596 Phil. 260
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
That on or about the 25th day of December 2000 in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, by the use of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, lie and have carnal knowledge of one LORELYN PACUBAS y TAMAYO, against the latter's will and consent.When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Trial thereafter ensued.
During the occasion or by reason of the rape with intent to kill and taking advantage of superior strength, covered the face of said victim with a pillow, thus suffocating her which ultimately led to her instantaneous death. Likewise, during or on occasion of the rape with intent to gain and by means of force, violence and intimidation employed upon the person of Lorelyn Pacubas y Tamayo, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the following, to wit:
a). one (1) gold necklace with pendant b). one (1) pair of gold earring
c). college ring d). Seiko lady's wristwatch
all in the total amount of P10,000.00 more or less, belonging to victim Lorelyn Pacubas y Tamayo, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.
The incident xxx happened in a room at the second floor of House No. 724, Ballesteros St., Barangay New Zaniga, Mandaluyong City. The sketch of the house (Exh. A, p. 148 Records) shows it has three (3) rooms; on the first floor, one occupied by Arlene Gorospe and family (exh. A-1); the second, by Alfredo Pascual and his family (Exh. A-2); and the third is the residence of Rodolfo Jundos, Jr. and his family. On the second floor is another room occupied by the family of the victim Lorelyn Pacubas y Tamayo (alias Ling-Ling) and her siblings.Accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He alleged that on December 24, 2000, he was drinking with Rodolfo Jundos, Jr. and the latter's son outside their residence from 10:00 p.m. until 1:00 a.m. of December 25, 2000. When he came home, he had a fight with his wife Divina Pascual (Divina) because the latter allegedly wouldn't permit him to go to a friend's house in Sta. Mesa, Manila, as he was already drunk. Nonetheless, so accused-appellant claims, he still went to Sta. Mesa and stayed at his friend's house for more or less six days.[4] Upon learning from his wife that Lorelyn Pacubas was raped and killed and that he was the suspect therein, he requested his wife to contact and coordinate with Major PeƱalosa for his voluntary surrender. On cross-examination, accused-appellant admitted that he knew Lorelyn Pacubas was staying alone on the second floor of the house on that fateful night, as her two (2) other siblings had already gone home to the province.[5] Moreover, he admitted having called his wife on December 25, 2000, and was then told about the crime which happened to Lorelyn Pacubas and that he was the suspect thereof.[6]
Last December 24, 2000, at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, Rodolfo Jundos, Jr. was preparing to celebrate noche buena with his son and the accused-appellant, Alfredo Pascual who was with Christopher, his 2-year old youngest child. Alfredo Pascual appeared to have had liquor already. For three (3) instances, the accused would ask permission to go inside the house as he was already sleepy and drunk but nonetheless will return 10 to 15 minutes later, twice still with the child and only to continue drinking every time he returned. On the third time, he was without the child anymore and partake (sic) of liquor until 1:00 o'clock a.m. when he left, leaving Rodolfo Jundos, Jr. alone just outside the aforesaid house at 724 Ballesteros St. (Exh. A-8). Twenty (20) minutes later, Divina Pascual, appellant's wife, came out the house looking for her husband. When informed that the latter had already left, Divina started looking for him inside the house and later in the billiard hall 10 or 15 minutes away. Moments later, Divina went passed (sic) the place where Rodolfo Jundos, Jr. was drinking, rushing upstairs to the second floor of the house. Soon after, Jundos saw Divina chasing Alfredo running out towards the gate at the same time asked (sic) Jundos for help saying "Kuya, tulungan mo ako, si Boyet" (referring to Alfredo Pascual)). Thinking that Alfredo Pascual was making trouble, Rodolfo Jundos, Jr. joined the chase but could not catch up as Alfredo was running very fast. So Divina told him to instead go upstairs as the accused might have done something wrong to Ling-ling (Lorelyn) [T.S.N. pp. 4-11, October 24, 2002]. Rodolfo Jundos, Jr. is the husband of appellant's older sister, Laarni.
Together, Jundos and Divina rushed to the second floor. As the place was dark, they switched on the light and there they saw Ling-ling (Lorelyn Pacubas) flat on her back on the floor almost naked with arms and legs open, her panty and shorts down to her ankle and t-shirt pulled up above the breast with blood on the right breast. They tried to wake up Ling-ling but the latter was already dead. Rodolfo Jundos, Jr. was shocked at what he saw. Divina got hysterical and repeatedly told Arlene Gorospe what happened (T.S.N., supra, pp. 11-14). It did not take long before policemen from the Southern Command (SOCO) arrived.
That same morning Rodolfo Jundos, Jr. gave his statement before PO2 Fernando Aguilan (Exh. C, p. 150 Records) and so did Divina Gorospe Pascual (Exh. D, p. 151). Arlene Gorospe likewise executed his Sinumpaang Salaysay that same day, December 25, 2000, before Police Inspector Efren Pascua Jugo. (Exh. B, p. 149, Records) It was this witness Arlene Gorospe who prepared the sketch (Exh. A, p. 148, Records). Later in (sic) that fateful morning, police investigators appeared in (sic) the scene of the incident and took pictures of the place and the victim while still lying on the floor (Exhs. E, E-1 to E-7 and F-1 to F-5 xxx, p. 152, Records).
After proper police investigation and coordination, the victim, Lorelyn Pacubas, was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory, for autopsy and the examination of the blood found in the place of the incident (Medico Legal Report No. S 056 00, Exh. M, p. 162, Records). The printed underwear with suspected seminal stains was likewise examined. Medico-Legal Report No. R-007-00 (Exh. N, p. 163, Records) reveal absence of semen. In Medico-Legal Report No. M 932 00 (Exh. O, p. 164, Records), it was determined that the cause of death was asphyxia by smothering. The same report gave the following postmortem findings on the injuries sustained by the victim:with the corresponding location of the said wounds on the attached sketches of the head (Exh. P, p. 165, Records) and the human body in the anatomical sketch (Exh. Q, p. 166, Records).[3] (Emphasis ours)
POSTMORTEM FINDINGS Fairly developed, fairly nourished, female cadaver in rigor mortis with postmortem lividity at the dependent portions of the body. Conjunctivae are pale. Lips and nailbeds are cyanotic. HEAD 1) Lacerated wound, upper lip, measuring 0.8 x 0.5 cm, along the anterior midline. 2) Contusion, right cheek, measuring 5 x 4 cm, 7 cm from the anterior midline. TRUNK 1) Contusion, right pectoral region, measuring 3 x 2 cm, 11 cm from the anterior midline. 2) Lacerated wound, right nipples, measuring 0.6 x 0.1 cm. 3) Contusion, right pectoral region, measuring 5 x 4 cm, 10 cm from the anterior midline. 4) Contusion, sternal region, measuring 3 x 1 cm, along the anterior midline. 5) Contusion, left inguinal region, measuring 5 x 3.5 cm, 10 cm from the anterior midline. The stomach is full of partially digested food particles. EXTREMITY
1) Contusion, proximal 3rd of the right forearm measuring 4 x 2 cm, 4 cm lateral to its posterior midline. 2) Contusion, right ring finger, measuring 0.5 x 0.3 cm. LARYNX, TRACHEA AND ESOPHAGUS The larynx, trachea and esophagus are markedly congested and cyanotic with petechial hemorrhages. xxx xxx xxxGENITAL There is abundant growth of pubic hair, labia majora are full, convex and co-aptated with pinkish brown labia minora presenting in between. On separating the same disclosed a fleshy type hymen with deep healed lacerations at 3, 6 and 9 o'clock positions with an abraded posterior fourchette, measuring 1 x 0.4 cm. Vaginal and peri urethral smears are POSITIVE for spermatozoa. xxx xxx xxxCONCLUSION: Cause of death is Asphyxia by smothering. (p. 164, Records)
WHEREFORE, finding accused, ALFREDO PASCUAL Y ILDEFONSO alias "BOYET" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide, under the circumstances prescribed in Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, absent any modifying circumstance to aggravate or mitigate criminal liability, the court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH.The case was directly elevated to this Court for automatic review. However, in a Resolution[12] dated July 26, 2005 and pursuant to our ruling in People v Mateo[13] the case was transferred to the CA.
He is also ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of Php63,000.00 as actual damages; the amount of Php50,000.00 as moral damages; the amount of Php25,000.00 as exemplary damages; Php28,000.00 as burial expenses and the amount of Php250,000.00 for loss of earnings. Additional actual expenses incurred not supported by receipts are denied pursuant to Article 2199 of the Civil Code.
In so far as the charge of robbery is concerned, the same is hereby ordered DISMISSED, it appearing that the valuables and other personal belongings of the victim are intact.
The accused is likewise ordered to pay the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.[11]
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the heirs of Lorelyn Pacubas is further awarded the amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, in addition to the other damages in the lower court's judgment. Costs de officio.In view of the foregoing, accused-appellant comes again to this Court for a final review of his case.
SO ORDERED.
(a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been established; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.Verily, for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient to support a conviction, all the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.[21] Thus, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained only when the circumstances proved form an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the culprit.
Arlene Gorospe corroborated the testimony of Jundos that in the early morning of December 25, 2000, Jundos and the accused-appellant's wife, Divina, knocked at his door to inform him of the incident after which he immediately proceeded upstairs and saw the victim naked and lifeless with her t-shirt pulled up.[25]
"Q - When you are still on that particular place where you are drinking alone, do you remember any unusual incident that happened?A -Yes sir. Q -What is that incident? A - Nong umuwi na po si Divina sa kanila nong sinabi nya na napapagod na sya, maya-maya po ay nakita ko si Divina na nag-tatatakbo, dumaan po doon sa harap ko at nag-tatatakbo patungong itaas po'.Q - Itaas ng? A - Second floor sir. xxxQ -And what happened after Divina went up stairs of the second floor? A -Nakita ko po na naghahabulan si Divina at yong asawa nya si Alfredo Pascual. Q -Did you see where did they came from? A -`Hindi ko po nakita kong saan sila naggaling, ang nakita ko lang dito po sa gilid ko papuntang gate. Q -So, you see them coming out of that building and proceeding towards the gate? A -Yes sir. Q -And who was ahead? A -Alfredo Pascual sir. Q -And what was Divina doing at that time? A -She's chasing Alfredo Pascual. Q -Did you hear her saying something? A -Yes sir. Q -What [did] she say? A -Humihingi po sya sa akin ng tulong, sabi nya po, "kuya tulongan mo ako si Boyet" kasi ang palayaw po ni Alfredo Pascual e Boyet.
Q - And what was your interpretation then when you heard her asking for your help, this Divina, the wife of the accused?A - `Ang pagkaintindi ko po na humihingi si Divina ng tulong, akala ko po nagwala kasi lasing po, kaya humihingi po ng tulong yong asawa, kaya (po) ako po'y tumakbo doon at naki-nakipaghabol po sa kanila'.Q -And what happened next after that? A - `Tumakbo rin po ako at nakihabol rin ako sa kanila, pero nong nandoon na po ako sa kalsada, yong street po naming Ballesteros, nasa kalagitnaan na po ako, nakita ko na po si Divina at sinalubong na po ako, ang sabi sa akin, "kuya hindi na maabutan kasi mabilis tumakbo tulungan mo nalang ako, samahan mo ako, aakyat tayo sa taas kasi baka kung anong ginawa nya don kay Ling-Ling, the victim in this case".Q -So, what did you do when Divina ask for your assistance? A -`Sinamahan ko po, umakyat po kami sa second floor at nakita namin sa second floor, madilim, parang walang sindi ang mga ilaw'. Q -What was the condition of the door going inside the second floor when you went up? A -Open sir. Q -And did you and Divina do when you were already (inside) in the second floor? A - `Hinanap po nami yong mga switches, kasi ako po bihirang bihira po akong makaakyat don kaya sabi ko kay Divina hanapin natin yong switch kasi hindi ko kabisado rito, yon kinakapa po naming kong saan po yong mga switches, habang kinakapa po naming yong mga switches tapos pinupukpok ko po yong dingding tapos nag-tatawag po ako ng pangalan ni Ling-Ling, "Ling saan ka naroon".Q -And then what happened next? A - `Yan po habang hinahanap po naming yong mga switches at kinakatok po naming yong mga dingding bigla pong sumigaw si Divina na "kuya halika dito" ng marining ko po na tinatawag yong pangalan ko e lumapit po ako kung saan sya naroon".Q -What happened next? A - `Nandon po sya sa loob ng kwarto, bukas po yong pinto, doon nakita ko po si Ling-Ling, yong biktima.Q -Where was the victim at the first time or instance that you saw her at that particular time? A -At the floor sir. Q -What was the physical appearance of the victim when you first saw her? A - When I first saw the victim she was lieing (sic) in the floor with open arms (sic) and open legs and her short and panty was already loose off down to her ankle and her (the) shirt is up.Q -Up to where? A -`Nakataas po, labas ang kanyang "didi" at nakita ko pong may dugo sa gilid". Q -Where did you find the blood? A -On her left side breast sir. Q - On that particular instance, when heard Divina calling for help, was there already light inside that house?A -There was a light sir. Q -Where was that light coming from? A -Came from the ceiling. Q -Inside the room where Divina found the body of the victim? A -Yes sir.
xxxQ - When you first enter that room where you find the body of the victim Lorelyn Bacubas, what was the condition of the room?A - `Nakita ko po na magulo yong kama tapos yong drawer na lagayan ng mga damit kasi salamin po yong ibaba may mga basag po at may mga patak ng dugo'.Q -What else did you find? A -`May scissor po sa left side ng braso nya, sa gilid po'.
xxxQ -What did you do when you saw the victim in this case already sprawled on the floor? A - `Nung nakita na naming hindi na gumagalaw si Ling-Ling at ang pagkaalam namin ay patay na, bumaba na po kami'.
xxxQ -After you went down, what did you do next? A - `Pag-baba po namin ni Divina, tumakbo po kami don sa pinto, sa bahay po ng bayaw ko at humingi po kami ng tulong'.Q -Who is your brother-in-law? A -Arleen Gorospe sir. xxxQ -What did you do with Arleen Gorospe? A -`Pag-bukas po ng pinto, una pong pumasok si Divina at nag-hysterical na nagsisigaw na Manang Rose, yong asawa po ni Arleen Gorospe, si Ling-Ling ginahasa at pinatay ni Boyet'.
Q -And what next happened? A - `Sinalaysay po ni Divina, pero ako po'y na shock at napaupo na lang ako sa sopa, umakyat din po si Arleen sa taas at may tumawag na rin ng pulis".[24] (Emphasis Ours)
Res gestae utterances refer to those exclamations and statements made by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or after the commission of the crime, when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur: (1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; (2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise; and (3) the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances.The aforementioned requisites are present in this case. The res gestae or the startling event is the rape and death of the victim. The statements of Divina to Gorospe were made spontaneously and before she had the time to contrive or devise such declarations, and said statements all concerned the occurrence in question or the immediately attending circumstances thereof.