FACTS:

On the evening of March 25, 1994, Mardy Doria noticed that his nine-year-old sister, Mylene, was missing. Maximo Doria sought the help of neighbor Andong Rondero to search for Mylene. They searched around Pugaro Elementary School and the seashore but found no trace of her. Maximo saw accused-appellant pumping an artesian well with an ice pick clenched in his mouth and bloodied hands. Maximo reported this to Andong without revealing that the person he saw was Andong's own son. Later, Maximo and Andong, together with other neighbors, found Mylene's lifeless body near the school. She had severe injuries and was naked from the waist down. A pair of shorts, identified as Mylene's, was found under her buttocks, and blood was splattered in the artesian well where accused-appellant was seen. Autopsy revealed multiple injuries on the victim's body, including massive intracranial hemorrhage and fractures. Accused-appellant was charged with rape with homicide.

The prosecution presented evidence that accused-appellant committed rape with homicide against Mylene. The autopsy report showed injuries consistent with sexual assault and blunt force trauma. Comparative micro-physical examination on the hair strands found on the victim and accused-appellant revealed similarities in their characteristics. Accused-appellant chose not to testify and instead presented his wife and father as witnesses to establish an alibi. They testified that accused-appellant had a quarrel with his wife and a physical altercation with his father on the night of the incident. Accused-appellant's father testified that he hit his son several times, causing him to bleed profusely and stain his clothes. Accused-appellant's wife washed his blood-stained clothes, but they were seized by the police when she returned home. Accused-appellant was subsequently arrested.

The trial court convicted accused-appellant of murder and sentenced him to death. However, the court later modified its decision and found accused-appellant guilty of homicide instead. The court imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, citing a provision in the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act" which dictated a lesser penalty for homicide.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to sustain the conviction of accused-appellant.

2. Whether the slippers presented as evidence in court are the same ones recovered at the scene of the crime.

3. Whether the pair of slippers presented in court were the same ones recovered at the scene of the crime.

4. Whether the testimonies of the defense witnesses are credible.

5. Whether the hair samples taken from the accused without his consent are admissible as evidence.

6. Whether the blood-stained undershirt and short pants taken from the accused without a search warrant are admissible as evidence.

7. Whether the accused-appellant's bloodied garments, seized in violation of his constitutional right against illegal searches and seizure, are admissible as evidence.

8. Whether the accused-appellant should be convicted of the special complex crime of rape with homicide.

9. Whether the accused-appellant's warrantless arrest was lawful.

RULING:

1. The appeal has no merit. The Court ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution, consisting of several circumstances pointing to accused-appellant as the author of the crime, is sufficient to sustain his conviction. These circumstances include the witness's identification of accused-appellant washing his bloodied hands at an artesian well shortly after the victim's probable time of death, the recovery of a pair of slippers belonging to accused-appellant with a distinctive red leaf marking at the crime scene, the similarity in hair strands between accused-appellant and the victim, and the presence of bloodstains on accused-appellant's clothing.

2. The Court did not specifically address the issue of the slippers presented as evidence. However, the fact that the slippers were positively identified by the witness as belonging to accused-appellant and the presence of a distinguishing mark on the left slipper support the conclusion that they are the same slippers recovered at the scene of the crime.

3. The pair of slippers presented in court were considered to be the same ones recovered at the scene of the crime because they correspond to the photographs taken and corroborate the testimony of prosecution witnesses.

4. The testimonies of the defense witnesses were found to be incredulous and lacking in credibility.

5. The hair samples taken from the accused without his consent, even though submitted to the NBI for forensic examination, are admissible as evidence since the prohibition on the use of evidence obtained without the assistance of counsel during custodial investigation applies only to testimonial compulsion or evidence communicative in nature acquired from the accused under duress.

6. The blood-stained undershirt and short pants taken from the accused without a search warrant are inadmissible as evidence since they were illegally obtained by the police officers.

7. The accused-appellant's bloodied garments are inadmissible in court as evidence since they were seized in violation of his constitutional right against illegal searches and seizure.

8. Even without the admission of the bloodied garments as corroborative evidence, the circumstances against the accused-appellant are sufficient to establish his guilt of the special complex crime of rape with homicide.

9. Although the accused-appellant's warrantless arrest was not lawful, any irregularity attending the arrest is deemed waived when the accused voluntarily submits himself to the court by entering a plea of guilty or not guilty during the arraignment and participating in the proceedings.

PRINCIPLES:

• Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for conviction if there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, and the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

• The test for accepting circumstantial evidence as proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is that the series of circumstances duly proved must be consistent with each other and each and every circumstance must be consistent with the accused's guilt and inconsistent with his innocence.

• The use of evidence against the accused obtained by virtue of his testimony or admission without the assistance of counsel during custodial investigation is proscribed under the Constitution.

• The psychological atmosphere of custodial investigations in the absence of procedural safeguards is inherently coercive in nature.

• The Constitution recognizes that compulsion can be mental as well as physical, and that coercion includes any pressure that overbears the accused's will, disables him from making a free and rational choice, or impairs his capacity for making rational judgment.

• The prohibition on the use of evidence obtained without the assistance of counsel during custodial investigation applies only to testimonial compulsion or evidence communicative in nature acquired from the accused under duress.

• The libertarian exclusionary rule known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" states that evidence illegally obtained by the state should not be used to gain other evidence because the illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.

• Evidence seized in violation of the accused's constitutional right against illegal searches and seizure is inadmissible in court.

• The absence of spermatozoa in the victim's private part does not negate the commission of rape when other evidence, such as physical injuries, supports the commission of the crime.

• Physical injuries on the victim, such as contusions and lacerations, strongly indicate the employment of force in the commission of rape.

• A warrantless arrest, although not lawful, is deemed waived when the accused voluntarily submits to the court by entering a plea and participating in the proceedings.

• An appeal throws the whole case for review, and the appellate court has the duty to correct any errors found in the judgment appealed from, whether raised as assigned errors or not.

• Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659 amends Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, allowing for the possible exercise of the pardoning power by the Office of the President.

• Guilt beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of proof in criminal cases.