Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 145566 March 9, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs.
DINDO !E!OT MO"ELLO, appellant.
D E C I S I O N
#N$RES%S$NTI$GO, J.&
On automatic evie! is a "ecision of the Re#ional $ial Cout %R$C& of Bo#o, Cebu,
Banch '(, fin"in# appellant Din"o )Bebot) Mo*ello #uilt+ be+on" easonable "oubt
of the cime of ape !ith homici"e "efine" an" penali,e" un"e Aticle --. of the
Revise" Penal Co"e, as amen"e" b+ Republic Act No. /'.0, an" sentencin# him to
the supeme penalt+ of "eath.
(
Appellant Din"o Mo*ello, alias )Bebot) !as cha#e" !ith the cime of ape !ith
homici"e in an Infomation "ate" Ma+ 11, (00/, as follo!s2
1
$hat on the (.th "a+ of Decembe (00', at about ((233 o4cloc5 in the
evenin#, at Sitio 6ota, Baan#a+ $alisa+, Municipalit+ of Santa 7e,
Povince of Cebu, Philippines an" !ithin the *uis"iction of this 8onoable
Cout, the above9name" accuse", move" b+ le!" "esi#n an" b+ means of
foce, violence an" intimi"ation, "i" then an" thee !illfull+, unla!full+ an"
feloniousl+ succee" in havin# canal 5no!le"#e !ith :enlen Ra+co un"e
t!elve %(1& +eas of a#e an" !ith mental "eficienc+, a#ainst he !ill an"
consent, an" b+ eason an";o on the occasion theeof, puposel+ to
conceal the most butal act an" in pusuance of his ciminal "esi#n, the
above9name" accuse", "i" then an" thee !illfull+, unla!full+ an"
feloniousl+ !ith intent to 5ill, teacheousl+ an" emplo+in# pesonal
violence, attac5, assault an" 5ill the victim :enlen Ra+co, theeb+ inflictin#
upon the victim !oun"s on the "iffeent pats of he bo"+ !hich cause"
he "eath.
CON$RAR< $O :A=.
Appellant !as aai#ne" on >ul+ 1?, (00/, entein# a plea of )not guilty.) $ial
follo!e".
On >anua+ 1(, (000, the tial cout en"ee" *u"#ment fin"in# appellant #uilt+
be+on" easonable "oubt of the cime of ape !ith homici"e, an" sentencin# him to
suffe the "eath penalt+.
7om the facts foun" b+ the cout a quo, it appeas that on Decembe (., (00', at
o aoun" 0233 p.m., Ro#elio Ra+co !as havin# some "in5s !ith a #oup !hich
inclu"e" Ro#e Capacito an" his !ife an" the spouses Boah an" Asolin Illustismo
at the Capacito esi"ence locate" at Baan#a+ $alisa+, Sta. 7e, Cebu.
-
Ro#elio Ra+co left the #oup to #o home about an hou late. On his !a+ home, he
sa! his niece, :enlen Ra+co, !ith appellant Din"o Mo*ello, a nephe! of Ro#e
Capacito, !al5in# to#ethe some thit+ metes a!a+ to!a"s the "iection of Sitio
6ota.
?
Since he !as use" to seein# them to#ethe on othe occasions, he "i" not
fin" an+thin# stan#e about this. 8e pocee"e" to his house.
.
On Decembe (', (00', bet!een .233 to '233 a.m., the Ra+co famil+ !as infome"
that the bo"+ of :enlen !as foun" at the seashoe of Sitio 6ota. Ro#elio Ra+co
imme"iatel+ pocee"e" to the site an" sa! the lifeless, na5e" an" buise" bo"+ of
his niece. Ro#elio !as "evastate" b+ !hat he sa!. A emose of conscience
envelope" him fo his failue to potect his niece. 8e even attempte" to ta5e his o!n
life seveal "a+s afte the inci"ent.
'
Appellant !as aeste" at Banta+an !hile attemptin# to boa" a moto launch boun"
fo Ca"i, Cit+. On an investi#ation con"ucte" b+ SPO1 =ilfe"o @i"ucos, he
a"mitte" that he !as the pepetato of the "asta"l+ "ee". Appellant !as assiste"
b+ Att+. Isaias @i"uAuio "uin# his custo"ial inteo#ation. 8is confession !as
!itnesse" b+ Baan#a+ Captains =ilfe"o Batobalanos an" Manolo :an"ao.
Batobalanos testifie" that afte it !as eBecute", the contents of the "ocument !ee
ea" to appellant !ho late on voluntail+ si#ne" it.
/
Appellant4s eBta*u"icial
confession !as s!on befoe >u"#e Conelio $. >aca of the Municipal Cicuit $ial
Cout %MC$C& of Sta. 7e9Banta+an.
C
On Decembe 1(, (00', an autops+ !as
con"ucte" on the victim4s ca"ave b+ D. Nesto Sato of the Me"ico9:e#al Banch
of the PNP Cime :aboato+, Re#ion DII.
0
D. Sato testifie" that the s!ellin# of the labia majora an" h+menal laceations
positivel+ in"icate that the victim !as ape".
(3
8e obseve" that foth in the lun#s of
the victim an" contusions on he nec5 sho! that she !as stan#le" an" "ie" of
asph+Bia.
((
8e in"icate" the cause of "eath as ca"io9espiato+ aest "ue to
asph+Bia b+ stan#ulation an" ph+sical in*uies to the hea" an" the tun5.
(1
In this automatic evie!, appellant aises t!o issues2 !hethe the eBta*u"icial
confession eBecute" b+ appellant is a"missible in evi"enceE an" !hethe appellant
is #uilt+ be+on" easonable "oubt of the cime of ape !ith homici"e.
=e no! esolve.
Appellant alle#es that the lo!e cout #avel+ ee" in a"mittin# in evi"ence the
alle#e" eBta*u"icial confession !hich he eBecute" on Decembe 1-, (00'. In his
Bief, appellant aves that the confession !hich he eBecute" !as not feel+,
intelli#entl+ an" voluntail+ entee" into.
(-
8e a#ues that he !as not 5no!in#l+ an"
intelli#entl+ appise" of his constitutional i#hts befoe the confession !as ta5en
fom him.
(?
8ence, his confession, an" a"missions ma"e theein, shoul" be "eeme"
ina"missible in evi"ence, un"e the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
=e ae not convince".
At the coe of the instant case is the application of the la! on custo"ial investi#ation
enshine" in Aticle III, Section (1, paa#aph ( of the Constitution, !hich povi"es2
An+ peson un"e investi#ation fo the commission of an offense shall
have the i#ht to be infome" of his i#ht to emain silent an" to have
competent an" in"epen"ent counsel pefeabl+ of his o!n choice. If the
peson cannot affo" the sevices of counsel, he must be povi"e" !ith
one. $hese i#hts cannot be !aive" eBcept in !itin# an" in the pesence
of counsel.
$he above povision in the fun"amental Chate embo"ies !hat *uispu"ence has
teme" as )Miranda rights) stemmin# fom the lan"ma5 "ecision of the Fnite"
States Supeme Cout, Miranda v. Arizona.
(.
It has been the linchpin of the mo"en
Bill of Ri#hts, an" the ultimate efu#e of in"ivi"uals a#ainst the coecive po!e of
the State.
$he Miranda "octine eAuies that2 %a& an+ peson un"e custo"ial investi#ation has
the i#ht to emain silentE %b& an+thin# he sa+s can an" !ill be use" a#ainst him in a
cout of la!E %c& he has the i#ht to tal5 to an attone+ befoe bein# Auestione" an"
to have his counsel pesent !hen bein# Auestione"E an" %"& if he cannot affo" an
attone+, one !ill be povi"e" befoe an+ Auestionin# if he so "esies.
In the Philippines, the i#ht to counsel espouse" in the Mian"a "octine !as base"
on the lea"in# case of People v. Galit
('
an" Morales, r. v. !nrile,
(/
ulin#s
subseAuentl+ incopoate" into the pesent Constitution. $he Miranda "octine un"e
the (0C/ Chate too5 on a mo"ifie" fom !hee the i#ht to counsel !as specificall+
Aualifie" to mean competent and independent counsel preferably of the suspect"s
o#n choice. =aive of the i#ht to counsel li5e!ise povi"e" fo sticte eAuiements
compae" to its Ameican countepatE it must be "one in #riting, an" in the
presence of counsel.
Deil+, it ma+ be obseve" that the Philippine la! on custo"ial investi#ation has
evolve" to povi"e fo 'or( )*r+,-(,* )*a,.ar.) than !hat !as oi#inall+ lai" out
in Miranda v. Arizona. $he pupose of the constitutional limitations on police
inteo#ation as the pocess shifts fom the investi#ato+ to the accusato+ seems to
be to acco" even the lo!liest an" most "espicable ciminal suspects a measue of
"i#nit+ an" espect. $he main focus is the suspect, an" the un"el+in# mission of
custo"ial investi#ation G to elicit a confession.
$he eBta*u"icial confession eBecute" b+ appellant on Decembe 1-, (00', appl+in#
At. III, Sec. (1, pa. ( of the Constitution in elation to Rep. Act No. /?-C, Sec. 1
complies !ith the stict constitutional eAuiements on the i#ht to counsel. In othe
!o"s, the eBta*u"icial confession of the appellant is vali" an" theefoe a"missible
in evi"ence.
As coectl+ pointe" out b+ the Solicito @eneal, appellant !as un"oubte"l+
appise" of his Miranda i#hts un"e the Constitution.
(C
$he cout a quo obseve"
that the confession itself eBpessl+ states that the investi#atin# offices infome" him
of such i#hts.
(0
As futhe poof of the same, Att+. Isaias @i"uAuio testifie" that
!hile he !as atten"in# a San##unian# Ba+an session, he !as eAueste" b+ the
Chief of Police of Sta. 7e to assist appellant.
13
Appellant manifeste" on eco" his
"esie to have Att+. @i"uAuio as his counsel, !ith the latte cate#oicall+ statin# that
befoe the investi#ation !as con"ucte" an" appellant4s statement ta5en, he a"vise"
appellant of his constitutional i#hts. Att+. @i"uAuio even tol" appellant to ans!e
onl+ the Auestions he un"estoo" feel+ an" not to "o so if he !as not sue of his
ans!e.
1(
Att+. @i"uAuio epesente" appellant "uin# the initial sta#es of the tial of
the pesent case.
Att+. @i"uAuio !as a competent an" in"epen"ent counsel of appellant !ithin the
contemplation of the Constitution. No evi"ence !as pesente" to ne#ate his
competence an" in"epen"ence in epesentin# appellant "uin# the custo"ial
investi#ation. Moeove, appellant manifeste" fo the eco" that Att+. @i"uAuio !as
his choice of counsel "uin# the custo"ial pocee"in#s.
$he phase )preferably of his o#n choice) "oes not conve+ the messa#e that the
choice of a la!+e b+ a peson un"e investi#ation is eBclusive as to peclu"e othe
eAuall+ competent an" in"epen"ent attone+s fom han"lin# the "efenseE othe!ise
the tempo of custo"ial investi#ation !ill be solel+ in the han"s of the accuse" !ho
can impe"e, na+, obstuct the po#ess of the inteo#ation b+ simpl+ selectin# a
la!+e !ho, fo one eason o anothe, is not available to potect his inteest.
11
=e ule" in People v. $ontinente
1-
that !hile the choice of a la!+e in cases !hee
the peson un"e custo"ial inteo#ation cannot affo" the sevices of counsel G o
!hee the pefee" la!+e is not available G is natuall+ lo"#e" in the police
investi#atos, the suspect has the final choice as he ma+ e*ect the counsel chosen
fo him an" as5 fo anothe one. A la!+e povi"e" b+ the investi#atos is "eeme"
en#a#e" b+ the accuse" !hen he "oes not aise an+ ob*ection a#ainst the counsel4s
appointment "uin# the couse of the investi#ation, an" the accuse" theeafte
subscibes to the veacit+ of the statement befoe the s!eain# office.
1?
$he i#ht to counsel at all times is inten"e" to peclu"e the sli#htest coecion as
!oul" lea" the accuse" to a"mit somethin# false. $he la!+e, ho!eve, shoul"
neve pevent an accuse" fom feel+ an" voluntail+ tellin# the tuth. In People v.
%umalahay,
1.
this Cout hel"2
$he s!on confessions of the thee accuse" sho! that the+ !ee popel+
appise" of thei i#ht to emain silent an" i#ht to counsel, in acco"ance
!ith the constitutional #uaantee.
At C233 in the monin# of the neBt "a+, the thee accuse" pocee"e" to the
office of Att+. ReBel Pacuibot, Cle5 of Cout of the Re#ional $ial Cout of
Ca#a+an "e Oo Cit+. All of the thee accuse", still accompanie" b+ Att+.
Fba+9uba+, subscibe" an" s!oe to thei espective !itten confessions.
Befoe a"ministein# the oaths, Att+. Pacuibot emin"e" the thee
accuse" of thei constitutional i#hts un"e the Mian"a "octine an"
veifie" that thei statements !ee voluntail+ #iven. Att+. Pacuibot also
tanslate" the contents of each confession in the Disa+an "ialect, to
ensue that each accuse" un"estoo" the same befoe si#nin# it.
No ill9motive !as impute" on these t!o la!+es to testif+ falsel+ a#ainst
the accuse". $hei paticipation in these cases meel+ involve" the
pefomance of thei le#al "uties as offices of the cout. Accuse"9
appellant Dumalaha+4s alle#ation to the conta+, bein# self9sevin#,
cannot pevail ove the testimonies of these impatial an" "isinteeste"
!itnesses.
Moe impotantl+, the confessions ae eplete !ith "etails !hich coul"
possibl+ be supplie" onl+ b+ the accuse", eflectin# spontaneit+ an"
coheence !hich ps+cholo#icall+ cannot be associate" !ith a min" to
!hich violence an" totue have been applie". $hese factos ae clea
in"icia that the confessions !ee voluntail+ #iven.
=hen the "etails naate" in an eBta*u"icial confession ae such that the+
coul" not have been concocte" b+ one !ho "i" not ta5e pat in the acts
naate", !hee the claim of malteatment in the eBtaction of the
confession is unsubstantiate" an" !hee abun"ant evi"ence eBists
sho!in# that the statement !as voluntail+ eBecute", the confession is
a"missible a#ainst the "eclaant. $hee is #eate eason fo fin"in# a
confession to be volunta+ !hee it is cooboate" b+ evi"ence aliun"e
!hich "ovetails !ith the essential facts containe" in such confession.
$he confessions "ovetail in all thei mateial espects. Each of the
accuse" #ave the same "etaile" naation of the manne b+ !hich
:a+a#on an" Escalante !ee 5ille". $his cleal+ sho!s that thei
confessions coul" not have been contive". Suel+, the thee accuse"
coul" not have #iven such i"entical accounts of thei paticipation an"
culpabilit+ in the cime !ee it not the tuth.
Conce"e"l+, the Decembe (/, (00' custo"ial investi#ation upon appellant4s
appehension b+ the police authoities violate" the Miranda "octine on t!o
#oun"s2 %(& no counsel !as pesentE an" %1& impope !aive of the i#ht to counsel
as it !as not ma"e in !itin# an" in the pesence of counsel. 8o!eve, the
Decembe 1-, (00' custo"ial investi#ation !hich elicite" the appellant4s confession
shoul" nevetheless be uphel" fo havin# complie" !ith At. III, Sec. (1, pa. (. Even
thou#h impope inteo#ation metho"s !ee use" at the outset, thee is still a
possibilit+ of obtainin# a le#all+ vali" confession late on b+ popel+ inteo#atin#
the sub*ect un"e "iffeent con"itions an" cicumstances than those !hich pevaile"
oi#inall+.
1'
$he eco"s of this case cleal+ eflect that the appellant feel+, voluntail+ an"
intelli#entl+ entee" into the eBta*u"icial confession in full compliance !ith the
Miranda "octine un"e At. III, Sec. (1, pa. ( of the Constitution in elation to Rep.
Act No. /?-C, Sec. 1. SPO1 =ilfe"o Abello @i"ucos, pio to con"uctin# his
investi#ation, eBplaine" to appellant his constitutional i#hts in the /+)a0a, .+a1(c*,
notabl+ C(23a,o, a lan#ua#e 5no!n to the appellant, viz2
1/
PASIFNA %PRE:IMINAR<& 2 &'a# 'aron %indo Mojello ubos sa usa 'a
inbestigasyon diin i'a# gituhon nga adunay 'alabutan sa 'amatayon ni
(!)(!) *A+$, ug nahitabong paglugos 'aniya. -bos sa atong
Bata'ang Balaod, i'a# adunay 'atungod sa pagpa'ahilom ning maong
inbesigasyon 'aron 'animo ug aduna usab i'a# ug 'atungod nga
'atabangan ug usa 'a abogado nga motabang 'aron 'animo ning maong
inbestigasyon. &mo ba nasabtan 'ining tananH %DINDO MO>E::O, +ou
ae heeb+ emin"e" that +ou ae un"e investi#ation in !hich +ou !ee
suspecte" about the "eath an" apin# of :EN:EN RA<CO. Fn"e the
Constitution +ou have the i#ht to emain silent about this investi#ation on
+ou no! an" +ou have also the i#ht to have counsel of +ou o!n choice
to assist +ou in this investi#ation no!. 8ave +ou un"estoo" eve+thin#H&
$FBA@ %ANS=ER& 2 ,o, sir. %<es, si.&
PAN@F$ANA %IFES$ION& 2 .uman i'a# sayri sa imong 'atungod ubos
sa atong Bata'ang Balaod sa pagpa'ahilom, gusto ba nimo nga ipadayon
nato 'ining inbestigasyon 'aron 'animoH %Afte +ou have been appise" of
+ou i#hts un"e ou Constitution to emain silent, "o +ou !ant to pocee"
this investi#ation on +ou no!H&
$FBA@ %IFES$ION& 2 ,o, sir. %<es, si.&
PAN@F$ANA %IFES$ION& 2 Gusto ba usab nimo ug abogado nga
ma'atabang 'animo ning maong inbestigasyonH %Do +ou !ant counsel to
assist +ou in this sai" investi#ationH&
$FBA@ %ANS=ER& 2 ,o, sir. %<es, si.&
APPEARANCE 2 Att+. Isaias @i"uAuio is appeain# as counsel of the
affiant.
PAN@F$ANA %IFES$ION& 2 A'o usab i'a# pahinumdoman nga unsa
man ang imo isulti 'aron dinhi magamit pabor o bato' 'animo sa
.u'manan, nasabtan ba nimo 'ining tanan mo nga mga 'atungod nga
#alay naghulga, nagpugos o nagdagmal 'animo o nagsaad ba ug ganti
sa 'aulihanH %<ou ae also heeb+ emin"e" that all +ou statements no!
!ill be use" as evi"ence a#ainst o in +ou favo in an+ cout of *ustice.
8ave +ou un"estoo" all +ou i#hts !ith nobo"+ coecin# o focin# +ou,
o maulin# o pomisin# a e!a" in the en"H&
$FBA@ %ANS=ER& 2 ,o %<es.&
PAN@F$ANA %IFES$ION& 2 Andam 'a nga mohatag ug libre ug
boluntaryo nga pamahayagH %Ae +ou no! ea"+ to #ive +ou fee an"
volunta+ statementH&
$FBA@ %ANS=ER& 2 ,o, sir. %<es, si.&
B B B B B B B B B
%S$AR$ O7 CFS$ODIA: INDES$I@A$ION&
B B B B B B B B B.
$he tial cout obseve" that as to the confession of appellant, he !as full+ appise"
of his constitutional i#hts to emain silent an" his i#ht to counsel, as containe" in
such confession.
1C
Appellant !as popel+ assiste" b+ Att+. Isaias @i"uAuio. $he
eBta*u"icial confession of appellant !as subscibe" an" s!on to befoe >u"#e
Conelio $. >aca, Municipal >u"#e of Me"ellin9Daanbanta+an an" actin# >u"#e of
MC$C Sta. 7e9Banta+an an" Ma"e"i*os. >u"#e >aca "eclae" that he eBplaine" to
the appellant the contents of the eBta*u"icial confession an" as5e" if he un"estoo"
it. 8e subseAuentl+ ac5no!le"#e" that !hen appellant subscibe" to his statement,
Att+. @i"uAuio, !itness Batobalonos an" his Cle5 of Cout !ee pesent as !ell as
othe people.
10
$he eBta*u"icial confession eBecute" b+ the appellant follo!e" the i#i"
eAuiements of the Mian"a "octineE conseAuentl+, it is a"missible as evi"ence.
$he lo!e cout !as coect in #ivin# ce"ence to the eBta*u"icial confession of the
appellant.
On coss9eBamination, appellant Mo*ello claime" his life !as theatene", theeb+
in"ucin# him to eBecute an eBta*u"icial confession, 0(* h( ,(+*h(r 4+1(. a,0 ca)(
a-a+,)* *h( 5(r)o, 6ho *hr(a*(,(. h+', ,or h( r(5or* *h+) *o h+) co3,)(1. 8e
futhe claime" that he "i" not un"estan" the contents of the confession !hich !as
ea" in the Disa+an "ialect, 0(* h( a.'+*) *ha* h( 3)() *h( /+)a0a, .+a1(c* +, h+)
.a+10 .+)co3r)(.
In People v. Pia,
-3
!e hel" that )!hee appellants "i" not pesent evi"ence of
compulsion o "uess o violence on thei pesonsE !hee the+ faile" to complain to
offices !ho a"ministee" the oathsE !hee the+ "i" not institute an+ ciminal o
a"ministative action a#ainst thei alle#e" malteatmentE !hee thee appeas no
ma5s of violence on thei bo"ies an" !hee the+ "i" not have themselves
eBamine" b+ a eputable ph+sician to buttess thei claim, all these shoul" be
consi"ee" as factos in"icatin# voluntainess of confessions.) $he failue of the
appellant to complain to the s!eain# office o to file cha#es a#ainst the pesons
!ho alle#e"l+ malteate" him, althou#h he ha" all the chances to "o so, manifests
voluntainess in the eBecution of his confessions.
-(
$o hol" othe!ise is to facilitate
the etaction of his statements at the mee alle#ation of theat, totue, coecion,
intimi"ation o in"ucement, !ithout an+ poof !hatsoeve. People v. !nanoria futhe
"eclae" that anothe in"icium of voluntainess is the "isclosue of "etails in the
confession !hich coul" have been 5no!n onl+ to the "eclaant.
-1
$he confessant beas the bu"en of poof that his confession is tainte" !ith "uess,
compulsion o coecion b+ substantiatin# his claim !ith in"epen"ent evi"ence othe
than his o!n self9sevin# claims that the a"missions in his affi"avit ae untue an"
un!illin#l+ eBecute".
--
Bae assetions !ill cetainl+ not suffice to ovetun the
pesumption.
-?
$he test fo "eteminin# !hethe a confession is volunta+ is !hethe the
"efen"ant4s !ill !as ovebone at the time he confesse".
-.
In cases !hee the
Miranda !anin#s have been #iven, the test of voluntainess shoul" be
subseAuentl+ applie" in o"e to "etemine the pobative !ei#ht of the confession.
Acco"in#l+, the pesumption of voluntainess of appellant4s confession emains
unebutte" b+ his failue to pesent in"epen"ent evi"ence that the same !as
coece".
It cannot be #ainsai" that the constitutional "ut+ of la! enfocement offices is to
ensue that a suspect has been popel+ appise" of his Miranda i#hts, inclu"in#
the i#ht to counsel. It is in the paamount public inteest that the foun"ation of an
effective a"ministation of ciminal *ustice elies on the faithful a"heence to the
Miranda "octine. Compliance !ith At. III, Sec. (1, pa. ( b+ police authoities is
cental to the ciminal *ustice s+stemE Miranda i#hts must in eve+ case be
especte", !ithout eBception.
$hus, the confession, havin# stictl+ complie" !ith the constitutional eAuiements
un"e At. III, Sec. (1, pa. (, is "eeme" a"missible in evi"ence a#ainst appellant. It
follo!s that the a"mission of culpabilit+ ma"e theein is a"missible. It is theefoe
not )fruit of the poisonous tree) since the tee itself is not poisonous.
Appellant also alle#es that the lo!e cout #avel+ ee" in hol"in# him #uilt+ be+on"
easonable "oubt of the cime of ape !ith homici"e, theeb+ sentencin# him to
suffe the "eath penalt+ "espite the #lain# insufficienc+ of cicumstantial evi"ence
a#ainst him. In his Bief, he a#ues that the evi"ence a#ainst him is insufficient to
!aant his conviction of ape !ith homici"e.
$he cate#oical a"mission of the appellant to the cime of ape, couple" !ith the
corpus delicti as establishe" b+ the Me"ico9:e#al Repot an" the testimon+ of
Ro#elio Ra+co, lea"s us to no othe conclusion than that of appellant4s #uilt fo the
ape of :enlen Ra+co on Decembe (., (00'. It passes the test of moal cetaint+
an" must theefoe be sustaine".
8o!eve, the eco"s "o not a"eAuatel+ sho! that appellant a"mitte" to 5illin# the
victim. Neithe is the cicumstantial evi"ence sufficient to establish that b+ eason o
on the occasion of the ape a homici"e !as committe" b+ the appellant. $he lac5 of
ph+sical evi"ence futhe peclu"es us fom connectin# the sla+in# of the victim to
he seBual assault, #iven the Auantum of poof eAuie" b+ la! fo conviction. No
estimate" time of "eath !as #iven, !hich is essential in ma5in# a connection !ith
the appellant4s sto+ that he !ent home afte a ni#ht of "in5in#. $he time !hen he
an" the victim !ee hea"e" to!a"s the seashoe at o about 0233 to (3233 p.m. of
Decembe (., (00' until the time !hen the victim4s lifeless bo"+ !as foun" at o
about ?233 a.m. of Decembe (', (00' ha" a time vaiance of bet!een siB to seven
hous. Althou#h the cicumstances ma+ point to the appellant as the most li5el+
pepetato of the homici"e, the same "o not constitute an unbo5en chain of events
!hich !oul" lea" us to a easonable conclusion that appellant !as #uilt+ of 5illin#
the victim. In othe !o"s, thee ae #aps in the econstuction of facts an"
infeences suoun"in# the "eath of :enlen. Appellant onl+ a"mitte" to boBin# the
victim !hen she shoute", then huie"l+ an a!a+. $he cause of "eath of :enlen
!as ca"io9espiato+ attac5 "ue to asph+Biation an" ph+sical in*uiesE she !as
stan#le" to "eath an" left on the seashoe as manifeste" b+ the fothin# in he
lun#s. No ph+sical, scientific o DNA evi"ence !as pesente" to pinpoint appellant
as the peson !ho 5ille" the victim. 7in#epints, if available, !oul" have "etemine"
!ho committe" the homici"e. $hus, appellant cannot be convicte" of ape !ith
homici"e consi"ein# the insufficienc+ of evi"ence !hich theeb+ ceate" a
easonable "oubt as to his #uilt fo the sai" special compleB cime.
Appellant shoul" instea" be hel" liable onl+ fo the cime of statuto+ ape, the victim
:enlen Ra+co bein# then eleven +eas ol". $he seBual assault !as necessail+
inclu"e" in the special compleB cime cha#e" in the Infomation "ate" Ma+ 11,
(00/.
$he tial cout shoul" have a!a"e" "ama#es to the heis of the victim. Civil
in"emnit+ in the amount of P.3,333.33 is a!a"e" upon the fin"in# of the fact of
ape.
-'
Moal "ama#es in the amount of P.3,333.33 ma+ li5e!ise be #iven to the
heis of the victim !ithout nee" of poof in acco"ance !ith cuent *uispu"ence.
-/
7HEREFORE, in vie! of the foe#oin#, the "ecision of the Re#ional $ial Cout of
Bo#o, Cebu, Banch '( in Ciminal Case No. B93311? is A77IRMED !ith
MODI7ICA$ION. Appellant Din"o Mo*ello is foun" #uilt+ be+on" easonable "oubt of
the cime of statuto+ ape an" sentence" to suffe the penalt+ of eclusion
pepetua. 8e is also o"ee" to pa+ the heis of the victim, :enlen Ra+co,
P.3,333.33 as civil in"emnit+ an" P.3,333.33 as moal "ama#es.
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.