This is an automatic review of the Decision dated July 30, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Second Judicial Region, Branch 18, Ilagan, Isabela, sentencing the accused-appellant to death for killing and raping a ten-year old girl.

On July 13, 1995, an Information was filed charging said accused-appellant for the crime of Rape with Homicide committed as follows:

That on or about the 4th day of March, 1995, in the municipality of Ilagan, Province of Isabela, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force, intimidation and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge with one Rea Ballesteros, a minor, against the latter's will and consent;

That on the occasion and by reason of the said rape, the said accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, wit intent to kill and without any just motive, assault, attack and hit a blunt instrument the said Rea Ballesteros, inflicting upon her, injuries on the head, which directly caused her death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^[1]

Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial, thereby, ensued with the prosecution presenting (1) Rita Ballesteros, (2) Alfredo Manabat, (3) Mariano Tumolva, (4) Placido Gangan, (5) Elizabeth Deraco, (6) SPO2 Walberto Agpawa and (7) Dr. Conrado Gabriel, Sr. as their witnesses. For the defense, the accused-appellant and his live-in partner, Susan Domalanta testified in court.

The facts as found by the trial court are as follows:

In the early morning of February 28, 1995, ten (10) years old Rhea Ballesteros bade good-bye to her mother Rita Ballesteros to attend her classes at East Central Elementary School, Ilagan, Isabela. She was dressed with the school regulation uniform of white shirt, blue skirt, white socks with brown shoes and carried a school bag colored black and green. Inside her bag were ruled pad, pencil, notebook and a school book.

Manuel Gannaban works as a baker at Elsa's Bake Shop owned by Elizabeth Deraco of Centro, Ilagan, Isabela. During his stint as a baker in that shop, he befriended Rhea according to Deraco (see also Exh. "E"). At about 11:00 A.M. on February 28, 1995, Gannaban left the Bake Shop for Barangay San Ignacio, Ilagan, Isabela.

On the same day, February 28, 1995, between 3:00 and 4:00 P.M. , Alfredo Manabat was playing basketball at the barangay park with Mario Carino and others at San Ignacio, Ilagan, Isabela. Manabat saw Gannaban pass by the park with a young girl. She was wearing a white shirt and blue skirt. Both were going towards the northern direction of the barangay (see also Exhibit "A").

On the same day, between 4:00 and 5:00 P.M., Mariano Tumolva, a fisherman and a widower was at home at Barangay San Ignacio, Ilagan, Isabela. Gannaban and a young girl about 10 years old arrived in the house and asked for food. Gannaban who is well known to Tumolva, cooked salted fish with tomatoes and rice. The young girl ate, Gannaban did not. They stayed in the house for less than 30 minutes. After the young girl took her meal, she left with Gannaban, southbound. According to Tumolva, they were going home to the town proper Ilagan (see also Exh. "B").

Placido Gangan, of Baculud Norte, Ilagan, Isabela, arrived at his house at about 7:00 P.M., February 28, 1995 to rest after making his daily routine with his motorized passenger tricycle. Gangan found Gannaban and a young girl at their house. His wife asked for the name of the young girl who was dressed with a white shirt and blue skirt and he came to know from the wife her name as Rhea Ballesteros. Gannaban was asking accommodation for the night. His wife cooked cabbage for supper and they shared and dined together. They were given another room of the house to spend the night. At about 5:00 A.M., March 1, 1995, the visitors of Gangan left their house.

At about 6:00 A.M., March 1, 1995, Gannaban returned to the bakeshop of Deraco. When Deraco confronted him where he came from Gannaban told her he came from San Ignacio. Deraco also confronted Gannaban why he was with Rhea but Gannaban kept silent. In the evening of March 1, 1995, Gannaban, together with a certain Inggo and Larry had a drinking spree in a carinderia on the top floor of Ilagan supermarket. In the early morning of March 2, 1995 at about 3:00 A.M., Deraco went to her bakeshop to wake up Gannaban. She found out Gannaban was no longer there. He took all his belongings and left without taking his unpaid salary of P300.00. Since that time, Gannaban never returned to the shop.

In the meantime, when Rhea did not go home, Rita Ballesteros together with her husband and sons, looked for her around the town. She was nowhere to be found. On the second day, March 1, 1995, they again looked for her and reported her missing to the PNP of Ilagan and one Crisel Ferrer, a Bombo reporter. Ferrer reported over Bombo Radio about the missing Rhea.

At about 7:00 A.M., March 4, 1995, SPO2 Walberto Agpawa received a report from one, Oscar Adorio, that he found a "cadaver of foul play" at his cornfield at Bagumbayan, Ilagan, Isabela. Agpawa, together with Station Commander Nepomuceno Alindada, Jr., and Dr. Conrado S. Gabriel, Sr., proceeded to the corn plantation of Adorio. Alindada must have dropped by the house of Rita Ballesteros before they reached the cornfields reason for which Rita was present in that cornfield. When they reached the cornfield, they found the body of a young girl in rigor mortis. The right side of her head was bashed and there was a crack on that side. The cadaver was wearing a white T-shirt, her blue skirt was raised to her waist, her panty was in her legs exposing her private parts. Rita Ballesteros identified Rhea thru a mole found at her upper right back. Scattered around her were her school bag, papers, pencil and her shoes.

Dr. Conrado Gabriel, Sr. conducted a post mortem examination and submitted Exhibit "D", Medico Legal Report, as follows:

"BODY:

1) SKULL = Right mastroid process damage.

2) VAGINA = a) Cervix laceration 5 o'clock 12 o'clock

Body = state of decomposition

"CAUSE OF DEATH:

Hypovolemic shock, due to Internal Hemorrhage, Rape Accident."^[2]

On July 30, 1998, the RTC rendered its judgment with the following dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, and in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused MANUEL GANNABAN guilty beyond any reasonable doubt for the rape and death of Rhea Ballesteros. No matter how personally revolting on the Court to impose the death penalty, this Court must bow and obey the law of the land. Manuel Gannaban is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death as provided for and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659. He is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of young Rhea the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS, to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages and the further sum of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS, as exemplary damages and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.^[3]

In this appeal, the accused-appellant raised the following assignment of errors:

I

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE BASED ON PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE PUT UP BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ESSENCE OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE DOCTOR WHO CONDUCTED THE POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION ON THE VICTIM.^[4]

The only issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or not the accused-appellant's guilt for the crime of rape with homicide has been proven beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence.

Conviction can be had on the basis of circumstantial evidence so long as a combination of all the circumstances proven produces a logical conclusion which suffices to establish accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.^[5] Circumstantial evidence may be sufficiently cogent to satisfy the judicial conscience and may be as potent as direct testimony in tending to connect the accused-appellant with the commission of the offense.^[6] As clearly pointed out by the OSG, the circumstances testified by the prosecution witnesses lead to the inevitable conclusion that the accused-appellant is the author of the crime, to wit:

Rita Ballesteros, the mother of Rhea Ballesteros testified:

Q (PROS. FAUSTO CABANTAC)

Madam Witness it has been admitted that your daughter was last seen by you on February 28, 1995, where did you see her alive?

A (RITA BALLESTERO)

The last time I saw her alive was at home, sir.

Q (COURT)

Where was she going?

A To school, sir.

Q (PROS. CABANTAC)

What school?

A Ilagan East Central School, sir.

Q What was her clothes when she left for school?
A White T-shirt and blue skirt, sir.

Q What about her shoes or slippers, if you remember?
A Brown shoes and white socks, sir.

Q When she went to school, was she carrying something?
A Her bag, sir.

x x x x x x x x x

Q (PROS. CABANTAC)Now what were contained in that bag?
A Books, papers, notebooks and her pencil, sir.

Q That bag, does it have a handle?
A Yes, sir."

(pp. 7-9, TSN, January 30, 1996; underscoring supplied)

Another circumstance was testified to by prosecution witness Alfredo Manabat, thus:

Q (PROS. FAUSTO CABANTAC)

On February 28, 1995, between the hours of 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon to 4:00 o'clock, do you remember where were you?

A (ALFREDO MANABAT)

Yes, sir.

Q Where were you on that date and time?
A I was at the basketball court.

Q What were you doing in that basketball court?
A We were playing basketball.

Q Who were your companion playing basketball?
A Antonio Malana and Mario Cariño.

Q While you were playing basketball, do you know if you have seen a person by the name of Manuel Gannaban?

x x x x x x x x x

COURT: Interpreter.

He said 'yes, sir'.

x x x x x x x x x

Q How far were you when you saw Manuel Gannaban passed by in that basketball court where you were playing.

A About 20 meters.

x x x x x x x x x

Q Do you know if he has a companion when you saw him?
A Yes, sir.

x x x x x x x x x

Q How about the appearance of that woman whom you saw with the companion of the accused, can you tell us if she (sic) elderly woman or younger?

A A young girl (balasitang).

Q Do you remember what were the clothes wore (sic) by that girl?
A If I am not mistaken, white T-shirt and blue skirt."

(pp. 1-12, TSN, January 16, 1996; underscoring supplied)

The testimony of witness Mariano Tumolva initially sealed the fate of appellant Manuel Gannaban. Mariano testified:

Q (PROS. FAUSTO CABANTAC)

At around 4:00 in the afternoon up to 5:00 o'clock, do you remember what specific place where you were on February 28,1995?'

A (MARIANO TUMOLVA)

I WAS IN OUR HOUSE.

Q Now, do you remember if there were visitors who came to see you on that time?
A Two visitors came to the house, one is Manuel and the other one is a little girl whose name I do not know.

x x x x x x x x x

Q When Manuel Gannaban went to your house on February 28, 1995, do you already know his name on that date?
A I used to know him, sir.

x x x x x x x x x

Q How often does he go to your house?
A He has visited me for several times and that's the time he came together with the little girl. They were hungry and they asked for food.

x x x x x x x x x

Q Can you tell us the age of that girl if you know?

x x x x x x x x x

A If I am not mistaken, she was about ten (10) years old.

Q Now, the girl that accompanied the accused Manuel Gannaban, what was she wearing when they came to you?
A She was wearing a white T-shirt and blue skirt.

Q Did you talk to them when they came to you?
A I talked with them. In fact, he was even the one who prepared tomatoes and salted fish (bagoong) and the rice which they ate.

x x x x x x x x x

Q How long did they stay in your house?
A Less than 30 minutes. After the little girl ate, Manuel bad (sic) goodbye. They were going
home.

(pp. 4-8, TSN, November 26, 1997; underscoring supplied)

Although he failed to inquire from appellant or the young girl herself about the latter's name, Mariano Tumolva identified (through a picture) the victim as the same young girl companion of appellant. He testified:

Q (PROS. FAUSTO CABANTAC)

If a picture will be shown to you, will you be able to identify that girl who came to your house on that afternoon of February 28, 1995?
A Yes, sir.

Q I am showing to you a picture depicting an older woman and a young girl, will you tell us if this one marked with "X" was the girl that you saw?
A Yes, sir."

(pp. 8-9, TSN, November 29, 1997; underscoring supplied)

The circumstance that was testified to by prosecution witness Placido Gannagan is difficult to rebut. Thus:

Q (PROS. FAUSTO CABANTAC)

Mr. Witness, why do you know the accused Manuel Gannaban in this case?

A (PLACIDO GANGAN)

He is the brother of my compadre.

x x x x x x x x x

Q In the evening of February 28, 1995, do you know if you have seen the accused Manuel Gannaban?

A Yes, sir.

Q Where did you see him?
A They came to the house, sir.

x x x x x x x x x

Q (COURT)

Who was his companion who went to your house?

A Rhea Ballesteros.

x x x x x x x x x

Q (PROS. CABANTAC)

Now, how did you know that the companion of the accused who came to your house was Rhea Ballesteros?

A I recognized her, sir.

x x x x x x x x x

Q And when did you come to know that the companion of the accused on February 28, 1995 was Rhea Ballesteros?
A I came to know from my wife because she asked her name.

Q You mean to tell me when your wife talked to Rhea Ballesteros you were present?

x x x x x x x x x

A Yes, sir.

Q When the accused together with Rhea Ballesteros came to your house on February 28, 1995, what was their purpose?
A They came to ask for accommodation during the night.

Q And did you accommodate them?
A Yes, sir. I let them sleep for one night.

x x x x x x x x x

Q Did your wife ask why Rhea Ballesteros was with the accused on February 28, 1995?
A She asked her.

Q What was the answer?
A She did not answer.

Q Now, you said they slept for one night in your house on February 28, 1995, where did they sleep?
A In the bed, sir.

Q Where (sic) you together in the same room when you sleep (sic) with the accused?
A No, sir.

Q In relation to your house, where did they sleep?
A In the other room, sir.

Q Now, the following day, what happened?
A They asked permission to leave then left.

Q What time did they leave your house?
A 5:00 o'clock in the morning, sir.

Q Now, do you remember what was Rhea Ballesteros wearing when you saw her on February 28, 1995?
A Yes, sir.

Q Will you please tell us?
A White T-shirt and blue skirt."

(pp. 4-10, TSN, January 23, 1996; underscoring supplied)

x x x x x x x x x

Prosecution witness Elizabeth Derraco, the owner of the bakery where the appellant Manuel Gannaban was employed as baker for two (2) months testified, thus:

Q (PROS. ISAAC DE ALBAN)

On February 28, 1995 at 11:00 o'clock in the morning, do you remember having seen Manuel Gannaban in your establishment?
A (ELIZABETH DERRACO)

He left without my permission about 11:00 o'clock.

x x x x x x x x x

Q And did he ever return to your business establishment?
A He returned in the morning of March 1, about 6:00 o'clock in the morning, sir.

Q When Manuel Gannaban returned to your business establishment the following day, March 1, 1995 at about 6:00 in the morning, did you ever confront him?
A Yes, sir, I asked him where he came from and he answered that he came from San Ignacio, Canapi.

Q And what else did you tell him?
A No more, sir. I also asked him why he was with Rhea Ballesteros and I even told him not to go with her because the father of that girl is a killer.

x x x x x x x x x

Q In the evening of March 1, 1995, do you remember if Manuel Gannaban still slept in your business establishment?
A Yes, sir, because they had a drinking spree in the carinderia on top of the supermarket.

Q The following morning, that is March 2, about 3:00 o'clock in the morning, do you remember if you went to your bakeshop?
A Yes, sir, because I had to wake him up so he would bake but he was no longer there and took all his clothes.

x x x x x x x x x

Q Before Manuel Gannaban left in the early morning of March 2, do you remember if you have paid all his salary?
A I still owe him P300.00, sir."

(pp. 5-8, supra; underscoring supplied) ^[7]

SPO2 Walberto Agpawa testified that on March 4, 1995, he found the lifeless body of Rhea Ballesteros in the cornfields with her head bashed. She was wearing white T-shirt and blue skirt and her underwear partially removed so that her private parts were exposed. The police also found at the scene of the crime the victim's school bag, notebooks and books scattered all over the place.^[8]

Dr. Conrado Gabriel, Sr. retired Municipal Health Officer of Ilagan, Isabela who conducted a post-mortem examination on the cadaver of Rhea Ballesteros testified that the body was already in a state of decomposition. The victim had a broken mouth. An examination of her vagina revealed hymenal lacerations at the 5 o'clock and 12 o'clock positions. Dr. Gabriel concluded that the victim died of hypovolemic shock due to internal hemorrhage caused by the broken mouth. He further stated that this case was a rape accident.^[9]

The accused-appellant questions the credibility of the prosecution witnesses alleging that each one of them has an ax to grind against him or that they were rehearsed witnesses. Against these positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses, however, it is quite difficult to believe the accused-appellant's version. For his defense, the accused-appellant interposed alibi which to the mind of the Court is so weak and does not engender belief. His live-in partner's testimony that the accused-appellant was with her during the time of the commission of the crime is not enough to overcome the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses that they last saw the victim with the accused-appellant. No other witnesses were presented to corroborate the allegation that the accused-appellant and his live-in partner, Susan Domalanta lived together continuously for two months. When the issue is one of the credibility of the witnesses, weight is given to the findings of the trial court as it is more in the position to observe the demeanor of these witnesses.
Undoubtedly, the victim was last seen in the company of the accused-appellant by prosecution witness Placido Gangan who testified that both of them slept in their house on the night of February 28, 1995 and left at 5:00 o'clock in the morning of the next day, March 1, 1995. Rhea Ballesteros was in her school uniform when they left the place of Placido Gangan and her lifeless body which was discovered on March 4, 1995, already decomposing, still donned the same uniform. While it is true that the accused-appellant apparently reported to the bakery at 6:00 o'clock in the morning of March 1, 1995 and had a drinking spree that night, his sudden flight from the bakery the early morning of March 2, 1995 was quite suspect. He was silent when he was confronted by his employer Elizabeth Derraco about the whereabouts of Rhea Ballesteros who was reported missing already at that time.^[10] If he had nothing to do with the disappearance of Rhea Ballesteros during that time, why did the accused-appellant flee from the place without any warning at all, bringing with him all his belongings and without even bothering to get the remaining balance of his salary? There appears no other reason for this sudden departure except Elizabeth Derraco's persistent warning for him not to see Rhea Ballesteros because the latter's father is a killer. She had basis to warn him because she knew that the accused-appellant and the victim were together.^[11] The accused-appellant's immediate flight is strongly indicative of his consciousness of guilt ^[12] for as the proverb says, "the wicked flee when no man pursueth; but the righteous are as bold as a lion."^[13]

Furthermore, we agree with the trial court's observation that it was rather strange for the accused-appellant to be sleeping together with the victim in one room at the house of Placido Gangan in the night of February 28, 1995. If he really had good intentions of the victim, he should have slept separately from her, out of delicadeza.^[14] Apparently, the accused-appellant had an evil motive for the victim. The fact of rape was also clearly established by the medico-legal report which states that the victim had lacerations in her vagina. The body was found with the victim's blue skirt up to her waist and her panty pulled down to her legs, exposing her private parts. Unfortunately, a thorough autopsy examination of the body was no longer conducted as the body was already in its third state of decomposition.^[15] Notwithstanding, the tell-tale signs of rape were apparent.

After all evidence considered, the Court is constrained to affirm the penalty of death imposed by the trial court. Three justices of the Court continue to maintain the unconstitutionality of R.A. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. Nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority to the effect that this law is constitutional and that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.

Anent the amount of damages awarded by the trial court, there is need to modify the same in accordance with recent jurisprudence on the matter. R.A. 7659 provides that: "when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty is death." In rape with homicide, civil indemnity is increased to P100,000.00.^[16] An award of P50,000.00 for moral damages without need of proof is also in order.^[17] The exemplary damages of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court should be deleted, there being no proof of aggravating circumstance. Considering that it was admitted in court that the heirs of the victim spent P15,000.00 for funeral and burial expenses,^[18] the Court shall allow the same.

WHEREFORE, the conviction of Manuel Gannaban is hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant is directed to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P 100,000.00 as civil indemnity. In addition, the accused-appellant is also hereby ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages and P15,000.00 as actual damages.

In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision, let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, and Corona, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 6.

^[2] Id., at 14-16.

^[3] Id., at 20.

^[4] Id., at 35.

^[5] People v. Ortiz, 316 SCRA 407 (1999).

^[6] People v. Eubra, 274 SCRA 180 (1997).

^[7] Id., pp. 77-85.

^[8] TSN, August 21, 1996.

^[9] TSN, March 6, 1996.

^[10] TSN, November 19, 1997, p. 7.

^[11] Ibid, pp. 7, 14.

^[12] People v. Magdadaro, 197 SCRA 151 (1991).

^[13] People vs. Naag, 322 SCRA 716 (2000).

^[14] RTC Decision, p. 6, Rollo, p. 19.

^[15] TSN, March 6, 1996, p. 19. This is the next to the last stage of total decomposition.

^[16] People v. Robles, 305 SCRA 273 (1999).

^[17] Supra.

^[18] TSN, January 30, 1996, p. 4.