G.R. No. 144886 April 29, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ANTONIO SILVANO, accused-appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ANTONIO SILVANO, accused-appellant.
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision,1
dated June 26, 2000, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Midsayap,
Cotabato, finding accused-appellant Antonio Silvano guilty of the crime
of rape with homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim Maramanay Tomas P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
The crime was committed on October 7, 1991 in
Inudaran, Mapurok, Alamada, Cotabato. On March 9, 1993, more than a
year after the commission of the crime, a criminal complaint for
attempted rape with homicide was filed in the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court of Pigcawayan-Alamada, Cotabato2 against accused-appellant. On March 16, 1993, accused-appellant was arrested.
After appropriate preliminary investigation, Acting
Judge Charito Untal-de Guzman of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court found
probable cause and accordingly remanded the case to the Provincial
Prosecutor. In a resolution dated January 25, 1994, Rolando Y.
Deiparine, of the Provincial Prosecution Office in Kidapawan, Cotabato,
modified Judge de Guzman’s findings and recommended the filing of
consummated rape with homicide against accused-appellant.3 His recommendation was approved and the following information was filed, alleging ¾
That on or about October 7, 1991 in the Municipality
of Alamada, Province of Cotabato, Philippines the said accused, armed
with a bladed weapon, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously and by means of force and intimidation, succeeded in having
carnal knowledge with one MARAMANAY TOMAS against her will, that after
the occasion the said accused, with intent to kill, stabbed the victim
hitting her on the different parts of her body, which is the direct and
proximate cause of her death thereafter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
Upon being on August 23, 1994, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty, whereupon he was tried.5
Four witnesses were presented by the prosecution:
namely Constancio Jimenez, accused-appellant’s nephew; Samotor
Polayagan, the person who found the body of the victim at the crime
scene; Onotan Tomas, the victim’s father; and Dr. Ebenezer Demetillo,
who conducted the necropsy.
The prosecution evidence shows: The body of
Maramanay Tomas, a Muslim girl, was found by a certain Margarito near
the river at Sitio Inudaran, Barangay Mapurok, Alamada, Cotabato at
around 1 o’clock in the afternoon of October 7, 1991.6
Upon receipt of the information, prosecution witness Samotor Polayagan
said he proceeded to the crime scene and found the dead body of a girl.
He saw a turban (tubao) ten meters, more or less, from the
cadaver. Polayagan said that he did not move the cadaver and waited for
the police to arrive at the scene.7
One policeman arrived, who then made a sketch and a
report of the crime. The body of Maramanay Tomas was subsequently
brought to her home.8
At the request of Alamada Mayor Wenceslao dela Cerna, a necropsy
examination was conducted by Dr. Ebenezer Demetillo on the same day. In
describing the injuries sustained by and the examination conducted on
the victim, Dr. Demetillo testified:
PROS. LUMANG:
. . . There are how many serious wounds in these 21 stab wounds which will cause the instantaneous death of the victim?
A The serious stab wound is the first stab
wound which is 2 cms. in width x 6 cms. depth supracelanicular area
penetrating the upper right lung. This wound is more than enough to
cause the hypovolemia of the victim. Also the number 2 stab wound is
fatal. It is 2 cms. in width x 4 cms. in depth by medial active of the
right neck cutting the jugular vein. So, this is more than enough to
cause the hypovolemia of the patient and the rest are minor, sir.
Q When you say hypovolemia, you mean to say the loss of blood of the victim?
A Yes, sir.
Q So, in other words, even if only these two wounds that were inflicted it will cause the immediate death of the victim?
A Yes, sir.
. . . .
Q So, in totality Doctor, what was then therefore the cause of death of the victim?
A The cause of death of the victim is
cardio-respiratory arrest and the second is hypovolemia then the
multiple stab wounds.
. . . .
Q Aside from the injuries inflicted on the cadaver of Maramanay Tomas, did you ever try to conduct any examination?
A Yes, I examined the different parts of her body from head to foot sir.
Q Did you conduct an examination on the genitalia of the victim?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you still remember what was your
findings on the genitalia of the cadaver of the victim when you
conducted a necropsy examination?
A Based on that report, I did not put any findings on the genitalia because I did not find any.9
More than a year after Maramanay Tomas’ death,
accused-appellant allegedly confessed to his nephew, Constancio Jimenez,
at a birthday party that he had raped and killed the victim. On the
basis of this alleged confession, Jimenez gave a statement on March 3,
1993 incriminating his uncle, accused-appellant Antonio Silvano. The
statement was given to the Philippine National Police of Alamada,
Cotabato. Testifying on the alleged confession of accused-appellant,
Jimenez said that on December 3, 1992, accused-appellant came to his
house in Kapayawi, Libungan, Cotabato for his son’s birthday party.
While they were having drinks with three other persons (Garcio Payot,
Donita Payot and Orlando Mojado), accused-appellant allegedly told
Jimenez he was not going back to Alamada because the police were looking
for him as he had raped and killed a Muslim girl. Accused-appellant
allegedly killed the child after raping her for fear that she would
testify against him.10
Jimenez testified that accused-appellant had in fact transferred
residence many times to escape from the police. From Alamada, Cotabato,
accused-appellant transferred to Malamote, Midsayap, Cotabato, and then
to Kapayawi, Libungan, Cotabato.11
On cross-examination, however, Jimenez admitted that there was bad blood between him and accused-appellant. He said:
ATTY. ERAMIS:
. . . . Is it not [true] that on May 4 in Kapayawi
you have stated that your house and the house of the accused is near
[to] each other, and is it not [true] that there was a conflict between
you and the accused in connection with your dogs and your chickens?
A Yes, sir. When he is drunk he stabbed our dogs.
Q And you do not like the behavior of the accused?
A Yes, sir.
Q And as neighbor you do not like the behavior of the accused?
A Yes, sir.
Q Even if he is your uncle?
A Yes, sir.
Q And in fact you are harboring hatred against the accused?
A Yes, sir.
Q You did not see the commission of the crime in this case?
A Yes, sir. I am not an eyewitness of the
incident and I am only telling to this court the words which was told by
the accused to me during the birthday party of my son.
Q And what is the reason why you said you do
not like the behavior of the accused and in fact you harbored hatred
[against] him. Why is it that you invited him to the birthday party of
your son[?] What is the reason?
. . . .
A Because we are [close to] each other sir and our closeness [ended] when he chased my son, sir.
Q And because of that hatred you decided to testify against him in this case?
A Yes, sir.
Q As an act of vengeance?
A Yes, sir.12
Testifying in his turn, Onotan Tomas, the victim’s
father, said he came to know the identity of the person who allegedly
killed his daughter only after more than a year since her death. He
claimed to have spent more than P25,000.00 for his daughter’s wake and
another P25,000.00 for his daughter’s 40 days and first year death
anniversary.13 These amounts, however, were not supported by receipts.
At the conclusion of its case, the prosecution failed
to make a formal offer of its evidence. This was construed by the
trial court as a waiver of the formal offer of evidence.14
The defense then presented its only witness:
accused-appellant Antonio Silvano. He denied going to the birthday
party of Constancio Jimenez’s son on December 3, 1992. He denied having
told Jimenez that he had raped and killed a Muslim child in Alamada,
Cotabato. Nor did he leave a tubao and knife at the crime scene.
He said that on October 7, 1991, when the crime was committed, he was
in his house in Brgy. Kapayawi, Libungan, Cotabato. Accused-appellant
said he and Jimenez had altercations because accused-appellant hit
Jimenez’s cows for feeding in his corn land and Jimenez’s dogs devoured
his chickens. Said accused-appellant:
Q You were charged [with] rape with Homicide
before this Honorable Court which happened on October 7, 1991 at Sitio
Mapurok, Alamada, Cotabato based on the testimony of Constancio Jimenez
who testified in court that on December 3, 1992 you were invited to his
house and you attended this party and on that occasion you admitted that
you allegedly killed a girl and allegedly you left a knife and tubao in the crime scene, what can you say about this?
A That is not true, sir.
Q Why do you say that this is not true?
A Because I and Constancio Jimenez used to have a quarrel, sir.
Q Could you tell this Honorable Court when did this first quarrel start?
A 1990, sir.
Q Could you tell this Honorable Court what was your quarrel with Constancio Jimenez?
A It pertains to his cow, sir.
Q Do you know . . . where . . . this Constancio Jimenez live[s]?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where?
A In Kapayawi, sir.
Q You mean to tell us that he is your neighbor?
A Yes, sir.
Q You said you have a quarrel arising from a cow, could you tell us what happened to the cow?
A This Constancio Jimenez had 10 heads of cows and sometimes some of these cows [go] to my corn land.
Q And what did you do to those cows [which go] to your farm?
A I drove [away] the other cows and there was one cow left. I [hit] that cow, sir.
Q After hitting that cow what was the reaction of Constancio Jimenez if any?
A That was the root of our quarrel, he sided with these cows who destroyed my plants.
Q And you said you have your first quarrel
arising from a cow, did you have any [more] quarrel with this Constancio
Jimenez?
A Yes, sir, there was.
Q Could you tell this Honorable Court when was that?
A 1993, sir.
Q Could you tell us what was the root of that quarrel in 1993?
A About the dog, sir?
Q Could you tell us what was the relation of this dog to your quarrel?
A His dog [ate] my chicken, sir.
. . . .
Q Why do you say that the testimony of Constancio Jimenez that you left a tubao and a knife, that you admitted you killed and rape[d] a Muslim girl, you said that that is not true?
A He harbored ill feelings against me, sir.15
On June 26, 2000, the trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, finding accused ANTONIO SILVANO guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide, he is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
ordered to indemnify the heirs of victim Maramanay Tomas in the amount
of P50,000.00 and to pay them moral damages of P50,000.00.
The accused is credited in the service of his
sentence, with the full time during which he underwent preventive
imprisonment. He is ordered committed to the Davao Penal Colony in
Carmen, Davao del Norte from the Cotabato Rehabilitation Center, Amas,
Kidapawan City.
SO ORDERED.16
Hence this appeal. Accused-appellant contends that –
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS CONSTANCIO JIMENEZ.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE.
First. There is a need to scrutinize
Constancio Jimenez’s testimony because it is the basis of
accused-appellant’s conviction. On direct examination, Jimenez
testified:
Q Now, while you were there celebrating the birthday party of your child was there any unusual thing that took place?
A In that birthday celebration the accused Antonio Silvano told us that he raped and killed a Muslim child, sir.
Q What else did he [tell] you if any?
A He told us that he is no longer interested in going back to Alamada because the policemen are looking for him, sir.
Q Was there an instance if you know that he told you why he killed the Muslim?
A He told us that he killed the child of the
Muslim because he raped this child and if he will not kill the [M]uslim
child, the child can testify against him, sir.
ATTY. ERAMIS
Before the Prosecution proceed[s] Your Honor we would like to put on record the objection by reason of hearsay evidence.
FISCAL DEIPARINE
We would like to put on record our opposition to that
objection because there is an exception of the hearsay rule as an
independent relevant statement.
COURT
The witness is not testifying as to the truth of his
statement. He is only testifying in connection with the statement given
by the accused to him on December 3, 1995. Proceed.
FISCAL DEIPARINE
What else did the accused tell you if any?
A He told us that a tubao or head band made of cloth and a knife [was] left [on] the scene of the crime, sir.
Q What else did he tell you if any?
A He told us that he raped that Muslim child and after that he killed and stabbed the child sir.
In convicting accused-appellant, the trial court
relied on Jimenez’s testimony and on what it considered as
circumstantial evidence to justify accused-appellant’s conviction. The
trial court said in its decision:
There is no eyewitness in this case. The prosecution
is banking on the admissions of the accused and on circumstantial
evidence.
The query now before us is: are Antonio Silvano’s admissions to Constancio Jimenez, a private party, admissible in evidence?
The court believes that the declaration of an accused
expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in
evidence against him and any person, otherwise competent to testify as a
witness, who heard the confession, is competent to testify as to the
substance of what he heard and understood it.
In People vs. Maqueda, 242 SCRA 565, the Supreme Court ruled:
"Accordingly, Maqueda’s admissions to Ray Dean
Salvosa, a private party, are admissible in evidence against the former
under Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. In Aballe vs. People,
this Court held that the declaration of an accused expressly
acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in evidence against
him and any person, otherwise competent to testify as a witness, who
heard the confession, is competent to testify as to the substance of
what he heard and understood it. The said witness need not repeat
verbatim the oral confession; it suffices if he gives its substance."
In People vs. Domantay, G.R. No. 130612, May 11, 1999, a very recent case, the Supreme Court ruled:
"We agree with the Solicitor General, however, that
accused-appellant’s confession to the radio reporter, Celso Manuel is
admissible. In People vs. Andan, the accused in a rape with
homicide case confessed to the crime during interviews with the media.
In holding the confession admissible, despite the fact that the accused
gave his answers without the assistance of counsel, this court said:
"[A]ppellant’s [oral] confessions to the newsmen are
not covered by Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation between a
private individual and another individual. It governs the relationship
between the individual and the State. The prohibitions therein are
primarily addressed to the State and its agents."17
Jimenez was competent to testify only as to the
substance of what he had heard, but not as to the truth thereof.
However, despite its ruling during trial that it is admitting Jimenez’s
account as an independently relevant statement, the trial court
considered the substance of accused-appellant’s alleged statements to
Jimenez as true and then proceeded to justify conviction of
accused-appellant on circumstantial evidence. In its consideration of
the contents of accused-appellant’s alleged statements to Jimenez, the
trial court treated them as an extrajudicial confession made to a
private party, and not just as an independent relevant statement. This
is error. As previously noted, Jimenez admitted on cross-examination
that there was bad blood between him and accused-appellant. It was,
therefore, improbable that accused-appellant went to Jimenez’s house for
the birthday of the latter’s son, on the occasion of which
accused-appellant confessed to the crime. It is even more improbable
that accused-appellant confessed to the crime. It is even moe improbable
that accused-appellant made his confession in the presence of other
people. Jimenez named three persons as being allegedly present when
accused-appellant made his confession. These were Garcia Payot, Donita
Payot, and Orlando Mojado.18 However, not one of this persons was presented to corroborate Jimenez’s claim.
We are more inclined to believe accused-appellant’s
claim that on the date in question he was in his house in Kapayawi,
Libungan, Cotabato and that he had never gone to Sitio Mapurok, Alamada,
Cotabato.19
Accused-appellant denied Constancio Jimenez’s allegation that he had
transferred residence several times, as well as Onotan Tomas’ allegation
that accused-appellant was his neighbor in Sitio Mapurok, Alamada,
Cotabato. Accused-appellant maintained that he had been a resident of
Kapayawi, Libungan, Cotabato since his childhood.20
Second. There is no evidence that the victim was raped. However, in finding that the victim had been raped, the trial court stated:
Dr. Demetillo testified that he also examined the
[genitalia] of the victim but he did not enter any finding in the report
as he did not find any (TSN, October 29, 1998, pp. 12-13).
The Supreme Court consistently ruled that a medical certificate is not [indispensable] to prove the commission of rape (People vs. Quaimco, 268 SCRA 516; People vs. Ederalino, 271 SCRA 189; People vs. Bugarin, 273 SCRA 384; People vs. Zaballero, 274 SCRA 627). The Highest Court also consistently ruled that lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse (People vs. San Juan, 270 SCRA 693; People vs. Erardo, 277 SCRA 643; People vs. Gabayron, 278 SCRA 78; People vs. Betonio, 279 SCRA 532; People vs. Oliva, 282 SCRA 470).
The trial court is correct in ruling tht the absence
of lacerated wounds in the genitalia does not necessarily mean that rape
had not been committed. Rape, however, is never presumed. We agree
with the Solicitor General, who recommends that accused-appellant be
absolved of the charge of rape, 21
that there must at least be some evidence of finger grips and contusion
on the body of the victims, torn garment, and lacerations, redness, and
swelling, especially of the genital area, to prove rape.22
Indeed, not only is there no proof of rape in this
case but the witness for the prosecution who conducted the necropsy
categorically stated that he did not have any findings concerning
victim’s genitalia.
Third. Nor can accused-appellant be held
responsible for the death of the victim. Evidence showing a mere
possibility of guilt is insufficient to warrant a conviction. In this
case, the trial court stated –
Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides
that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There
is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences
are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances
is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
From the very start of the investigation, accused
Silvano was the principal suspect (Opposition to Motion to Quash, p. 27,
Record). After the incident, the accused left Macabasa, Alamada and
transferred his residence to Midsayap, Cotabato and finally at Libungan,
Cotabato where he was arrested. The accused’s flight is a strong
indication of guilt (People vs. Vitor, 245 SCRA 620) for flight
evidences culpability and a guilty conscience, and it strongly indicates
a guilty mind or betrays the existence of a guilty conscience (People vs. Salvame,
270 SCRA 766). The accused never explained why he fled after the
incident took place. The accused’s admission is corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti e.g. the corpse of victim Maramanay Tomas.
The accused’s admission that he stabbed and killed the victim is further
corroborated by the findings of Dr. Ebenezer Demetillo that the victim
sustained twenty-one (21) stab wounds. (TSN, October 29, 1998, p. 8;
Exhibits "B-4" and "B-5").23
There is no circumstantial evidence to show accused-appellant's guilt:
1. Disregarding accused-appellant’s alleged
admission, the only factual circumstance left is that of flight. Even
this is in question in the face of accused-appellant’s assertion that he
is actually a resident of Brgy. Kapayawi, Libungan, Cotabato since
childhood.
2. The assertion that accused-appellant was a principal suspect from the start of the investigation is not corroborated by evidence.
3. There is no proof that accused-appellant was,
or could have been, in the place and at the time of the commission of
the crime in question.
4. The injuries sustained by the victim Maramanay Tomas, do not indicate the probability that accused-appellant raped and killed her, if at all.
5. The tubao allegedly found near the cadaver of
the victim and turned over to the police was not identified, marked, and
offered as evidence nor in any case shown to belong to
accused-appellant.
As we have held:
Accused-appellant’s conviction by the trial court
hinged on circumstantial evidence. To validly invoke circumstantial
evidence, it must be shown that there is more than one circumstance and
the facts from which the inferences derived are proven. The combination
of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. The circumstances must constitute an unbroken chain
of events that can reasonably lead to the conclusion pointing to the
accused to the exclusion of all others as the author of the crime. . . .
Like a tapestry made of strands which create a pattern when interwoven,
a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld
only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which
leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to
the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person.24
Fourth. The prosecution thus failed to prove
accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To secure a
conviction, it is not enough that the evidence establishes a strong
suspicion or even a probability of guilt. Moral certainty that the
accused committed the crime is required.25
That alibi (which accused-appellant invokes) is the weakest defense is
irrelevant. For when the prosecution fails to discharge its burden, an
accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf.26
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 18, Midsayap, Cotabato, finding accused-appellant Antonio Silvano
guilty of the crime of rape with homicide and sentencing him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the
victim Maramanay Tomas P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as
moral damages, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant
ANTONIO SILVANO is ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable doubt and is
ordered immediately released unless he is lawfully held in custody for
another cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed
to implement this Decision and to report to this Court the action taken
hereon within 5 days upon receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, De Leon, Jr., and Corona, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Per Judge Rasad G. Balindong.
2 Rollo, p. 7.
3 Id., pp. 1-2.
4 Records, p. 2.
5 Id., p. 36.
6 TSN (Samotor Polayagan), pp. 4-7, May 22, 1997; TSN (Onotan Tomas) pp. 14-15, May 22, 1997.
7 TSN (Samotor Polayagan), pp. 4-6, 10, May 22, 1997.
8 Id., p. 11.
9 TSN (Dr. Ebenezer Demetillo), pp. 9, 11, 12-13, Oct. 29, 1998.
10 TSN (Constancio Jimenez), p. 5, March 22, 1995.
11 Id., p. 9.
12 Id., pp. 9-10.
13 TSN (Onotan Tomas), pp. 13-17, May 22, 1997.
14 Order, March 4, 1999; Records, p. 137.
15 TSN (Antonio Silvano), pp. 6-7, March 14, 2000.
16 Decision, p. 8; Records, p. 169.
17 Decision, pp. 3-4; Rollo, pp. 16-17.
18 TSN, p. 5, March 22, 1995.
19 TSN (Antonio Silvano), pp. 3-7, March 14, 2000.
20 Id., p. 3.
21 Rollo, p. 107; Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee, p. 27.
22 Id., p. 104; id., p. 24.
23 Decision, p. 5; Rollo, p. 18.
24 People v. Comesario, 306 SCRA 400, 404 (1999) (footnotes omitted).
25 People v. Ang-Nguho, 314 SCRA 480 (1999).
26 People v. Marcos, 305 SCRA 1, 13 (1999).
No comments:
Post a Comment