THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 181493, August 28, 2008 ]PEOPLE v. RICARDO NOTARION Y ZANORIA +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO NOTARION Y ZANORIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PEOPLE v. RICARDO NOTARION Y ZANORIA +
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO NOTARION Y ZANORIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For review is the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02103, dated 24 August 2007,[1] affirming with modifications the Decision of the Masbate Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 49, in Criminal Case No.
1511,[2] finding accused-appellant Ricardo Notarion y Zanoria guilty of the special complex crime of rape with homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death.
The facts gathered from the records are as follows:
On 28 November 2001, an Information[3] was filed with the RTC charging appellant with the special complex crime of rape with homicide. The accusatory portion of the information reads:
The prosecution presented as witnesses Dionilo Cabague (Cabague), BBB (AAA's husband), and Dr. George Galindez (Dr. Galindez). Their testimonies are summarized as follows:
Cabague, neighbor of appellant, testified that on 25 July 2001, at about 4:30 p.m., he and his wife arrived at their house in Barangay XXX, Municipality of XXX, Province of XXX. He noticed that the buri leaves which served as the door's lock was untied. Thereupon, he heard a noise coming from inside the house. He pushed the door and saw appellant and AAA. Appellant was then putting on his shorts, while AAA was sprawled and motionless on the floor near appellant. Appellant approached and pointed a knife at him. Appellant warned him not to tell anyone of what he saw or he would kill him, his wife and his relatives. Frightened, Cabague and his wife immediately left their house and proceeded to his brother's house where they spent the whole night.[7]
In the morning of the following day, he and his wife returned to their house and learned that AAA was already dead, and that the latter's cadaver was found 10 meters away therefrom.[8]
BBB, husband of AAA, recounted that in the early morning of 25 July 2001, he went out fishing. Upon arriving home at about 4:00 p.m., he noticed that AAA was not around. He went out of the house to look for AAA. At around 8:00 p.m. of the same day, he met appellant who asked him where he came from. He replied that he was looking for AAA. Appellant became nervous, dropped his torch and hurriedly left. Later that evening, he and some relatives and neighbors found AAA's lifeless body several meters away from Cabague's house.[9]
Dr. Galindez, Municipal Health Officer of Placer, Masbate, declared that he conducted a post-mortem examination on AAA's corpse. His findings are as follows[10]
He also concluded that AAA was raped as shown by the following observations: (1) enlargement of AAA's cervical area; (2) second-degree burns in AAA's labia majora (wound no. 15); (3) second-degree burns in AAA's left and right thighs (wound nos. 16 and 17); (4) multiple nail marks in AAA's buttocks (wound no. 18); and (5) the presence of human spermatozoa in AAA's vagina.[13]
The prosecution also proffered documentary evidence to bolster the testimonies of its witnesses, to wit: (a) affidavit of Cabague (Exhibit A);[14] (2) affidavit of BBB (Exhibit B);[15] and (3) post-mortem examination report signed and issued by Dr. Galindez (Exhibit C).[16]
For its part, the defense presented the testimonies of appellant and Maricar Notarion (Maricar). Appellant denied the foregoing accusation and pointed to a certain Solomon Monsanto (Monsanto) as the real perpetrator.
Appellant testified that on 25 July 2001, at about 4:30 p.m., he was at his farm tending his carabao. Later, he saw Monsanto standing beside the lifeless body of AAA which was lying on the ground. Monsanto approached him, poked a gun at him, and threatened to kill him and his family if he would report what he saw. Subsequently, appellant was arrested and charged with raping and killing AAA.[17]
Maricar, daughter of appellant, narrated that on 25 July 2001, at about 4:30 in the afternoon, she and appellant went to their farm to fetch their carabao. Thereafter, she and appellant saw Monsanto hack and shoot AAA. Monsanto approached appellant and poked a gun at the latter. Monsanto warned appellant not to tell anyone of the incident or he and his family would be killed. She and appellant then hurriedly went home.[18]
After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision on 23 January 2006 convicting appellant of the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Appellant was sentenced to death. He was also ordered to pay the heirs of AAA the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness.[25]
We have gone over the testimony of Cabague and found no cogent reason to overturn the RTC's ruling finding Cabague's testimony credible. Cabague testified in a clear and truthful manner that he saw appellant and AAA inside his house on the day and time of the incident. Appellant then was putting on his shorts while AAA was slumped motionless on the floor near appellant. Appellant approached him and pointed a knife at him. Appellant warned him not to tell anyone of what he saw or he would kill him, his wife and his relatives. Terrified, Cabague and his wife immediately left their house and proceeded to his brother's house where they spent the whole night.[26]
BBB and Dr. Galindez corroborated the testimony of Cabague on its relevant points.
Further, the above-mentioned testimonies are consistent with the documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution. The RTC and the Court of Appeals found the testimonies of Cabague, BBB and Dr. Galindez to be consistent and honest. Both courts did not find any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses.
In stark contrast, the testimony of appellant and Maricar composed of denial and alibi were confusing, contradictory and unreliable. Appellant did not mention in his testimony that he was with Maricar when he allegedly saw Monsanto kill AAA.[27] Maricar, nevertheless, testified that she was with appellant when the alleged incident transpired.[28] Further, appellant and Maricar testified that they saw Monsanto kill AAA.[29] Subsequently, however, appellant and Maricar declared that they did not see Monsanto kill AAA.[30]
It is settled that as between bare denials and positive testimony on affirmative matters, the latter is accorded greater evidentiary weight.[31]
Appellant, nonetheless, argues that the evidence presented by the prosecution were merely circumstantial and, thus, insufficient to prove his guilt of the special complex crime of rape with homicide.[32] Also, the fact that Monsanto was relieved by the prosecution from this case as an accused casts doubt on the identity of the real perpetrator.[33]
Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix from which a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.[34]
In rape with homicide, the evidence against the accused is usually circumstantial. The nature of the crime, in which only the victim and the rapist-killer would have been around during its commission, makes the prosecution of the offense particularly difficult because the victim could no longer testify against the perpetrator. Thus, resorting to circumstantial evidence is almost always inevitable, and to demand direct evidence to prove in such instance the modality of the offense and the identity of the perpetrator would be unreasonable.[35]
Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the inference is based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
After carefully reviewing the evidence on record and applying the foregoing parameters to this case, we hold that the evidence adduced by the prosecution adequately proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant. As correctly found by the RTC, the following circumstances, when pieced together, lead to the ineluctable conclusion that appellant was the perpetrator of the crime charged:
Further, Dr. Galindez testified that AAA was raped because human spermatozoa and several wounds were found in and near AAA's vagina.[38]
All of the foregoing circumstances, which were duly proven, undoubtedly constitute an unbroken chain of events leading to a fair and reasonable conclusion that appellant raped and killed AAA.
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 a conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[39] This was sufficiently established in the case at bar.
The fact that Monsanto was relieved by the prosecution from this case as an accused is immaterial because appellant's guilt was duly proven by the evidence of the prosecution.
We shall now determine the propriety of the penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals.
The penalty for the special complex crime of rape with homicide is death under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. However, in view of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346[40] prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty to be meted out to appellant shall be reclusion perpetua in accordance with Section 2 thereof, which reads:
With regard to damages, the heirs of AAA are entitled to civil indemnity amounting to P100,000.00 in keeping with current jurisprudence authorizing the mandatory award of P50,000.00 in case of death, and P50,000.00 upon the finding of the fact of rape.[41] The award of moral damages amounting to P75,000.00 is also just and reasonable in cases of rape with homicide.[42] The Court of Appeals, therefore, acted accordingly in awarding civil indemnity amounting to P100,000.00 and moral damages amounting to P75,000.00 in favor of AAA's heirs.
As to actual damages, we have held that if the amount of the actual damages cannot be determined because no receipts were presented to prove the same, but it was shown that the heirs are entitled thereto, temperate damages amounting to P25,000.00 may be awarded.[43] In the instant case, no receipt or competent proof was presented to show the amount of actual damages incurred by AAA's heirs. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect that AAA's heirs incurred expenses for her coffin, burial, and food during the wake. Hence, the Court of Appeals properly awarded temperate damages amounting to P25,000.00 in lieu of actual damages.
With respect to exemplary damages, Article 2230 of the New Civil Code[44] allows the award thereof as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstance must be expressly and specifically alleged in the information;[45] otherwise, it cannot be considered by the trial court in its judgment, even if such circumstance was subsequently proved during the trial.[46] In the case at bar, no aggravating circumstance was alleged in the information. Thus, the RTC and the Court of Appeals erred in awarding exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, after due deliberation, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02103, dated 24 August 2007, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages is deleted.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, Nachura, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-10.
[2] Penned by Judge Manuel L. Sese; CA rollo, pp. 12-25.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with the real names of her immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her, both to protect her privacy. See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 421-426.
[5] Records, p. 1.
[6] Id. at 30.
[7] TSN, 13 November 2003, pp. 3-10.
[8] Id. at 10-13.
[9] TSN, 17 June 2004, pp. 3-8.
[10] TSN, 11 September 2003, pp. 2-5.
[11] Records, p. 26.
[12] TSN, 11 September 2003, p. 5.
[13] Id. at 6-7.
[14] Records, p. 13.
[15] Id. at 14.
[16] Id. at 26.
[17] TSN, 12 August 2004, pp. 2-6.
[18] TSN, 13 January 2005, pp. 2-5.
[19] CA rollo, p. 24.
[20] Rollo, p. 9.
[21] Id.
[22] CA rollo, pp. 105-106.
[23] Id. at 38.
[24] Id. at 46.
[25] People v. Galido, G.R. Nos. 148689-92, 30 March 2004, 426 SCRA 502, 513.
[26] TSN, 13 November 2003, pp. 3-10.
[27] TSN, 13 January 2005, pp. 6-7.
[28] Id. at 3.
[29] TSN, 12 August 2004, p. 4; TSN, 13 January 2005, p. 4.
[30] Id. at 5.
[31] Ceniza-Manantan v. People, G.R. No. 156248, 28 August 2007, 531 SCRA 364, 375; People v. Major Comiling, 468 Phil. 869, 890 (2004).
[32] CA rollo, p. 44.
[33] Id. at 46.
[34] People v. Padua, G.R. No. 169075, 23 February 2007, 516 SCRA 590, 600-601; People v. Lopez, 371 Phil. 852, 859 (1999); People v. Ayola, 416 Phil. 861, 872 (2001).
[35] People v. Guihama, 452 Phil. 824, 841 (2003); People v. Rayos, 404 Phil. 151, 167-168 (2001).
[36] Records, pp. 90-91.
[37] TSN, 17 June 2004, pp. 5-6.
[38] TSN, 11 September 2003, pp. 6-7.
[39] People v. Guihama, supra note 35 at 843.
[40] Approved on 24 June 2006.
[41] People v. Padua, supra note 34 at 607, citing People v. Tablon, 429 Phil. 1, 17-18 (2002).
[42] Id., citing People v. Magallanes, 457 Phil. 234, 259 (2003).
[43] People v. Abrazaldo, 445 Phil. 109, 126 (2003).
[44] Article 2230, New Civil Code: In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
[45] Sections 8 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[46] Catiis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 153979, 9 February 2006, 482 SCRA 71, 84.
The facts gathered from the records are as follows:
On 28 November 2001, an Information[3] was filed with the RTC charging appellant with the special complex crime of rape with homicide. The accusatory portion of the information reads:
That on or about the 25th day of July, 2001, in the afternoon thereof, at XXX, Barangay XXX, Municipality of XXX, Province of XXX, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one AAA[4] against the latter's will and with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab said AAA with the use of a hunting knife, hitting the latter on the different parts of her body which caused her death.[5]When arraigned on 7 March 2002, appellant, assisted by his counsel de oficio, pleaded "Not guilty" to the charge.[6] Trial on the merits thereafter followed.
The prosecution presented as witnesses Dionilo Cabague (Cabague), BBB (AAA's husband), and Dr. George Galindez (Dr. Galindez). Their testimonies are summarized as follows:
Cabague, neighbor of appellant, testified that on 25 July 2001, at about 4:30 p.m., he and his wife arrived at their house in Barangay XXX, Municipality of XXX, Province of XXX. He noticed that the buri leaves which served as the door's lock was untied. Thereupon, he heard a noise coming from inside the house. He pushed the door and saw appellant and AAA. Appellant was then putting on his shorts, while AAA was sprawled and motionless on the floor near appellant. Appellant approached and pointed a knife at him. Appellant warned him not to tell anyone of what he saw or he would kill him, his wife and his relatives. Frightened, Cabague and his wife immediately left their house and proceeded to his brother's house where they spent the whole night.[7]
In the morning of the following day, he and his wife returned to their house and learned that AAA was already dead, and that the latter's cadaver was found 10 meters away therefrom.[8]
BBB, husband of AAA, recounted that in the early morning of 25 July 2001, he went out fishing. Upon arriving home at about 4:00 p.m., he noticed that AAA was not around. He went out of the house to look for AAA. At around 8:00 p.m. of the same day, he met appellant who asked him where he came from. He replied that he was looking for AAA. Appellant became nervous, dropped his torch and hurriedly left. Later that evening, he and some relatives and neighbors found AAA's lifeless body several meters away from Cabague's house.[9]
Dr. Galindez, Municipal Health Officer of Placer, Masbate, declared that he conducted a post-mortem examination on AAA's corpse. His findings are as follows[10]
Dr. Galindez stated that the confluent hematoma (wound no. 11) around AAA's neck and shoulder indicated suffocation. He said that AAA died of asphyxia secondary to strangulation.[12]
POSTMORTEM EXAMINATION FINDINGS: 1. (+) Hematoma frontal area. 2. (+) lacerated wound 2 cm. x 0.5 cm left upper eyelid. 3. (+) lacerated wound 3 cm. x 1 cm right upper eyelid.
4. (+) Hematoma periorbital area. 5. (+) Hematoma right cheek. 6. (+) lacerated wound 2 cm. x 0.5 cm left upper lip. 7. (+) lacerated wound 1 cm. x 0.5 cm right upper lip. 8. (+) avulsed teeth 2 upper central incisor. 9. (+) avulsed tooth 1 left lateral incisor. 10. (+) avulsed tooth 1 left canine. 11. (+) confluent hematoma surrounding the neck and shoulder. 12. (+) confluent hematoma chest. 13. (+) hematoma left wrist. 14. (+) hematoma hypogastric area with abdominal distention. 15. (+) 2nd degree burns both labia majora.
16. (+) 2nd degree burns circular left thigh.
17. (+) 2nd degree burns circular right thigh. 18. (+) multiple nail marks both buttocks lateral area. 19. (+) multiple abrasion right elbow. SPECULUM EXAMINATION DONE: - (+) cystocele. - Collected 1 ml. whitish fluid in the vaginal canal. SPERM ANALYSIS AT CATAINGAN DISTRICT HOSPITAL: (+) spermatozoa CONCLUSION:
1. Asphyxia 2o strangulation 2. Rape[11]
He also concluded that AAA was raped as shown by the following observations: (1) enlargement of AAA's cervical area; (2) second-degree burns in AAA's labia majora (wound no. 15); (3) second-degree burns in AAA's left and right thighs (wound nos. 16 and 17); (4) multiple nail marks in AAA's buttocks (wound no. 18); and (5) the presence of human spermatozoa in AAA's vagina.[13]
The prosecution also proffered documentary evidence to bolster the testimonies of its witnesses, to wit: (a) affidavit of Cabague (Exhibit A);[14] (2) affidavit of BBB (Exhibit B);[15] and (3) post-mortem examination report signed and issued by Dr. Galindez (Exhibit C).[16]
For its part, the defense presented the testimonies of appellant and Maricar Notarion (Maricar). Appellant denied the foregoing accusation and pointed to a certain Solomon Monsanto (Monsanto) as the real perpetrator.
Appellant testified that on 25 July 2001, at about 4:30 p.m., he was at his farm tending his carabao. Later, he saw Monsanto standing beside the lifeless body of AAA which was lying on the ground. Monsanto approached him, poked a gun at him, and threatened to kill him and his family if he would report what he saw. Subsequently, appellant was arrested and charged with raping and killing AAA.[17]
Maricar, daughter of appellant, narrated that on 25 July 2001, at about 4:30 in the afternoon, she and appellant went to their farm to fetch their carabao. Thereafter, she and appellant saw Monsanto hack and shoot AAA. Monsanto approached appellant and poked a gun at the latter. Monsanto warned appellant not to tell anyone of the incident or he and his family would be killed. She and appellant then hurriedly went home.[18]
After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision on 23 January 2006 convicting appellant of the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Appellant was sentenced to death. He was also ordered to pay the heirs of AAA the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P5,000.00 as exemplary damages. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds the accused, RICARDO NOTARION, guilty of the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide falling under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 4111 and RA 7659 and accordingly sentences him to suffer the SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH.Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 24 August 2007, the appellate court promulgated its Decision affirming with modifications the RTC Decision. It held that the death penalty imposed by the RTC on appellant should be reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Section 2(a) of Republic Act No. 9346 with appellant not eligible for parole under the said law. It also ruled that although the heirs of AAA were not entitled to actual damages because they did not present proof thereof, such as receipts for funeral and burial expenses, they were, nonetheless, entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00, since it was reasonable to expect that the heirs of AAA incurred funeral and burial expenses. Further, it increased the amount of moral damages to P75,000.00 and exemplary damages to P25,000.00.[20] Thus:
Accused is ordered to pay the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) PESOS as civil indemnity; FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) pesos as moral damages and exemplary damages of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS to the heirs of the victim.[19]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed Decision dated January 23, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Cataingan, Masbate, Branch 49 finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that (a) the death penalty imposed by the trial court is reduced to reclusion perpetua and (b) the judgment on the civil liability is modified by ordering the accused-appellant to pay the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages to the heirs of the victim.[21]Apropos the first issue, appellant maintains that his testimony pointing to Monsanto as the one who raped and killed AAA is more credible than the testimony of Cabague.[24]
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 11 September 2007.[22]
Before us, appellant assigned the following errors:
I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[23]
In resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this Court is guided by the following well-settled principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower court, unless there is a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness.[25]
We have gone over the testimony of Cabague and found no cogent reason to overturn the RTC's ruling finding Cabague's testimony credible. Cabague testified in a clear and truthful manner that he saw appellant and AAA inside his house on the day and time of the incident. Appellant then was putting on his shorts while AAA was slumped motionless on the floor near appellant. Appellant approached him and pointed a knife at him. Appellant warned him not to tell anyone of what he saw or he would kill him, his wife and his relatives. Terrified, Cabague and his wife immediately left their house and proceeded to his brother's house where they spent the whole night.[26]
BBB and Dr. Galindez corroborated the testimony of Cabague on its relevant points.
Further, the above-mentioned testimonies are consistent with the documentary evidence submitted by the prosecution. The RTC and the Court of Appeals found the testimonies of Cabague, BBB and Dr. Galindez to be consistent and honest. Both courts did not find any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses.
In stark contrast, the testimony of appellant and Maricar composed of denial and alibi were confusing, contradictory and unreliable. Appellant did not mention in his testimony that he was with Maricar when he allegedly saw Monsanto kill AAA.[27] Maricar, nevertheless, testified that she was with appellant when the alleged incident transpired.[28] Further, appellant and Maricar testified that they saw Monsanto kill AAA.[29] Subsequently, however, appellant and Maricar declared that they did not see Monsanto kill AAA.[30]
It is settled that as between bare denials and positive testimony on affirmative matters, the latter is accorded greater evidentiary weight.[31]
Appellant, nonetheless, argues that the evidence presented by the prosecution were merely circumstantial and, thus, insufficient to prove his guilt of the special complex crime of rape with homicide.[32] Also, the fact that Monsanto was relieved by the prosecution from this case as an accused casts doubt on the identity of the real perpetrator.[33]
Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix from which a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The rules of evidence allow a trial court to rely on circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of guilt. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference.[34]
In rape with homicide, the evidence against the accused is usually circumstantial. The nature of the crime, in which only the victim and the rapist-killer would have been around during its commission, makes the prosecution of the offense particularly difficult because the victim could no longer testify against the perpetrator. Thus, resorting to circumstantial evidence is almost always inevitable, and to demand direct evidence to prove in such instance the modality of the offense and the identity of the perpetrator would be unreasonable.[35]
Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the inference is based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
After carefully reviewing the evidence on record and applying the foregoing parameters to this case, we hold that the evidence adduced by the prosecution adequately proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant. As correctly found by the RTC, the following circumstances, when pieced together, lead to the ineluctable conclusion that appellant was the perpetrator of the crime charged:
In addition thereto, BBB narrated that appellant was nervous and uneasy when he met him along the road on the night of 25 July 2001. When he told appellant that he was looking for AAA, appellant dropped his torch and hurriedly walked away.[37]
- The victim and the accused were inside a single room house;
- The uncontroverted fact that the victim was lying motionless on the floor while the accused was sitting and putting on his short pants;
- There was no other person in the house;
- The accused threatened to kill the witness (Cabague) and the latter's relatives if he (the witness) says anything on what he saw;
- The witness did not see any wound or blood on the motionless body of the victim;
- Death of the victim by strangulation;
- The victim's dead body was found about ten (10) meters away from the house (of Cabague).[36]
Further, Dr. Galindez testified that AAA was raped because human spermatozoa and several wounds were found in and near AAA's vagina.[38]
All of the foregoing circumstances, which were duly proven, undoubtedly constitute an unbroken chain of events leading to a fair and reasonable conclusion that appellant raped and killed AAA.
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 a conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[39] This was sufficiently established in the case at bar.
The fact that Monsanto was relieved by the prosecution from this case as an accused is immaterial because appellant's guilt was duly proven by the evidence of the prosecution.
We shall now determine the propriety of the penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals.
The penalty for the special complex crime of rape with homicide is death under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. However, in view of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346[40] prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty to be meted out to appellant shall be reclusion perpetua in accordance with Section 2 thereof, which reads:
SECTION 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:Notwithstanding the reduction of the penalty imposed on appellant, he is not eligible for parole following Section 3 of said law, which provides:
a) b)
SECTION 3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.Thus, the Court of Appeals was correct in imposing on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without the possibility of parole.
With regard to damages, the heirs of AAA are entitled to civil indemnity amounting to P100,000.00 in keeping with current jurisprudence authorizing the mandatory award of P50,000.00 in case of death, and P50,000.00 upon the finding of the fact of rape.[41] The award of moral damages amounting to P75,000.00 is also just and reasonable in cases of rape with homicide.[42] The Court of Appeals, therefore, acted accordingly in awarding civil indemnity amounting to P100,000.00 and moral damages amounting to P75,000.00 in favor of AAA's heirs.
As to actual damages, we have held that if the amount of the actual damages cannot be determined because no receipts were presented to prove the same, but it was shown that the heirs are entitled thereto, temperate damages amounting to P25,000.00 may be awarded.[43] In the instant case, no receipt or competent proof was presented to show the amount of actual damages incurred by AAA's heirs. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to expect that AAA's heirs incurred expenses for her coffin, burial, and food during the wake. Hence, the Court of Appeals properly awarded temperate damages amounting to P25,000.00 in lieu of actual damages.
With respect to exemplary damages, Article 2230 of the New Civil Code[44] allows the award thereof as part of the civil liability when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstance must be expressly and specifically alleged in the information;[45] otherwise, it cannot be considered by the trial court in its judgment, even if such circumstance was subsequently proved during the trial.[46] In the case at bar, no aggravating circumstance was alleged in the information. Thus, the RTC and the Court of Appeals erred in awarding exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, after due deliberation, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02103, dated 24 August 2007, is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages is deleted.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, (Chairperson), Austria-Martinez, Nachura, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-10.
[2] Penned by Judge Manuel L. Sese; CA rollo, pp. 12-25.
[3] Records, p. 1.
[4] Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the "Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004" and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with the real names of her immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her, both to protect her privacy. See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, 19 September 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 421-426.
[5] Records, p. 1.
[6] Id. at 30.
[7] TSN, 13 November 2003, pp. 3-10.
[8] Id. at 10-13.
[9] TSN, 17 June 2004, pp. 3-8.
[10] TSN, 11 September 2003, pp. 2-5.
[11] Records, p. 26.
[12] TSN, 11 September 2003, p. 5.
[13] Id. at 6-7.
[14] Records, p. 13.
[15] Id. at 14.
[16] Id. at 26.
[17] TSN, 12 August 2004, pp. 2-6.
[18] TSN, 13 January 2005, pp. 2-5.
[19] CA rollo, p. 24.
[20] Rollo, p. 9.
[21] Id.
[22] CA rollo, pp. 105-106.
[23] Id. at 38.
[24] Id. at 46.
[25] People v. Galido, G.R. Nos. 148689-92, 30 March 2004, 426 SCRA 502, 513.
[26] TSN, 13 November 2003, pp. 3-10.
[27] TSN, 13 January 2005, pp. 6-7.
[28] Id. at 3.
[29] TSN, 12 August 2004, p. 4; TSN, 13 January 2005, p. 4.
[30] Id. at 5.
[31] Ceniza-Manantan v. People, G.R. No. 156248, 28 August 2007, 531 SCRA 364, 375; People v. Major Comiling, 468 Phil. 869, 890 (2004).
[32] CA rollo, p. 44.
[33] Id. at 46.
[34] People v. Padua, G.R. No. 169075, 23 February 2007, 516 SCRA 590, 600-601; People v. Lopez, 371 Phil. 852, 859 (1999); People v. Ayola, 416 Phil. 861, 872 (2001).
[35] People v. Guihama, 452 Phil. 824, 841 (2003); People v. Rayos, 404 Phil. 151, 167-168 (2001).
[36] Records, pp. 90-91.
[37] TSN, 17 June 2004, pp. 5-6.
[38] TSN, 11 September 2003, pp. 6-7.
[39] People v. Guihama, supra note 35 at 843.
[40] Approved on 24 June 2006.
[41] People v. Padua, supra note 34 at 607, citing People v. Tablon, 429 Phil. 1, 17-18 (2002).
[42] Id., citing People v. Magallanes, 457 Phil. 234, 259 (2003).
[43] People v. Abrazaldo, 445 Phil. 109, 126 (2003).
[44] Article 2230, New Civil Code: In criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Such damages are separate and distinct from fines and shall be paid to the offended party.
[45] Sections 8 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[46] Catiis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 153979, 9 February 2006, 482 SCRA 71, 84.