View full case

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO NANAS

FACTS:

The accused-appellant Francisco Nanas was charged with the crime of rape with homicide. The prosecution presented several witnesses, including Bienvenido Beatisola who saw the victim Edna Fabello at the dance hall on the night of the incident. Beatisola observed that Edna Fabello constantly went in and out of the dance hall, and he last saw her passing the place where accused-appellant Francisco Nanas was drinking on her way to the rice paddies. Beatisola later witnessed accused-appellant and another person beating up a girl in a rice paddy. He identified accused-appellant because of the moonlight and the use of a flashlight. Accused-appellant allegedly drew his bolo and hacked the girl twice. Beatisola immediately reported the incident to his brother-in-law. The victim's father, Primitivo Fabello, also attended the dance and noticed that Edna was missing. He found the accused-appellant searching for something and later found the personal effects of his daughter. He discovered bloodstains on the dike and a bamboo pole, which led him to the dead body of his daughter in a canal. Police Officer Serafin Feronilmo found the dead body of Edna Fabello with slash wounds and stab wounds.

The case involves the complex crime of rape with homicide. The body of Edna Fabello was found in a corn paddy, with multiple stab and hack wounds. Near the crime scene, a bloodstained bamboo pole, a pair of slippers, the scabbard of a knife, a toy gun, and a hair clip were discovered. Primitivo Fabello informed the police officer that he had encountered accused-appellant near the crime scene, prompting the officer to invite accused-appellant to the police station for questioning. Accused-appellant admitted to owning the pair of red rubber slippers found at the crime scene but denied responsibility for the crime. The body of the victim was examined by Dr. Mary Joyce M. Faeldan, who determined the cause of death to be avulsion of the brain and asphyxia secondary to a hack wound. The victim's body also showed contusions, hematoma, and signs of sexual assault. Accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was in Miag-Ao, Iloilo participating in fiesta celebrations on the date of the incident. Accused-appellant's sister and a barangay captain testified to support his alibi and to establish a long-standing enmity between accused-appellant and a witness. After trial, accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced to death. The case is now on automatic review.

The accused-appellant raises several errors in his Appellant's Brief. He argues that the prosecution failed to establish all the elements of rape. The first element, carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse, was not proven through expert medical opinion and the lacerations reflected in the medical report do not conclusively prove sexual intercourse. The prosecution also failed to establish the elements of rape, namely the use of force or intimidation, the deprivation of reason or unconsciousness of the woman, or the woman being under 12 years of age. Assuming sexual intercourse was established with these circumstances, there was no expert testimony showing it was made on the day of the alleged crime and no evidence that the accused was the perpetrator. The accused further contends that the prosecution witness, Bienvenido Beatisola, is not a credible witness due to his unrebuted criminal records and his motive to fabricate against the accused. The accused also questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, stating their accounts are incredible and full of inconsistencies. Lastly, the accused claims that the trial court erred in holding that the prosecution established his criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt and in not appreciating the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and intoxication. In the complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the homicide must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the prosecution established the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. Whether the trial court erred in relying on the testimony of prosecution witness Bienvenido Beatisola.

  3. Whether the trial court erred in relying on the accounts of prosecution witnesses.

  4. Whether the trial court erred in holding that the prosecution established the criminal liability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  5. Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and intoxication.

  6. Whether the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime of homicide.

  7. Whether witness Beatisola's testimony should be rejected due to his questionable reputation and alleged motive.

  8. Whether the account of the prosecution witnesses is credible and consistent.

  9. Whether the accused-appellant can be convicted of homicide instead of rape with homicide.

  10. Whether the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and intoxication should be appreciated in favor of the accused-appellant.

  11. Whether the award for exemplary damages is proper.

  12. Whether or not the award for exemplary damages is proper.

  13. Whether or not the heirs of the deceased are entitled to moral damages.

RULING:

  1. The prosecution failed to establish the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. The trial court did not err in relying on the testimony of prosecution witness Bienvenido Beatisola.

  3. The trial court did not err in relying on the accounts of prosecution witnesses.

  4. The trial court erred in holding that the prosecution established the criminal liability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  5. The trial court erred in not appreciating mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and intoxication.

  6. The circumstantial evidence, when analyzed and taken together, leads to the conclusion of the accused's guilt for the death of the victim. The evidence includes the finding of the victim's personal effects, the eyewitness account of the accused hacking a girl, the accused looking for his knife near the crime scene, the recovery of the scabbard and other personal belongings of the victim in the cornfield, and the admission of owning the slippers found at the crime scene. Thus, the accused's conviction based on circumstantial evidence is upheld as the circumstances prove an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that the accused is guilty.

  7. The witness's reputation cannot be impeached by evidence of particular wrongful acts unless there is proof of previous conviction by final judgment. The evidence presented regarding the witness's alleged previous wrongful acts merely established that criminal complaints were filed against him, but there was no showing of conviction. Therefore, the witness's competence as a witness is not affected. Moreover, the alleged bad blood and motive between the witness and the accused, including a previous fight, was not given credence by the court due to lack of evidence and bias of the witnesses testifying on this matter.

  8. The court held that the account of the prosecution witnesses is credible and consistent. The alleged improbabilities mentioned by the accused-appellant do not adversely affect the credibility of the witnesses.

  9. The court held that the accused-appellant can only be convicted of homicide instead of rape with homicide since no circumstance which would qualify the killing to murder was sufficiently alleged in the information charging accused-appellant.

  10. The court held that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated since accused-appellant did not voluntarily submit himself to the police authorities and did not show repentance. The court also held that the alternative circumstance of intoxication cannot be mitigating since there was no evidence that accused-appellant's consumption of alcohol deprived him of self-control.

  11. The court held that the award for exemplary damages must be deleted since there was no proof that the killing was attended by any aggravating circumstance.

  12. The award for exemplary damages is deleted for lack of legal basis.

  13. The heirs of the deceased are not entitled to moral damages due to the lack of evidence presented by the prosecution.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

  • 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. Resort to circumstantial evidence is usually unavoidable.

  • Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

  • In proving rape, hymenal laceration is not necessary. The presence of lacerations does not conclusively prove rape.

  • A medical certificate or the testimony of a physician is presented not to prove that the victim was raped but to show that the victim had lost her virginity. A hymenal tear may be caused by other objects or may arise from other causes.

  • Lack of expert testimony or medical opinion may affect the probative value of medical findings in a rape case.

  • Conviction for rape with homicide based on purely circumstantial evidence requires other telltale signs of rape such as the location and description of the victim's clothing, the position of the body when found, presence of spermatozoa, etc.

  • Conviction based on circumstantial evidence will be upheld if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused as the guilty person.

  • A witness's reputation for truth, honesty, or integrity may be impeached by evidence that their general reputation is bad, but evidence of particular wrongful acts without proof of conviction by final judgment is insufficient to impeach the witness's competence.

  • Motive alone, without sufficient evidence, cannot discredit a witness's testimony. It must be shown that the alleged motive is reasonable and supported by credible evidence.

  • The criminal mind is generally an irrational mind and its actuations are often abnormal, erratic, and unpredictable.

  • In a complex crime, if the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component offenses, the accused can be convicted of the other offense proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  • In rape with homicide, the qualifying circumstance of murder must be sufficiently alleged and proved in order to convict the accused of murder in case the evidence fails to support the charge of rape.

  • For voluntary surrender to be considered a mitigating circumstance, the offender must not be actually arrested, surrender to a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority, and surrender voluntarily, which means the surrender must be spontaneous and show the intent of the accused to submit unconditionally to the authorities.

  • To consider intoxication as a mitigating circumstance, the accused must show that, at the time of the commission of the criminal act, he consumed a sufficient quantity of alcoholic drinks to blur his reason and deprive him of self-control, and that such intoxication is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.

  • Exemplary damages can only be awarded in criminal cases when the crime is committed with aggravating circumstances.

  • Exemplary damages cannot be awarded without a legal basis.

  • Evidence must be adduced by the offended parties to warrant an award for moral damages in crimes involving the taking of human life.