin).

J " nside the room where Divina found the bod+ of the victimK cralawred

A " es sir.

J " :hen +ou first enter that room where +ou find the bod+ of thevictim orel+n acubas, what was the condition of the roomK cralawred

A " -&a8ita 8o po na ma)ulo +on) 8ama tapos +on) drawer nala)a+an n) m)a damit 8asi salamin po +on) ibaba ma+ m)a basa)po at ma+ m)a pata8 n) du)o-.

J " :hat else did +ou findK cralawred

A " -4a+ scissor po sa left side n) braso n+a, sa )ilid po-.


14/19

J " :hat did +ou do when +ou saw the victim in this case alread+sprawled on the floorK cralawred

A " -&un) na8ita na namin) hindi na )uma)alaw si in)"in) at an)pa)8aalam namin a+ pata+ na, bumaba na po 8ami-.

J " After +ou went down, what did +ou do netK cralawred

A " -*a)"baba po namin ni Divina, tuma8bo po 8ami don sa pinto, sabaha+ po n) ba+aw 8o at humin)i po 8ami n) tulon)-.

J " :ho is +our brother"in"lawKcralawred

A " Arleen #orospe sir.

J " :hat did +ou do with Arleen #orospeK cralawred

A " Pa-5u4a n +n, una n u(a4 + #+?+na ana-'y)r+a/ na na++a* na >anan R), yn aa*a n+ Ar/))n Gr), + L+n-L+n +na'aa a +naay n+By).

J " And what net happenedK cralawred

A " -3inala+sa+ po ni Divina, pero a8o po + na shoc8 at napaupo nalan) a8o sa sopa, uma8+at din po si Arleen sa taas at ma+ tumawa)na rin n) pulis-.2'mphasis /urs!

Arlene #orospe corroborated the testimon+ of =undos that in theearl+ mornin) of December 25, 2000, =undos and the accused"appellant-s wife, Divina, 8noc8ed at his door to inform him of theincident after which he immediatel+ proceeded upstairs and saw thevictim na8ed and lifeless with her t"shirt pulled up.25


15/19

*rior to the discover+ of her dead bod+, =undos also testified thatthe victim was alone in her room on the second floor of thehouse.2Hhis fact was 8nown to accused"appellant who admitted asmuch in his cross"eamination.2;duardo >elasco, who used to visit

the sister of the victim and have drin8s with accused"appellant,testified that the latter confided to him his love for the victim.2

*/2 ernando A)uilan and *?nsp. $ussel e+sa testified that uponarrival at the place where the sub7ect incident happened onDecember 25, 2000 at about 26(0 a.m., the+ found the lifeless bod+of the victim l+in) on the floor na8ed, with bloodstain on her clothesand appearin) lifeless.29he police also found at the scene of thecrime the victim-s belon)in)s scattered all over the place.

Dr. elimon *orciuncula, who conducted the post"mortemeamination on the cadaver of the victim on the mornin) ofDecember 25, 2000, testified that the victim died of asph+ia b+smotherin). he doctor also testified that apart fromcontusions,'hymenal lacerations were discovered on the body at ,! and " o'cloc# positions, but there is an abrasion or abratedposterior' meanin$ that the in%ury was fresh' (0or was inflicted ri)htbefore the death of the victim.(1Dr. *orciuncula further testified thatspermato@oa was found in the va)ina of the victim.(2

urthermore, the statements of accused"appellant-s wife, Divina,immediatel+ after the fateful incident all the more convince theCourt as to accused"appellant-s )uilt. *art of theres $estaeandadmissible in evidence as an eception to the hearsa+ rule wereDivina-s utterances to #orospe after seein) the dead and rapedbod+ of the victim, i.e.,'&ay na$yari sa itaas at $alin$ doon sioyet,' and her subseuent narration of seein) the accused"appellant )oin) out of the victim-s room and runnin) awa+therefrom.((

n People v. Canton%os('the Court held that6

$es )estae utterances refer to those eclamations and statementsmade b+ either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crimeimmediatel+ before, durin), or after the commission of the crime,when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt26http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt27http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt28http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt29http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt30http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt31http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt32http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt33http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt34http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt26http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt27http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt28http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt29http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt30http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt31http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt32http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt33http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2009/jan2009/gr_172326_2009.php#fnt34


16/19

a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired b+ the ecitement ofthe occasion and there was no opportunit+ for the declarant todeliberate and to fabricate a false statement. A declaration isdeemed part of the res )estae and thus admissible in evidence as

an eception to the hearsa+ rule when the followin) reuisitesconcur6 1! the principal act, the res )estae, is a startlin)occurrence< 2! the statements were made before the declarant hadtime to contrive or devise< and (! the statements must concern theoccurrence in uestion and its immediatel+ attendin) circumstances.

he aforementioned reuisites are present in this case. he res)estae or the startlin) event is the rape and death of the victim.he statements of Divina to #orospe were made spontaneousl+ andbefore she had the time to contrive or devise such declarations, and

said statements all concerned the occurrence in uestion or theimmediatel+ attendin) circumstances thereof.

n the absence of evidence that the witnesses for the prosecutionwere actuated b+ improper motive, the presumption is that the+were not so actuated and their testimonies are entitled to full faithand credit.(5

%ere, accused"appellant claimed that at 2 o-cloc8 on the mornin) ofDecember 25, 2000, he was at his friend-s house in 3ta. 4esa,havin) left his house in 4andalu+on) because of a uarrel with hiswife, Divina. *rosecution witness =undos- testimon+, however,positivel+ placed the accused"appellant near the scene of the crimeat the same time on December 25, 2000. 3urel+, between thepositive assertions of the prosecution witness and the ne)ativeaverments of accused"appellant, the former indisputabl+ deservemore credence and evidentiar+ wei)ht.(H

hus, accused"appellant-s twin defenses of denial and alibi pale in

the li)ht of the arra+ of circumstantial evidence presented b+ theprosecution. uall+ damnin) is accused"appellant-s failure to provewith clear and convincin) evidence that he was at another place atthe time the crime was committed or to demonstrate theimpossibilit+ of his presence at the scene of the crime when thesame was committed.


17/19

Denial is intrinsicall+ a wea8 defense and must be supported b+stron) evidence of non"culpabilit+ in order to be credible.Correspondin)l+, courts view the defense of alibi with suspicion andcaution, not onl+ because it is inherentl+ wea8 and unreliable, but

also because it can be fabricated easil+.

(;

urthermore, this Court cannot i)nore the positive testimon+ onrecord that accused"appellant was seen runnin) awa+ from thescene of the crime immediatel+ before the discover+ thereof. faccused"appellant was as innocent as he claimed to be, he shouldhave immediatel+ cleared himself of suspicion. nstead, accused"appellant sta+ed at his friend-s house for si or seven da+s, despitehavin) learned from his wife he was a suspect in the crime.Undoubtedl+, accused"appellant-s fli)ht is an indication of his )uilt

or of a )uilt+ mind. (ndeed, the wic#ed man flees thou$h no manpursueth, but the ri$hteous are as bold as a lion.' (

Accused"appellant ma8es much of the result of the D&A anal+sisconducted b+ the & that his profile was not in the victim-s va)inalsmear. %ence, he ar)ues he is innocent of the crime char)ed.

n People v. )atar,we held that in assessin) the probative value ofD&A evidence, courts should consider, inter alia, the followin)factors6 how the samples were collected, how the+ were handled,the possibilit+ of contamination of the samples, the procedurefollowed in anal+@in) the samples, whether the proper standardsand procedures were followed in conductin) the tests, and theualification of the anal+st who conducted the tests.(9

%ere, while the D&A anal+sis of the victim-s va)inal smear showedno complete profile of the accused"appellant, the same is notconclusive considerin) that said specimen was alread+ stained orcontaminated which, accordin) to the forensic chemist, Aida >illoria"

4a)sipoc, deters a complete and )ood result for D&A profilin). 3heeplained in her testimon+ that )enerall+, with the va)inal smear,the+ could see if there is a male profile in the smear. %owever inthis case, when the+ received the va)inal smear on the stainedslide, the same had alread+ under)one serolo)ical anal+sis. %ence,accordin) to the chemist, the D&A testin) conducted on thespecimen sub7ect of this case was inconclusive.'0n li)ht of this


18/19

flawed procedure, we hold that the result of the D&A eaminationdoes not entitle accused"appellant to an acuittal.

>iewed in its entiret+, the evidence in this case inevitabl+ leads tothe conclusion that accused"appellant is )uilt+ be+ond reasonabledoubt of the special comple crime of $ape with %omicide.

$ape with %omicide under Article ((5 of the $evised *enal Code, inrelation to $epublic Act $.A.! ;H59, provides that when b+ reasonor on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalt+shall be death. %owever, in view of the subseuent passa)e of $.A.&o. 9('H, entitled -An Act *rohibitin) the mposition of the Death*enalt+ in the *hilippines,- which was si)ned into law on =une 2',200H, the Court is mandated to impose on the accused"appellant

the penalt+ of reclusion perpetua.

:e li8ewise affirm the CA-s additional award of *100,000.00 as civilindemnit+ pursuant to current 7urisprudence'1that in cases of rapewith homicide, civil indemnit+ in the amount of *100,000.00 shouldbe awarded to the heirs of the victim. As to moral dama)es, recent7urisprudence allows the amount of *;5,000.00 to be awarded incases of rape with homicide.'2hus, the *50,000.00 award )iven b+the court below as moral dama)es should be increased to*;5,000.00. he *25,000.00 eemplar+ dama)es, however, shouldbe deleted because under Article 22(0 of the &ew Civil Code,eemplar+ dama)es in criminal cases ma+ be imposed when thecrime was committed with one or more a))ravatin) circumstances,and there is none in this case. he rest of the awards )iven b+ thetrial court are affirmed.

@EREFORE,the appealed decision of the CA in CA-*.+. C+ Co. /0"is hereb+AFF!R>E# *+' >O#!F!CAT!ON.Accused"appellant is found )uilt+ be+ond reasonable doubt of the crime of

rape with homicide and is hereb+ sentenced to suffer the penalt+ofreclusion perpetuaand to pa+ the heirs of the victim, orel+n*acubas, the amounts of *100,000.00 as civil indemnit+,*;5,000.00 as moral dama)es, *H(,000.00 as actual dama)es,*2,000.00 as burial epenses and *250,000.00 for loss ofearnin)s.


19/19

&o costs.

people of the phils. vs. alfredo pascual

Documents