402 Phil. 372
“That on or about the 5th day of August 1994, at xxx Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bolo, with intent to kill and taking advantage of his superior strength, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and hack several times with said weapon one AAA, a minor, 13 years of age, inflicting upon her fatal wounds on vital parts of her body, which directly caused her death; that on the same occasion, the said accused, with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with said AAA while she was already unconscious.”During his arraignment on December 17, 1996, appellant, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty.  Thereafter, trial on the merits followed.
“On August 5, 1994, at around 9:00 o’clock in the morning, BBB, AAA’s father, was having a drinking spree with appellant and Anthony Briones in the place of a copra dealer near the school of xxx. It lasted up to 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon when they decided to separate. Appellant told BBB that he had to proceed to the place of the ‘pamanhikan’ which concerned his son. Appellant likewise asked BBB who were the persons in their house. BBB told appellant his children AAA and two year-old CCC will be left in their house, as the other two children will buy rice.(TSN, 5-13-97, pp. 8-10)Appellant relates his version of the facts, thusly: 
On the same day of August 5, 1994, at around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, Benny Reoveros was in their house at xxx when he heard the voice of a young child shouting ‘Diyos ko po, Diyos ko po, tama na po, tama na po.’ He was thus impelled to proceed to the place where the shout came from. When he was already near, at a distance of about fifteen (15) meters more of less, he saw appellant Isagani Paraiso carrying a child face down, with his two hands. Benny hid himself in a shrubby place where there were several anahaw trees. The he saw appellant put down the child with her face up on the ground. The child was AAA. Benny was more or less twenty (20) meters away from the place of appellant and AAA. He saw appellant remove the shorts of AAA then raise her upper clothes and pull down his pants. Appellant then placed himself on top of AAA and raped her for about five minutes. Thereafter, appellant hacked AAA on the neck with a bolo. Because of fear, Benny ran to their house. He reported the incident to Barangay Captain Angel Roy Recilla who in turn summoned his barangay kagawad and they went to the place pointed by Benny. At the shrubby place, they found Arlene already dead. (TSN, 4-15-97, pp. 3-9)
Dr. Manuel L. Salaveria, Municipal Health Officer of xxx conducted the post mortem examination upon the victim AAA with the finding that she was abused and the cause of death was ‘cardio respiratory arrest due to severe internal and external hemorrhage secondary, multiple hack wounds’ (Exhibit ‘B’). AAA was buried in the afternoon of August 7, 1994.”
“Evidence for the defense shows that on August 5, 1994 at about 11:00 o’clock in the morning, the accused had a drinking spree with the father of the deceased. It lasted until about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon. Thereafter, the accused readily went home riding his carabao. On his way, he met the brother and sister of the deceased. He asked them were they were going and the two answered that they were going to buy rice. He arrived at his house at more or less 2:30 in the afternoon. Upon reaching his place, he tied his carabao at a coconut tree. Since he was under the influence of liquor at that time and feeling sleepy, he immediately went into bed. At that time, his sister Florinda was with him. At around 3:00 o’clock of the same afternoon, Letecia Buizon, cousin of the accused dropped by the latter’s house in order to ask for bamboo poles to be used in the flooring of her house. Finding that the accused was sleeping, she went out of the house and got 8 pieces of bamboo poles, then returned to the house of the accused to inform the latter that she already got the bamboo poles. However, upon seeing that the accused was still sleeping, she just went home at xxx. xxx.”With its above findings, the lower court concluded that it was “fully convinced and morally certain that it was the accused Isagani Paraiso who raped and killed the victim AAA.” Thus, the penalty of death was imposed, in accordance with article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act 7659. The dispositive portion of the Judgemnt dated September 29, 1997, reads:
The trial judge evaluated the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies, viz.: 
“As shown by the records, witness Reoveros, at times, hedged and failed to answer some questions; and gave inconsistent statements, particularly when asked about distances and the four (4) cardinal directions, viz: (a) distance of his house to house of victim which he estimated to be 50 meters, more or less, if about ¼ of the distance from this Court to railroad crossing (TSN., April 7, 1997, pp. 3-5); (b) time consumed by the travel from the place of barangay captain to the place of victim which he stated is more or less 1 hour (TSN., pp. 14-15, supra); (c) failed to answer when asked three (3) times if he was definite that on the night of August 5, 1994, he did not inform the barangay captain that it was Isagani Paraiso who raped and killed AAA; and (d) his errors and inconsistencies in his rough sketch (Exh. ‘1’). He candidly admitted his non-familiarity with the four (4) cardinal directions due to his lack of education and that what he knew is going to ‘Ilaya’ or ‘Ibaba’. (TSN., 29, 1997).
These enumerated inconsistencies in the declarations of the eyewitness Benny Reoveros cannot destroy the totality of his testimony. These discrepancies do not negate the main thrust of his testimony that he saw the accused raped and hacked the victim on the date and time in question. ‘A truth-telling witness is not always expected to give an error-free testimony, considering the lapse of time and treachery of human memory. Thus, we have followed the rule in accord with human nature and experience that honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen, rather than destroy, the credibility of a witness, especially of witnesses to crimes shocking to conscience and numbing to senses’ (People vs. Paule, G.R. Nos. 118168-70, September 11, 1996), as in this case at bar.
xxx xxx xxx
The most important thing is that the eyewitness Benny Reoveros, on the witness stand, was firm, spontaneous and categorical in his declaration that it was accused Isagani Paraiso whom he saw that afternoon carrying the victim, face down and laid her on the ground, face up; then lowered her shorts and panty, pushed up her blouse and raped her. Thereafter, accused hacked her on the neck with his bolo. Reoveros stood by his declaration, unshaken throughout the entire trial, and never showed any hesitation in his identification of accused. His positive identification is unerring. He knows accused who is his uncle by affinity because the wife of accused and his mother are sisters. Moreover, nowhere in the records does it show that said eyewitness was impelled by improper motives to impute such false and serious charges. (People vs. Trilles, 254 SCRA 641). Even accused admitted, on record, that witness Reoveros, a nephew of his wife, has a very high respect from him, xxx.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx As witness Reoveros succinctly stated, he was bothered by his conscience for what accuse did to the child. Thus, despite his relationship to accused, he had to come forward and reveal what he saw.
This Court understands the failure of the witness Reoveros to immediately report the incident and reveal the identity of the accused after that startling and shocking occurrence. More so, when he is related by affinity to the perpetrator of the crime, as this makes it all the more traumatic. xxx
xxx xxx xxx
Furthermore, Reoveros’ version of the incident is supported by the physical evidence of the case, the Post-Mortem Examination (Exh. ‘B, B-1 to B-3’), showing that the victim, AAA sustained multiple hack wounds and her internal examination revealed the following: ‘vagina admits one finger with ease. On opening up the introitus there is perineal laceration and minute hemorrhages at 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock positions. Hymen ruptured. Patient: abused.’
xxx xxx xxx
Finally, accused’s defense of alibi crumbles in the face of the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime (People vs. Ferrer, 255 SCRA 19). Positive identification was made by eyewitness Benny Reoveros, his nephew by affinity. Reoveros could not, therefore, have been mistaken as to his identity. ‘The doctrine constantly upheld by this Court is that alibi and denial cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. In addition thereto, accused has failed to establish that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene when it happened’ (People vs. Alimon, 257 SCRA 661). And it is well-settled that the testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as such testimony is found to be clear and straight-forward and worthy of credence by the trial court (People vs. De Roxas, 241 SCRA 369).”
“WHEREFORE, finding the accused Isagani Paraiso y Hutalla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with Homicide, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of death, with its accessory penalties under Art. 40 of the Revised Penal Code, and to pay the Heirs of the deceased AAA the following: (a) P150,000.00 for actual and moral damages; and (b) P50,000.00 indemnity for death, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.In his Brief,  accused-appellant makes a single assignment of error, as follows:
Pursuant to Sec. 10 of Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, let the whole records of this case be forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review and judgment.”
“The Court a quo gravely erred in finding that the guilt of the accused for the crime charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.”To support his plea for acquittal, appellant points to alleged flaws in the prosecution evidence: (1) the delay of the eyewitness in identifying the appellant as the culprit; (2) the eyewitness’ false statement during direct examination that appellant was his blood-relative while, in truth, they are only related by affinity; and (3) the improbability of the commission of such a crime in broad daylight and within hearing distance of neighboring houses. These circumstances, appellant avers, amount to a failure of the prosecution to meet the quantum of evidence required to overcome his innocence.
To recapitulate, prosecution witness Reoveros actually saw the loathsome defilement and brutal slaying of 13-year-old AAA by appellant Paraiso. In his distant house, he heard a young girl’s piteous cries, “Diyos ko po, Diyos ko po, tama na po, tama na po,” which impelled him to approach the place where the cries came from and look into what could be happening. About 15 meters from the house of his neighbor BBB, he saw his uncle, appellant Isagani Paraiso, carrying AAA, face down, to a shrubby area a few meters from the house and where he laid her on the ground. Paraiso thereafter undressed the girl, ignominiously ravished her and, after satisfying his bestial lust, fatally hacked his victim’s neck with his 18-inch long bolo, almost severing her head.
“PROSECUTOR MAGNO: Q Now, at around four o’clock in the afternoon on August 5, 1994, do you remember where were you? A Yes, sir. Q Where were you then? A I was in our house, sir. Q And where is your house located insofar as the barangay, municipality and province are concerned? A xxx, sir. Q And what were doing, if any, on that precise time, date and place? A I was making something where our stove will be placed, sir. Q And while you were making the patungan of the stove at around four o’clock in the afternoon on August 5, 1994, could you remember of any unusual incident that happened? A There was, sir. Q And what was that unusual incident you are referring to? A
I heard somebody shouting, sir.
Q And what was that shout that you heard? A He was shouting ‘Diyos ko po, Diyos ko po, tama na po, tama na po.’ Q And from what place were that shout you heard came from? A From the house of BBB, sir. Q And how far is that house of BBB from your house? A More or less fifty (50) meters away, sir. Q When you heard the shout coming from the house of BBB, what are those particular words that you heard? A He was shouting ‘Diyos ko po, Diyos ko po, tama na po, tama na po.’ Q And from the moment you heard that shout ‘Diyos ko po, Diyos ko po, tama na po, tama na po,’ is that coming from a man or a woman? A That is the voice of a woman, sir. Q That voice that you heard come from and old woman or a young woman? ATTY. BONIFACIO: We will object, Your Honor. COURT: Sustained PROSECUTOR MAGNO: Q Now and the moment that you heard the shout ‘Diyos ko po, Diyos ko po, tama na po, tama na po,’ what did you do if you did any? A And because of the shout of that young child, I could not avoid going to that place, sir. Q And you mean to convey before this Court that you went to that place where the shout came from? A Yes, sir. Q Now and what happened after you went to the house where the shout came from? A When I was already near, I saw isagani Paraiso, sir. Q And this Isagani Paraiso is the uncle and accused in this case? A Yes, sir. Q And what was the position of Isagani Paraiso when you saw him? A
I saw that he was carrying the child AAA, sir.
Q And who is this AAA in relation to the owner of the house BBB? A Father, sir, parent. Q and what was the position of AAA when she was carried by Isagani Paraiso? A She was face down carried by the two hands of Isagani Paraiso, sir. INTERPRETER: Witness demonstrated how AAA was carried by the two hands of Isagani Paraiso. PROSECUTOR MAGNO: Q Now, for how long did you look at this Isagani Paraiso and AAA from the time that you saw Isagani Paraiso for the first time? A More or less one (1) minute, sir. Q And how far were you from Isagani Paraiso and AAA to the place where you were standing at that moment where you were? A More or less fifteen (15) meters, sir. Q Now and what did you do after seeing that Isagani Paraiso was carrying AAA? A What I did was I hid myself in a shrubby place where there were several anahaw trees, sir. Q And after hiding yourself at the anahaw trees, what happened next, if any? A I saw when this Isagani Paraiso put down this AAA with her face up, sir. Q And where did this AAA placed by Isagani Paraiso? A On the ground, sir. Q Now, how far is that house of BBB where you saw Isagani Paraiso and AAA up to the place where Isagani Paraiso carried AAA and placed on the ground? A More or less twenty (20) meters, sir. Q And how far were you from the place where AAA was placed on the ground by Isagani Paraiso? A More or less twenty (20) meters also, sir. Q And after AAA was placed on the ground by Isagani Paraiso, what happened next, if any? A I saw that he removed the shorts of the child, sir. Q And who removed the clothes of the child? A Isagani Paraiso, sir. Q And while Isagani Paraiso was removing the clothes of the child, what happened, next, if any? A
He raised the upper clothes of the child, sir.
Q And after that, what happened, if any? A I saw when he pulled down his pants, sir. Q To whom do you refer when you said ‘he pulled down his pants’? A Isagani Paraiso, sir. Q And what happened after Isagani Paraiso pulled down his pants, if any? A
He placed himself on top of the child, sir.
Q And what did Paraiso do while he was on top of the child? A He already committed the rape (panghahalay), sir. Q And while Isagani Paraiso was taking off the clothes of this child and he took off his clothes and placed himself on top of the child, what did the child do, if any? A The child could not anymore, sir. Q Why did you say that the child could not shout anymore? ATTY. BONIFACIO: We would like to place on record that the witness took time in answering the question, Your Honor. (Question repeated to the witness). ATTY. BONIFACIO: We would like to place on record after the question was repeated to the witness, the witness is not yet answering the question. WITNESS: A Because Isagani is on top of her, sir. PROSECUTOR MAGNO: Q You have made mention that Isagani Paraiso committed the act of ‘panghahalay’. What do you mean when you said ‘panghahalay’? A He did something bad, sir. Q And what is that something bad? A In short, sir, he raped her ‘ginahasa’, sir. COURT: Put the word ‘ginahasa’. PROSECUTOR MAGNO: Q And while Isagani Paraiso was on top of the child raping her, according to you, what did you do if you did anything? A I could not do anything because I became afraid, sir. Q Now, for how long did Isagani Paraiso rape this child, AAA? A Maybe, more or less, five (5) minutes, sir. Q And after raping this child, what followed next, if any? A After he had already raped her, he hacked AAA on her neck, sir. Q Now and after Isagani Paraiso hacked Arlene AAA on her neck, what happened next, if any? A Because of my fear, I ran to our house, sir. Q
Now, when AAA was hacked by Isagani Paraiso,was AAA hit with the hack?
A She was hit, sir. Q On what part of her body was she hit? A On the neck, sir. Q And where did this isagani Paraiso get his… I withdraw that. Q What kind of weapon did Isagani Paraiso use in hacking AAA? A A bolo which is as long as this, sir. INTERPRETER: Witness demonstrating a length by stretching apart his hands which, upon actual measurement, is eighteen (18) inches.” 
With all the foregoing circumstances, the prosecution has clearly adduced the requisite quantum of proof to find appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of raping and killing AAA. Additionally, appellant offered thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) to the victim’s father as settlement of the case and so that he could be released from confinement.  Such offer can only be taken to mean an admission of guilt. In criminal cases, except those involving criminal negligence or those allowed by law to be amicably settled or compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. 
Internal examination: Normal external genitalia, vagina admits one finger with ease. On opening up the introitus there is perineal lacerations and minute hemorrhages at 3’ o’clock and 9’ o’clock positions. Hymen ruptured.
- Wound, incised, both edges sharp, measuring 7 inches x 2 inches with a depth of 5 inches from the left posterior ear extending up to the right posterior ear, occipital area. Head with evisceration of the brain tissue.
- Wound, incised, both edges sharp, measuring 4.5 inches x 1.5 inches with a depth of 1.5 inches, nape.
- Wound, incised, 1 inch x 0.5 inch left parieto-occipital area.
- Wound, incised, 1.5 inch x 1 inch right parieto-occipital area.
- Hematoma, 2.5 inches 0.5 inch Right scapular area.
- Wound, incised, 4.5 inches x 2.5 inches with a depth of 4 inches, anterior neck severing the esophagus.
- Wound, lacerated, 3 inches x 2 inches left deltoid area.
- Wound, incised, 1.5 inch x 0.5 inch left big finger.
- Wound, incised, 1 inch x 0.5 inch left index finger.
- Wound, incised, 1.5 inch x 0.5 inch Right middle finger.
Cause of Death: Cardio Respiratory Arrest due to severe Internal and External Hemorrhage secondary multiple Hack Wounds.”