Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee, -
versus - FABIAN G. ROMERO, Appellant. |
G.R. No.
181041
Present: *CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson, **BRION, Acting Chairperson, BERSAMIN, ***ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: February
23, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D
E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
We resolve the appeal from the July
3, 2007 decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00970. The CA
affirmed with modification the decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 43, Dagupan City, finding Fabian G. Romero (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex
crime of rape with homicide, and sentencing him to suffer the death penalty.
On the evening of September 5, 2004,
Joanna Pasaoa, a Grade 2 student, saw her friend, AAA,[3]
walking towards the appellant’s house. Joanna followed AAA to the appellant’s
house, and saw her and the appellant watching television together. Thereafter, the
appellant instructed Joanna to buy a bottle of Red Horse beer. Joanna handed
the bottle of beer to the appellant when she returned, and then went home.
After a while, Joanna decided to go
back to the appellant’s house to pickup AAA. When she was about four (4) meters
away from the appellant’s house, she saw the appellant outside his house
repeatedly stabbing AAA. Joanna ran away
and reported the incident to her mother.
At around 8:00 p.m. of the same day, BBB,
AAA’s father, went to his brother-in-law, CCC, and asked the latter to help him
search for AAA. When they passed by the appellant’s place, they saw the
appellant pouring liquid into a fire. They approached the appellant, but the
latter fled towards his house.
BBB and CCC inspected what the
appellant was burning, and saw partially burnt grasses and clothes. Thereafter,
they saw AAA’s lifeless body covered with grass, one (1) meter away from the fire.
AAA’s body was half-naked and partially
burnt; it also bore multiple stab wounds.
CCC lifted AAA’s body, while BBB
stayed and shouted invectives at the appellant. Thereafter, the townspeople and
barangay officials arrived and
surrounded the appellant’s house. Soon after, the police came and arrested the
appellant.
The prosecution charged the appellant
before the RTC with the special complex crime of rape with homicide. The
appellant denied the charges against him, and claimed that he was drinking with
his buddies until 8:30 p.m. on September 5, 2004.
The RTC found the appellant guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and imposed the death penalty. It
also ordered the appellant to pay the victim’s heirs the following amounts: P75,000.00
as civil indemnity; P50,000.00 as moral damages; and P40,000.00
as exemplary damages.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC
decision with the following modifications: (1) the penalty of death was reduced
to reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole; (2) civil indemnity was increased to P100,000.00;
(3) moral damages was increased to P75,000.00; (4) exemplary damages was
increased to P100,000.00; and (5)
the appellant was further ordered to pay the victim’s heirs P25,000.00
as temperate damages.
The
CA held that Joanna positively identified the appellant as the person who
repeatedly stabbed the victim. It also gave weight to the physician’s finding
that the victim had been sexually abused before she was killed. It further
ruled that the pieces of evidence obtained at the appellant’s house were
admissible.
We deny the appeal, but reduce the amount of exemplary damages.
In the special complex crime of rape
with homicide, both the rape and the homicide must
be established beyond reasonable doubt.[4] The
prosecution for this crime is particularly difficult since the victim can no
longer testify against the perpetrator of the crime.[5] Thus, resort to circumstantial evidence is usually
unavoidable.[6]
Circumstantial
evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the
main fact in issue may be inferred based on reason and common experience. Under
Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if the following
requisites concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from
which the inferences are derived have been established; and (c) the combination
of all the circumstances unavoidably leads to a finding of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.[7] These circumstances must be
consistent with one another, and the only rational hypothesis that can be drawn
therefrom must be the guilt of the accused.
In
the present case, no one witnessed AAA being raped. Nonetheless, the following circumstances form a
solid and unbroken chain of events that leads us to conclude beyond reasonable
doubt that the appellant had raped the victim: first, AAA and the appellant were seen watching television together
at the latter’s house; second,
AAA’s half-naked, partially burnt and lifeless body was seen outside the
appellant’s house, one (1) meter away from where the appellant had been seen
burning clothes; third, AAA’s
legs were spread apart, and the labia of her private part was gaping when her
body was found; fourth, Dr. Jesus
Arturo De Vera, the Municipal Health Officer of Calasiao, Pangasinan, testified
that AAA had hymenal lacerations at 4, 7 and 10 o’clock positions, and anal
lacerations at 7 and 10 o’clock positions;
fifth, Dr. De Vera stated
that AAA’s anal and hymenal lacerations could have been caused by a hard object
like an erect penis; sixth, Nerigo
Daciego, the Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory, saw positive
signs of anal and vaginal penetrations on AAA; and finally,
Daciego testified that AAA had been raped when she was still alive due to the
presence of amucosal erosion on her anal and vaginal tissues.
These circumstances, taken together,
lead to no other conclusion than that the appellant, to the exclusion of
others, had raped AAA.
The prosecution likewise established
that the appellant had killed AAA. Joanna positively identified the appellant as
the person who repeatedly stabbed AAA. The lower courts found her testimony
convincing and credible. We have no reason to doubt Joanna’s identification of
the appellant, as the records show that she was merely four (4) meters away from
the incident and that the area was illuminated by a light coming from the
appellant’s house. The defense likewise did not impute any ill motive on her
part to falsely testify against the appellant. At any rate, findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect; the trial court has the distinct
opportunity of viewing the demeanor of the witnesses as they
testify, and of judging – based on its firsthand observation – whether their
witnesses are telling the truth.
Joanna’s testimony was also corroborated
by Dr. De Vera and Daciego who both stated that the victim suffered, among
others, 29 stab wounds.
In addition, the following pieces of
physical evidence found at the appellant’s house lead to no conclusion other than
the appellant’s guilt: a kitchen knife with bloodstains; a wet towel stained
with blood; bloodstains at the door of his house; and a broomstick, T-shirt,
pillow case and blanket, all with bloodstains. The PNP Crime Laboratory found
that these bloodstains contained “female genes.”
We do not find the appellant’s
uncorroborated alibi and denial believable as they contradict the testimonial
and physical evidence presented by the prosecution. Alibi and denial
necessarily fail when there is positive evidence of the physical presence of the
accused at the crime scene, as in this case.
While
correct in all the above respects, the CA committed an overreach in the award
of exemplary damages. Pursuant to
prevailing jurisprudence, we have to reduce this award from P100,000.00
to P50,000.00.[8]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we AFFIRM the July 3, 2007 decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00970, with the MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages is REDUCED to P50,000.00.
SO
ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
(on wellness leave)
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
|
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate
Justice |
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO Associate Justice |
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* On wellness leave.
** Designated Acting Chairperson of the Third Division per Special Order No. 925 dated January 24, 2011.
***Designated additional Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 926 dated January 24, 2011.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr.; rollo, pp. 2-17.
[2] Penned by Judge Silverio Q. Castillo; CA rollo, pp. 17-37.
[3] See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, citing Section 40, Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children.
[4] People v. Narzabal, G.R. No. 174066, October 12, 2010.
[5] People v. Seranilla, G.R. Nos. 113022-24, December 15, 2000, 348 SCRA 227, 235.
[6] See People v. Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, August 21, 2001, 363 SCRA 452, 464.
[7] See People v. Pascual, G.R. No. 172326, January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA 242, 252.
[8] See People v. Narzabal, supra note 4; and People v. Villarino, G.R. No. 185012, March 5, 2010.