349 Phil. 114
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
On September 6, 1992 at about 12:00 o’clock midnight in Poblacion Dolores, E. Samar and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused unlawfully conspired and helped one another and by means of force and intimidation have [sic] carnal knowledge with one Elena Dacutanan y Gabane and with the use of deadly weapons inflicted injuries upon said victim which caused the death of the latter.At the arraignment, each accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty.Contrary to law.
Dolores, Eastern Samar, April 14, 1993.(SGD.) CORNELIO M. UMIL IIProsecutor I[1]
Accordingly, this court do [sic] hereby sentence [sic] accused Jacob Quitorio and Jayson Pomida each to Two [terms of] Reclusion Perpetua and each to an additional imprisonment [term] of ten (10) years of prision mayor, as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum.The evidence for the prosecution is summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General, as follows:
If reclusion perpetua (though not synonimous [sic] [with] but distinct from life imprisonment and an [being] indivisible penalty) is to be computed at thirty (30) years, then the total penalty for each of the two accused, Jacob Quitorio and Jayson Pomida would be as it is hereby ordered to be seventy (70) years as minimum to seventy-seven (77) years and four (4) months, as maximum.
The third accused, Pacificador Campomanes, who at the time of the commission of the crime was only 16 years, 9 months and 9 days having been born only on November 27, 1975, as evidenced by his Certificate of Live Birth found on page 327 and Certification found on page 49 of the records, is a Youthful Offender.
Considering therefore his age of about 17 years only at the time of the commission of the crime, he shall be entitled to a penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law.
The law provides that: “When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.” (Last par. of Art. 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 2638, approved June 18, 1960, and RA 411, approved June 20, 1964).However, in the case of People vs. Narit, G.R. No. 77087, May 23, 1991:As a consequence, the penalty of reclusion perpetua which should have been imposed on the third accused, Pacificador Campomanes, is hereby reduced to one degree lower pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code. That is, to reclusion temporal or 12 years and 1 day to 10 years.
The Supreme Court considered the death penalty as no longer impossible [sic] in consonance with the provision of Section 19(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, hence, the death sentence imposed on the accused-appellant has been automatically commuted to reclusion perpetua.
Applying the indeterminate sentence law, the accused Pacificador Campomanes for one count and that is for himself alone is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 10 years of prision mayor, as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
But having conspired with the other two accused, Jacob Quitorio and Jayson Pomida in raping and killing the victim Elena Gabane, he is further sentence[d] to two more [terms of] 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
The total penalty therefore of accused Pacificador Campomanes is thirty (30) years, as minimum to fifty-two (52) years, as maximum.
This court further orders the three accused herein to indemnify joint and several [sic] the heirs of the victim Elena Gabane, the sum of P50,000.00 as actual damages for the death of the said victim; P75,000.00 as moral damages; P25,000.00, as exemplary damages; P7,100.00 also representing the total actual expenses in connection with the death of the victim Elena Gabane; and to pay the cost [sic], also joint and several [sic], without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency ….
The accused, Pacificador Campomanes was released on recognizance while this case was still pending for preliminary investigation before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, but with his conviction his recognizance is hereby ordered cancelled and without anymore force and effect. This accused, Pacificador Campomanes therefore, should be, as it is hereby ordered detained until this case is finally decided by the higher court, should there be an appeal by the three accused herein within the 15-day reglamentary [sic] period for appeal.x x x
After a careful perusal and scrutiny of the records of this case, the same is wanting of an “agreement” signed by the three accused herein to the effect that during their detention period, they will abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.
So in the event this decision of conviction against the three accused herein is affirmed on appeal, should they appeal, the three accused shall only be entitled to four-fifth (4/5) of the time during which they have undergone their preventive imprisonment, which commenced on November 3, 1992, as evidenced by the “Receipt of Detainee”, found on page 46 of the records of this case.SO ORDERED.
On September 6, 1992, Elena Gabane, a singer-guitarist of the United Pentecostal Church of Dolores, Eastern Samar, told the family of Benjamin Donsal, a “brother” pastor with whom Gabane had been staying, that she was going home later that night to Cadayao, Jiabong, Samar. She was supposed to ride the Roureyjay bus bound for Catbalogan which normally leaves at midnight (TSN, Oct. 26, 1993, pp. 2-3).The trial court convicted accused-appellants on the basis of the following circumstantial evidence, which, when combined, sufficed “to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt,” to wit:
At about midnight, Yolanda Caspe was on her way home from the house of her friend Tilde, where they were having a drink. At the corner of Tegio St. and the provincial road, she saw three male persons carrying or dragging a woman with long hair and wearing a white jacket and short skirt. She was not able to see the face of the woman who was partly covered but she was able to recognize the three men. The area was well lighted by the fluorescent lamp in the street and by the moonlight. Pacificador Campomanes was holding the woman by her left armpit while Jacob Quitorio was supporting her by her right armpit. Jason Pomida was destroying the wire fence of the school. Upon seeing her, Campomanes beckoned to her. Afraid, Caspe ran way using a different route to her house. (TSN, June 29, 1993, pp. 2-7).
The following morning, a woman, who turned out to be Elena Gabane, was found dead in the grounds of the Dolores Elementary School. She was raped and her body bore several fatal stab wounds. The report of Dr. Yolanda Bacsal who conducted a post mortem of the cadaver, contained the following findings:“CHEST: Stab wound, 2 cms longest diameter, 13 cms depth, clean cut edges, along the 3rd intercostal space, parasternal area, left, directed downwardly, hitting the heart.Caspe was able to identify the body of the victim as the same woman she saw the night before in the company of the appellants because of her long hair and attire. She easily identified the appellants in a line-up of ten men (TSN, June 30, 1993, pp. 15, 22, 27-28).[3]
Stab wound, 2 cms longest diameter, 5 cms depth, clean cut edges, along the 5th intercostal space, parasternal area, left.
Stab wound, 2 cms longest diameter, 5 cms depth, 3rd intercostal space, clean cut edges, anterior axillary line, left.
Stab wound, 2 cms longest diameter, 18 cms depth, clean cut edges, along 5th intercostal space, midclavicular line, left.
Stab wound, 3 cms longest diameter, 8 cms depth, clean cut edges, 2nd intercostal space, midclavicular area, right.
Stab wound 3 cms longest diameter, 18 cms depth, clean cut edges, 4th intercostal space, directed upwardly parasternal area, right.
Stab wound, 2 cms longest diameter, 8 cms depth, clean cut edges, 4th intercostal space midclavicular, right.
Stab wound, 2 cms longest diameter, 3 cms depth, 4th intercostal space, parasternal area, right.
GENETALIA: Right labia minora lacerated.
Vaginal canal, admits 2 fingers without difficulty.
Hymen lacerated at 6:00 o’clock, 5:00 o’clock. 12:00 o’clock, compared to the face of the clock, V-shape in appearance.”
(1) The positive identification by prosecution witness Yolanda Caspe of accused-appellants, i.e., from a distance of 15 to 20 meters, she clearly saw Pacificador Campomanes holding the left arm of the victim by her armpit and his right arm holding a weapon; Jacob Quitorio holding the victim’s right arm and armpit; and Jayson Pomida destroying and making an opening near the corner of the hog wire fence of the Dolores Elementary School, Dolores, Eastern Samar.The trial court further ruled that conspiracy among accused-appellants was sufficiently established by their joint acts of carrying the victim and placing her inside the school compound. In view thereof, the RTC held that each accused-appellant was liable for three separate crimes of rape with homicide, namely, that personally committed by him and that committed by each of the other two accused.
2) The finding of Dr. Yolanda N. Bacsal that the victim suffered eight (8) serious and fatal wounds and was raped, possibly by more than one person;
3) The fact that on the morning of 7 September 1992, the police found, within the premises of the Dolores Elementary School, the corpse of a woman who was later identified as Elena Gabane, the victim;
4) The admission of accused-appellant Jayson Pomida in his affidavit (Exhibit 3-B) that he recognized the victim Elena Gabane as the woman being carried allegedly by PFC Oscar Renomeron, Danilo Segubio and John Doe on the night of September 6, 1992; and
5) The rebuttal testimony of Albert Donceras, PNP Investigator, that at the PNP Headquarters in Borongan, Eastern Samar, prosecution witness Yolanda Caspe pointed out Pacificador Campomanes and Jacob Quitorio as the ones holding the left arm and the right arm, respectively, of the victim Elena Gabane; and Jayson Pomida as the one destroying and making an opening in the hog wire fence of the Dolores Elementary School; and that these accused did not object after they were so pointed out.
Accused-appellants discuss these assigned errors jointly and, in the main, denounce the credibility of the testimony of Yolanda Caspe, thus:I
… IN CONVICTING [THEM] OF THE CRIME OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE BASED SOLELY ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.II
… IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS YOLANDA CASPE.
Her testimony is unworthy of belief. She does not even know the family name of Tilde whom she considers as her friend (TSN, p. 13, June 29, 1993). She does not really know the actual time she went to Tilde’s house, the time they started drinking and the time they finished drinking because she did not have a time piece then (TSN, p. 5, June 30, 1993), and besides she does not know how to tell the time and neither can she tell how long is one minute or one hour (TSN, p. 8, Oct. 12, 1993). How was she able to tell that they started drinking at 11:00 o’clock and she went home at 12:00 o’clock? Was she coached to state that particular time in order that her testimony will jibe with the testimony of Dr. Yolanda Bacsal, the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination, that the victim died probably at 12:00 o’clock midnight or at about 12:30 o’clock? (TSN, p. 12, July 28, 1993)In the Appellee’s Brief, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) urges us to affirm the challenged judgment as the guilt of accused-appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt; further, there is no reason to disturb the findings and conclusion of the trial court as to the credibility of Yolanda Caspe, who had no motive to falsely implicate accused-appellants. Although there was no eyewitness to the actual commission of rape and the killing of the victim, the OSG asserts that the following circumstantial evidence clearly linked accused-appellants to the crime, viz:
It is also quite intriguing that a woman, single at that (although she testified on cross-examination that she had children, TSN, p. 8, Oct. 12, 1993) would be out of her house for a drinking spree during such unholy hour when there was even no occassion [sic] to celebrate (TSN, p. 6, June 30, 1993).
Witness Yolanda Caspe went on to testify that on her way home, she saw, at a distance of fifteen (15) to twenty (20) meters, the three accused, namely, Pacificador Campomanes, Jacob Quitorio, and Jayson Pomida. Accused Pacificador Campomanes was holding the left arm of a woman, whom she later came to know as Elena Gabane; accused Jacob Quitorio was holding the right armpit of Elena Gabane; and accused Jayson Pomida was destroying and making an opening at the wire fence of the Dolores Elementary School. The three accused then tried to place the victim inside the wire fence. The accused then noticed her presence and one of them, Pacificador Campomanes in particular, beckoned her with a weapon and so she took another street and ran home, took her supper and slept.
On cross-examination, she even described the attire of the victim (TSN, p. 27 & 28, JUn [sic] 30, 1993) and each of the accused as follows:The foregoing testimony is incredible. If said witness had in fact seen such shocking incident where she herself was frightened by one of the accused, it is so surprising that she could relate in detail not only each and every act of the accused but even theirrespective attire. Is this not a [sic] proof of a coached and rehearsed witness? Of a prevaricated story?
- Accused Pacificador Campomanes was wearing white shorts, white sando, and white hat;
- Accused Jacob Quitorio was wearing maong pants, gray T-shirt the sleeves of which were detached, and wearing slippers (tsenelas); and
- Accused Jayson Pomida was in fatigue pants cut on the knee with sleeveless white T-shirt. (TSN, p. 25, June 29, 1993)
Furthermore, if the herein accused were the perpetrators of the crime charged and had in fact noticed the presence of Yolanda Caspe, will it not be more in harmony with human nature that herein accused would have exerted every effort to eliminate the witness and not merely frighten her? In this jurisdiction well-settled is the rule that evidence to be believed must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness but the same must be credible in itself as when it conforms to the common experience and observation of mankind. (People vs. Jalon, 215 SCRA 680).x x x
Furthermore, the prosecution failed to rebut the testimony of Patricia Almazan that there was no electric bulb at the area where the incident happened. This is very material to the prosecution. Considering the time of the incident which is 12:00 o’clock midnight and the distance of the alleged eyewitness from the place of the incident which is about 15 to 20 meters (or even 30 meters, as declared on cross examination, TSN, p. 9 & 16, June 30, 1993) the illumination coming from the moonlight would not give the witness a clear view of the incident much less of the identity of the accused. The witness having also consumed two bottles of “beer grande” together with her friend, the same surely affected her senses, particularly her vision. As such, there is serious doubt on the identification made of accused-appellants as the culprits. It has been held that the identity of the offender like the crime itself must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. (People vs. Jalon, supra).
(i) a body of the woman was found dead in the grounds of the Dolores Elementary School; (ii) the body bore several fatal stab wounds and had been sexually molested; (iii) there was no sign of struggle or blood (except where she was lying) in the area where she was found, indicating she was killed elsewhere; (iv) her death occurred at about midnight of September 6, 1992; (v) at about that time, she was seen by eyewitness Caspe in the company of appellants in the vicinity of the school where her body was found dead; (vi) appellants were carrying or holding the woman in a way that created suspicion, as they were holding her by the armpits; (vi) [sic] in the area where the victim was last seen alive near the corner of the school, blood stains were found; and (vii) appellants were easily identified by Caspe in a police line-up. All the foregoing circumstances, taken together, point to appellants as the culprits.A scrutiny of the evidence convinces us that accused-appellants deserve to be acquitted, not necessarily because they did not commit the crime charged, but in light of the prosecution’s failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and inability to overturn the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Constitution.[4] In criminal cases, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish its case with that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind,[5] with evidence which stands or falls on its own merits and which cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[6]
Q | What is then your basis in telling the court that the victim could have been raped? |
A | There were lacerations at 6:00 o’clock, 5:00 o’clock to 12:00 o’clock. |
Q | Since you became a doctor, this is your first of a medical case, am I correct? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | In other words, you have not yet examine any other victim who have suffered the same thing as the victim in this case, am I correct? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | Your findings doctor under exhibit “A-3” under the heading Genitalia says that the vaginal canal admits 2 fingers without difficulty without resistance and the hymen lacerated at 6:00 o’clock, 5:00 o’clock to 12:00 o’clock, compared to the face of the clock, and V-shape in appearance, according to your testimony you said that the victim was raped, am I correct, doctor? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | If a woman who suffers sexual intercourse with a man suffer hymenal laceration without necessarily been rape? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | What is again your basis doctor in telling the court in your direct testimony that it is possible that more than 3 or more than 1 person raped the victim? |
A | (No answer). |
Q | Is it also possible that she was rape[d] by only one person? |
A | Yes it is possible. |
Q | You told the court that this hymenal laceration were [sic] compared to the face of the clock, V-shape in appearance and when asked by the Prosecutor you told the court that these are fresh wounds, did I get you right? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | Could you determine to the court, how many hours had lapse from the time these lacerations occured [sic] until you conducted your examination at 10:00 o’clock in the morning of September 7 if you remember? |
A | (No answer). |
Q | You are not in a position to tell doctora? |
A | (No answer).[9] (underscoring supplied) |
Q | Was Miss Gabane virgin at the time she was raped? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | As an expert witness, how did you come to the conclusion that Miss Gabane was virgin at the time she was raped? |
A | Because the vaginal canal admits two fingers.[10] |
05.Q | Did you recall any incident that occcured [sic] while you were [on] the street? |
A. | Yes sir, while I was on my way home far from the house of Yolly, who is my friend, and who invited me for a snack because I was one of the sponsor[s] of her child in the baptismal [sic], and while I was [o]n the street of the bacck of the Dolores Central School Campus. I saw four (4) persons carrying a woman, one person holding the left arm, one person holding the right arm and a person was opening the hog wire fencce of the school fence while another person was a look out near the fence. |
x x x | |
09.Q | Who was the person holding the right and the left arm[s] and the person who was opening the hog wire fence of the school fence and the person to be [sic] the look out of those person[s] if you know? |
A | Pacificador Campomanes was holding the left arm Jacob Quitorio was holding the right arm while Jason Pomeda [sic] was the one opening the hog wire fence of the school and Rommel Padro was the look out man. |
Q | You just identified in court your affidavit which according to you were [sic] sworn before the Municipal Judge and the contents were read and explained to you, I will read to you question and answer number 5 in our exhibit “1” and I quote, “Did you recall any incident that occured [sic] while you were [on] the street?” and your answer is, “Yes, sir while I was on my way home from the house of Yolly, who is my friend, and who invited me for a snack because I was one of the sponsors of her child in the baptismal [sic], and while I was [o]n the street at the back portion of the Dolores Central School Campus, I saw 4 persons carrying a woman, one person holding the left arm, one person holding the right arm and a person was opening the hog wire fence of the school fence while another person was a look out near the fence”, do you remember having been asked that same question and having given the same answer? |
A | I did not. |
Q | The question and answer which was just read to you, you just said a while ago that you do not recall having been asked that question and having giving the same answer, is that correct? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | In other words, this particular portion of your affidavit was not actually asked from you and you did not give the same answer, is that correct? |
A | No, sir.[18] |
Q | Did you not say in your direct testimony that you saw these three persons bringing a woman whom you do not know whether it [sic] was dead or alive? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | You saw only three accused not four? |
A | The woman whom they were carrying was the … four[th]. |
Q | I am asking you Mrs. Witness along [sic] the woman according to you in your testimony, you saw only three not four? |
A | Three. |
Q | So, the fourth person that you saw was the woman? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | Do you know one Rommel Padro? |
A | No, sir. |
Q | Are you sure? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | I will read to you question and answer number 6 in your affidavit, exhibit “I”, the question read this way and I quote, “Who were these persons if you know?, your answer was, “It was Jacob Quitorio, Jayson Pomida, Rommel Padro and Pacificador Campomanes,” my question is this, do you recall having asked that question and having given the same answer? |
A | No, sir I only answered three. |
Q | So, that answer which was just read to you, the question and answer number 6 on exhibit “I” of you affidavit is not true because you just told now that there were three? |
A | I saw only three.[19] |
Q | So Sgt. Donceras conducted an investigation of your person at Borongan, is that correct? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | You were asked questions and you gave corresponding answers? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | And those questions and answers which you made were reduced by Donceras into writing? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | And as a matter of fact after it was reduced into writing you were made to sign the same? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | Now, I am informing you again that this Exhibit “I” is a sworn statement of Yolanda Caspe taken by Albert Donceras at the Borongan Prov’l. Headquarters of the PNP, on Sept. 23, 1992, now my question is, is this the same statement which according to you just now was made and reduced into writing? |
A | Yes, sir.[22] |
Q | You were at a distance of around 20 to 30 meters so much so that you saw the woman wearing a short skirt and a white jacket, did you not say so? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | But when you were asked by the Court what you observed on [sic] her dress or clothes you said you did not see because somebody was covering the woman and this was Jacob Quitorio, did you not say so? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | So, Jacob Quitorio was in front of the woman, is that correct? |
A | Yes, sir.[28] |
Q | I will read to you again Mrs. Witness question and answer No. 14 on Exhibit “1” which is your sworn statement, I quote, “The following day, September 7, 1992, what did you observed [sic] from [the] people of Dolores, Eastern Samar?” And your answer was, I quote, “At about 7:00 o’clock in the morning of that day, I learned from persons that there was a lady about 17 years old, who was killed, and I saw some Policemen inspecting and investigating the crime scene, and I learned later that the woman was raped.” Do you also recall having been ask[ed] and having given the same answer? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | I will read again the next question and answer No. 15, I quote, “What did you observed [sic] from the Police Investigator, if you know?” Your answer was, I quote, “I observed that they inspect[ed] and investigate[d] from [sic] the hog wire fence where I saw the four persons in [sic] the night before that day of September 7, 1992, carrying a woman.” Do you also recall having been ask[ed] that question and having given the same answer? |
A | Yes, sir.[31] |
ATTY. GAVAN:… | |
Q | Now, you just saw the body of the victim while [sic] being alighted from the patrol car from the answer of yours, am I made to understand that you did not go to the crime scene on [sic] the following morning? |
A | I did not go to the school, sir. |
Q | You are also sure of your answer? |
A | Yes, sir. |
Q | So you did not see the policemen at the scene where you saw the accused on [sic] the night before? |
A | No, sir. |
Q | Are you sure of our answer? |
A | Yes, sir.[32] |