G.R. No.

211027               June 29, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

On appeal is the Decision  dated September 24, 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA)-Cagayan
1

de Oro City in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00805-MIN affirming with modification the
Judgment  dated September 30, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kidapawan City,
2

Branch 17, in Criminal Case No. 207-2000. The RTC found appellant Jose Broniola alias
"Asot" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape with Homicide under Republic Act (R.A) No.
8353 , Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
3

and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the
victim, AAA,  the sum of ₱100,000.00 as civil indemnity.
4

Antecedent Facts

AAA, a Grade VI pupil, left her house for school in the morning of February 28, 2000. She did
not return home that day. Her lifeless body was found on February 29, 2000 in a grassy lot
near an uninhabited farm hut at Sitio Kabanatian, Barangay Tumanding, Arakan, Cotabato.

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Oscar D. Bayog filed the following Information  charging
5

appellant with the crime of rape with homicide:

That on or about February 28, 2000, in the Municipality of Arakan, Province of Cotabato,
Philippines, the said accused, armend with a bolo (Lagaraw), did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force and intimidation, have a carnal knowledge
with [AAA], minor, 13 years old, against her will, that after the occasion, accused with intent
to kill, attack, assault, hack and use physical violence to the above-named victim, thus
inflicting upon her hack wounds on the different parts of her body, which is the direct and
proximate cause of her death thereafter.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

At his arraignment, appellant, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge.
After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

On February 28, 2000, at around 5:30 in the afternoon, Alfredo Abag  (Abag), a resident of
6

Sitio Kabanatian,  Bgy. Tumanding, was on his way home bringing some "Taiwan" fish to sell
7

when he met the appellant at a shortcut road passable only to people and animals. He
noticed that appellant had scratches on his face and his hand was holding a lagaraw  (bolo)
8

with blood on it. Appellant asked for the price of the fish but he did not buy and just left. From
what he had observed, appellant was restless and uneasy. 9
Meanwhile, AAA’s father, BBB, reported to the barangay authorities that his daughter was
missing. In the morning of February 29, 2000, he, together with Abag and two barangay
officials, began to search for AAA. They found her already dead, lying on a grassy area near
a farm hut owned by Jhonefer Q. Darantianao . AAA’s body bore several hack wounds,
10

blood oozed from her mouth, her one hand and one finger were cut off. He knows appellant
because they are neighbors. Their families had a rift because appellant’s father was killed by
his son-in-law, Lito Miguel. 11

Dr. Sofronio T. Edu, Jr., Municipal Health Officer or Arakan, conducted a post-mortem
examination of the cadaver of AAA. He submitted a Post-Mortem Report  with the following
12

findings:

Multiple hacked wounds:

Left face mandibular area, partial transaction

Left neck area lateral and anterior area, partial transaction extending into the
vertebra

Left hand completely transected at the midpalmar area

Right thumb completely transected

Right hand partially transected at the palmer area, medial

Right wrist, partially transected anterior

Perineal and internal examination:

Blood stained white underwear

Lacerated hymen at 3, 9 and 11 o’clock position

Whitish discharge sent to Arakan, Valley District Hospital Antipas, Cotabato

CAUSE OF DEATH:

Cardio-Respiratory Arrest secondary to hemorrhage secondary to multiple

According to Dr. Edu, the probable cause of death was loss of blood due to the hack
wounds. He also opined that the genital injury could have been caused by a penetrating
penis or any blunt object.
13

Version of the Defense

In the morning of February 28, 2000, appellant was plowing his farm located adjacent to their
house. After having lunch, he worked in the fishpond just beside their house until 3:00
o’clock in the afternoon. Thereafter, he stayed inside their house together with his mother,
wife and children. Pelita  Antac, who is a niece of her mother, and Jessie Panesales who is
14

the husband of his younger sister, were also there in the house. He denied having left house
at that time and meeting Abag at Sitio Banataian. 15

Appellant claimed he does not know Abag. AAA or BBB. He admitted that his family has a
land in Sitio Kabanatian but after the death of his father, he does not go there anymore.
When BBB testified in this case, it was only then he learned that BBB is the father-in-law of
Lito Miguel who reportedly killed his (appellant) father. He denied having grudges with the
family of BBB and he does not have any knowledge regarding the amicable settlement
between their families in connection with the killingof his father. At present, Lito Miguel is
now his co-inmante at the provincial jail and they are now friends. Lito Miguel told him that
Lito killed his father because they had a quarrel. When Lito Miguel asked him about this case
of rape with homicide, he told Lito Miguel that he did not do it.
16

Pelita Antac stayed in appellant’s house from February 23, 2000 until the second week of
March, because it was planting season. She corroborated the testimony of appellant, who is
her cousin, that he never left the house on February 28, 2000 and just worked in his farm in
Bgy. Tumanding. 17

Ruling of the RTC

The trial court found the testimony of Abag to be straightforward, categorical and convincing,
which established that appellant went to Sitio Kabanatian where Abag met him coming from
the shortcut road in the afternoon of February 28, 2000 carrying a blood-stained lagaraw.
Said court gave no credence to appellant’s defense of denial and alibi as it failed to show the
impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime and to rebut the prosecution’s
circumstantial evidence proving that he committed the rape and killing of AAA.

Ruling of the CA

The CA found no merit in appellant’s argument that the circumstantial evidence failed to
prove he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide. It noted that the timing
of witness Abag’s encounter with appellant who was then holding a lagaraw stained with
blood, restless and with scratches on his face, coincides with the time when the victim was
missing, and the place was near the sport the dead victim was found the next day. As to
appellant’s alibi, the CA also was not convinced and held that the rule that alibi and denial
are weak defenses applies even where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence.

The fallo of the CA Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated September 30, 2009 of the
Regional Trial Court, 12th Judicial Region, Branch 17 of Kidapawan City in Criminal Case
No. 207-2000 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA is imposed without the possibility of parole. In addition to the ₱100,000.00 civil
indemnity, moral and exemplary damages shall also be awarded in the amount of
SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND (₱75,000.00) PESOS and THIRTY THOUSAND (₱30,000.00)
PESOS, respectively. An interest at the rate of six percent (6%) period shall be applied to the
award of civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages from the finality of the judgment until
fully paid.

SO ORDERED. 18
 Our Ruling

The appeal is without merit.

Appellant was charged and convicted of rape with homicide. The felony of rape with
homicide is a special complex crime that is, two or more crimes that the law treats as a
single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse.  In
19

rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1) the appellant had carnal
knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force,
threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means
of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman. 20

In this case, nobody witnessed the actual rape and killing of AAA. Appellant, however may
still be proven as the culprit despite the absence of eyewitnesses. Direct evidence is not a
condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the
absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence
to discharge its burden.  As we held in People v. Pascual :
21 22

It is settled that in the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the
homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, we have held that
the crime of rape is difficult to prove because it is generally unwitnessed and very often only
the victim is left to testify for herself. It becomes even more difficult when the complex crime
of rape with homicide is committed because the victim could no longer testify. Thus, in
crimes of rape with homicide, as here, resort to circumstantial evidence is usually
unavoidable. 23

Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which
the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common
experience.  Section 4, Rule 133, of the Revised Rules of Evidence, as amended, sets forth
24

the requirements of circumstantial evidence that is sufficient for conviction, viz:

SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. – Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for

(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

The RTC and CA found the following circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution
as sufficient for the conviction of appellant: First, witness Abag met the appellant on a
shortcut road near the place where AAA’s dead body was found, at about the same time
(5:30 p.m.) AAA went missing as she failed to return home that day, February 28, 2000;
Second, appellant had scratches on his face and he was holding a lagaraw a type of bolo
used in the rural areas, which was stained with blood, and he was restless and uneasy;
Third, in the morning of the following day, February 29, 2000, AAA’s lifeless body was found
with several hack wounds inflicted on her face, neck and extremities, one hand and one
finger were totally severed; Forth. The post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Edu
confirmed that AAA died from loss of blood due to multiple hack wounds, her underwear was
blood-stained, she had hymenal lacerations and a whitish discharge was found in her
vagina; Fifth, appellant had the motive to commit the crime against AAA considering that it
was BBB’s son-in-law, Lito Miguel, who killed appellant’s father; and Sixth, appellant was
evasive when being questioned on his knowledge of the identity of his father’s killer and the
latter’s relationship to the family of AAA, and the amicable settlement executed by his mother
in behalf of appellant’s family.

We concur with the CA and RTC.

Considering all the circumstances mentioned and in light of previous rulings, we are satisfied
that the evidence adduced against appellant constitutes an unbroken chain leading to the
one fair and reasonable conclusion that appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. It is
doctrinal that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not
mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute
certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction
in an unprejudiced mind.  This was adequately established in the case at bar.
25

As regards the penalty imposed, R.A. No. 8353 provides:

ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. – Rape is committed –

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:

a) Through force, threat or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

ART. 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be
punished by reclusion perpetua.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be
death.

On the other hand, Section 2 of R.A. No. 9346 or "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines" provides:

SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:

(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or

(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
Furthermore, Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 provides, "[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished
with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by
reason of this Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended."

The CA thus correctly modified the RTC judgment by declaring that the penalty of reclusion
perpetua is without the possibility of parole, in accordance with the law.

Conformably with People v. Gambao,  we sustain the award of ₱100,000 as civil indemnity
26

and increase the awards of moral and exemplary damages to ₱100,000 each. In addition,
we award ₱25,000 to the victim’s heirs as temperate damages in lieu of unproven actual
damages.  The CA correctly added that damages assessed in this case shall be subject to
27

interest at six percent (6%) per annum.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated September 24, 2013 of the
Court of Appeals-Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. CR-HC No 00805-MIN is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the awards of moral and exemplary damages are
increased to ₱100,000 eah and that temperate damages of ₱25,000 is awarded to the heirs
of AAA.

With costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.