428 Phil. 332
PER CURIAM:
That on the 25th day of June 1999 at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening, more or less at Barangay Inobulan, Municipality of Salay, Province of Misamis Oriental, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with force and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with (sic) a five year old Rowena C. Bangcong against her will and consent and with intent to kill, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and struck (sic) the different parts of the victim’s body with the use of a hard object, which accused previously provided himself, thus causing lacerated wounds, abrasions hematomas and submerging the victim in water at the nipa swamp which caused her death.Upon arraignment, accused, assisted by counsel, pleaded “not guilty” to the offense charged.[2] The case thereafter proceeded to trial. However, after the prosecution had rested its case and formally offered its evidence, accused escaped detention on April 26, 2000 by scaling the perimeter fence of the Provincial Jail.[3] He has remained at large to date despite efforts to apprehend him.
CONTRARY TO and in violation of Section II, Chapter III, paragraph 5 of Article 266-B of R.A. 8353.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered by the Court sentencing accused to suffer the supreme penalty of death, to indemnify the heirs of Rowena Bangcong in the sum of P75,000.00, to pay moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs.On automatic review, accused-appellant faults the trial court with a lone assignment of error, to wit:
Since accused is at large after he escaped detention while the case was still pending but after the prosecution had presented its evidence, let a warrant for his arrest, or alias warrant of his arrest issue.
Once arrested let his custodian ship his person to the National Penitentiary without delay as provided by law, there to await the result of the review of this case by the Highest Tribunal of the land.
SO ORDERED.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE THEREBY SENTENCING HIM TO SUFFER THE DEATH PENALTY DESPITE THE GLARING INSUFFICIENCY OF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.[5]On the other hand, the Solicitor General recommends affirmance of the appealed Decision in toto.
Appellant Aldrin Licayan and Bernard Agcopra were friends from way back. On June 25, 1999, after years of absence, appellant went to Agcopra who had a machine shop in Barangay Inobulan, Salay, Misamis Oriental, to apply for work as a grinder of engine valves. On this occasion, they drank rum to celebrate their reunion. Romeo Bangcong, who was also Agcopra’s friend, joined them later in their drinking bout. They finished drinking in Agcropa’s shop at 5:00 p.m.As stated earlier, after the prosecution had rested its case and formally offered its evidence, accused-appellant escaped detention and has remained at large despite efforts to apprehend him. Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement, he loses his standing in court and is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court. [7] Accused-appellant’s escape should be considered a waiver of his right to be present at the trial and the inability of the court to notify him of the subsequent hearings will not prevent the court from continuing with the trial because the escapee is deemed to have received notice.[8]
The group continued drinking in the house of Wenny Rajal also in Barangay Inobulan, Salay, Misamis Oriental. After consuming two bottles of Beer Grande, they bought a case of the same drink, which they brought to the house of Romeo. When they arrived, Romeo’s wife Rosalinda and his children, Rey Oriente, Raymundo and five-year old Rowena were there. Agcopra did not stay long and did not drink beer anymore. He went with Romeo to the barangay captain leaving appellant in Romeo’s house. When Romeo returned to his house, appellant was embracing and kissing Rowena, justifying it by saying that he missed his daughter.
Appellant kept on embracing Rowena. At 6:00 p.m., more or less, Rowena asked that she be allowed to watch television at neighbor Dorbit’s house fifteen meters away. An hour later, Romeo told Rey Oriente to fetch Rowena. Thereafter, appellant also left, saying that he would look for Agcopra. When the boy reached Dorbit’s house, he saw appellant there with Rowena. Appellant told Rowena: “Day, come here because your father asked you to go home so you can eat your supper.” Appellant then held the hand of Rowena and dragged her into a dark area. Rey Oriente, however, did not go with appellant and his sister, thinking that they were heading for the Bangcong house.
When Romeo got tired of waiting for Rowena, he went to the Dorbit house to inquire about her. Rey Oriente told him what happened, which caused him to cry. Neighbors were alerted and immediately formed a posse to look for the girl. While searching for Rowena, they spotted appellant when they trained a flashlight to him. Appellant ran towards the ricefield. The posse chased him, but failed to catch him when he jumped into the deep Inobulan River. When appellant passed by a group of men who offered him a drink, his clothes were wet and his body was muddy. He had no slippers. That same night, appellant was arrested by the police.
The following morning, the dead and naked body of Rowena was found at the swamps, where appellant told Rogelio Dahilan, Jr., one of the searchers, she would be. Photographs were taken of the girl. A postmortem examination of the girl revealed that she had hematomas, lacerations, abrasions all over her body, as well as a deep incomplete hymenal laceration at the 6:00 o’clock position. The cause of death was asphyxia by submersion in water. Rowena died a painful death.[6]
1) it should be acted upon with caution;The following circumstances pointed out by the trial court lead to the inevitable conclusion that the accused-appellant perpetrated the crime:
2) all the essential facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt;
3) the facts must exclude every other theory but that of guilt; and
4) the facts must establish such a certainty of guilt of the accused as to convince the judgment beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is the one who committed the offense.[13] The peculiarity of circumstantial evidence is that the guilt of the accused cannot be deduced from scrutinizing just one particular piece of evidence. It is more like a puzzle which when put together reveals a convincing picture pointing towards the conclusion the accused is the author of the crime.[14]
First, before 1:00 A.M. of June 25, 1999, accused drank rhum with Bernard Agcopra, an automotive mechanic with whom he applied for work. June 26th was anti-vesperas of the fiesta of Inobulan, Salay, Mis. Or. Having consumed the rhum, the duo decided to take a motorbike to Bernard Agcopra’s shop in order to test accused’s skill in grinding engine vale[s]. At Agcopra’ shop, they drank some more rhum where they were joined by Romeo Bangcong. At 5:00 P.M., the three proceeded to the house of the owner of the overhauled engine. While there, Agcopra ordered two bottles of beer grande, and after consuming these the group bought one case of the same beer grande. The 3 brought this to the house of Romeo Bangcong which is not far away.Accused-appellant, however, insists that the foregoing circumstances are insufficient to prove his guilt. He argues that: 1.] the first three (3) circumstances do not point to accused-appellant’s guilt; 2.] prosecution witness Hernando Zambrano who was among those who organized the search party, is not credible because he did not shout upon finding accused-appellant; 3.] the witnesses could not have seen accused-appellant in the darkness; 4.] the witnesses could have seen somebody else; 5.] assuming that accused-appellant was the one seen by the posse, he was not committing any wrong by running away; 6.] the claim of prosecution witnesses that Jun-jun Dahilan told them where Rowena’s body could be found based on accused-appellant’s admission is hearsay; 7.] granting that accused-appellant revealed where Rowena’s lifeless body could be found, he never admitted having raped and killed her; 8.] the admission made by accused-appellant to Dahilan, Jr. is inadmissible; 9.] the circumstance that accused-appellant was seen with wet pants, muddy body and without slippers lacks probative value; and 10.] there were no tell-tale signs that accused- appellant was dragging Rowena to the swamp.
Second, the three, accused, Bernard Agcopra and Romeo Bangcong, reached Romeo’s house. In the house then were Romeo’s wife and children, Rosalina and Rowena, 5 years old. Accused was drunk. But no sooner than they arrived that accused and Romeo started drinking the case of beer grande that they had brought. Bernard Agcopra begged off. He went home. When Rey Oriente Bangcong, one of Romeo’s children and elder brother of Rowena, arrived from school that afternoon of June 25th, which was Friday, he saw accused drinking with his father and while so doing he kissed and embraced Rowena, justifying it by saying that he missed his daughter. This happened in the presence of the Bangcong family. At about 6:00 o’clock, Rowena asked her father’s permission to view t.v. at the nearby house of Dorbit, to which Romeo gave his permission. About an hour after that Romeo told Rey Oriente to fetch his sister at Dorbit’s
Third, arriving at Dorbit’s house, Rey saw accused telling Rowena “Day come here because your father asked you to go home so that you can eat your supper.” Accused was holding the hand of Rowena and was dragging her. Soon Romeo Bangcong also arrived at Dorbit’s house looking for Rowena.
Fourth, the Bangcong’s neighbors organized a search party. One group spotted accused 20 meters away. He ran toward the direction of the rice field. They chased him but they failed to overtake him as he jumped into the Inobulan River which is 5 arms length wise but deep. The searchers lost him.
Fifth, at about 4:00 o’clock of June 26th accused told Jun-jun Dahilan who in turn told the searchers the location of the body of Rowena. Referring to the place they found the dead and naked body of the victim there.
Sixth, with muddy pants, wet and without slippers accused emerged at the place where Wilson Salvaña and companions were drinking at about 9:30 P.M. of June 25th. He wore [a] stripe[d] blue shirt. He accepted the offer to drink and then proceeded away from them.
Seventh, accused was the last person with whom Rowena was last seen.[15]
Visibility is indeed a vital factor in the determination of whether or not an eyewitnesses could have identified the perpetrator of a crime. However, it is settled that when conditions of visibility are favorable, and the witnesses do not appear to be biased, their assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be accepted. Illumination produced by kerosene lamp or a flashlight is sufficient to allow identification of persons. Wicklamps, flashlights, even moonlight or starlight may, in proper situations be considered sufficient illumination making the attack on the credibility of witnesses solely on that ground unmeritorious.[20]Accused-appellant’s argument that he did not commit any wrong in running away upon being espied by the search party likewise deserves scant consideration. Courts go by the biblical truism that “the wicked flee when no man pursueth but the righteous are as bold as a lion.”[21] Accused-appellant has not satisfactorily explained why he fled upon being spotted by the posse.
The foregoing is not an extra-judicial confession, but merely an extra-judicial admission. Sections 26[27] and 33,[28] Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court clearly delineates their distinction. In People v. Agustin,[29] we elucidated on the difference between the two in this wise:
Q While you were there and Aldrin Licayan was also there did you have a chance to talk to him?
A Yes, Ma’am.Q What did you talk about?
A I asked him Brod, as if I was guessing, where did you leave the child?Q What was his answer to your question?A He told me “Did you remember the place where we were drinking?”Q What was your answer?
A I told him, Yes, at the place of Wennie Rajal.Q What more?A He said, “Yes in the place of Wennie Rajal. From his place there was a curve[d] road or junction. And in that junction the side of it is a ricefield. After the ricefield there is a nipa swamp. Try to see there maybe I left the child there!”Q After getting that information from Aldrin Licayan what did you do?
A Me and my companions went outside the Municipal Hall and proceeded to the place where Aldrin Licayan told us.Q Did you reach the area described by Aldrin Licayan?
A Yes, Ma’am.Q What did you see when you arrived in that place described by Aldrin?A It is where we found the child.[26]
A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a statement by the accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to issue, and tending, in connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt. In other words, an admission is something less than a confession and is but an acknowledgment of some fact or circumstance which in itself is insufficient to authorize a conviction, and which tends only to establish the ultimate fact of guilt.The records show that Rogelio “Jun-jun” Dahilan was neither a law enforcement nor a public officer conducting a custodial interrogation of accused-appellant. He was merely a jeepney driver and an acquaintance of accused-appellant who asked the whereabouts of the missing child of his kumpadre because the victim was last seen with the latter.[30]
...Constitutional procedure on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally admitted having committed the crime…[32]Even assuming arguendo that accused-appellant’s admissions indeed partake of an extra-judicial confession, the same would still be admissible not only on account of the foregoing considerations but also because it is corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Under Rule 133, Section 3 of the Rules of Court,[33] an extra-judicial confession shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti, which is defined as the body of the crime and, in its primary sense, means a crime has actually been committed.[34] Applied to a particular offense, it is the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.[35] In this case, aside from the admission made by accused-appellant, the bruised and battered body of the victim herself recovered at the exact spot described by accused-appellant conclusively established the corroborating evidence of corpus delicti.
Art. 47. In what cases death penalty shall not be imposed; Automatic review of death penalty cases. - The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws except when the guilty person is below eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or is more than seventy years of age or when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty, in which cases the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.Under prevailing jurisprudence, the amount of civil indemnity in cases of rape with homicide is now P100,000.00.[45] On the other hand, the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 given to the victim’s heirs is proper taking into consideration the pain and anguish of the victim’s family[46] brought about by her death.[47]