609 Phil. 232
VELASCO JR., J.:
That on or about the 4th day of June, 1999 at about 7:45 o'clock in the evening, at Barangay [XXX], Municipality of Balayan, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bladed instrument and a hard object, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of [AAA],[4] against her will and consent and by reason or on the occasion of the said rape, accused with intent to kill, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stabbed and hit the said AAA, thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple stab wounds and other injuries on the different parts of her body, which caused her instantaneous death.With the assistance of his counsel de oficio, Bascugin pleaded guilty upon arraignment on August 5, 1999. Since he was facing a charge for a capital offense, the trial court asked him if his plea was voluntarily given and whether he understood the consequences of his plea. The case then proceeded to trial. The prosecution presented testimonial, object, and documentary evidence, while the defense offered no contest. On June 15, 2000, the trial court adjudged him guilty of the charge beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
On August 15, 2005, the trial court found Bascugin guilty. The fallo of its decision reads:
- the victim boarded the tricycle being driven by the accused at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening of June 4, 1999;
- at about 8:30 o'clock of the same night, the accused was seen driving his tricycle without any person on board going towards the direction of Balayan town proper from Brgy. [XXX];
- the tricycle then being driven by the accused was seen parked near the waiting shed at Brgy. [XXX] which was the place discovered by the police officers where the incident took place and the hairclip belonging to the victim was found;
- the abaca rope found by the police inside the tricycle of the accused, the pair of maong pants belonging to the victim was found near the body of the latter, a white panty and yellow panty also belonging to the victim, a Hanford brief, a sleeveless undershirt, a blue T-shirt and a pair of corduroy pants, all belonging to the accused were all found to be positive for human blood reactions of Group `A' which was the same grouping as that of fresh blood taken from the victim;
- the yellow panty belonging to the victim was found to be positive to seminal stains;
- the findings of the medico-legal officer who examined the body of the victim which shows that the latter bore multiple stab wounds and complete fresh hymenal lacerations;
- the complete matching of the bucal swab taken from the accused with the vaginal smear sample taken from the victim which sufficiently established that the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim before killing her; and
- the admission of the accused that he raped and killed AAA when asked by the Court and the prosecutor.[15]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused Leodagario Bascugin y [Agquiz] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide, defined and penalized under Art. 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, in relation to Republic Act No. 7659 and without considering any mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances, hereby imposes upon him the supreme penalty of DEATH. He is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of [AAA] the sum of P100,000.00, to pay the same heirs the amount of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages and to pay the costs.In view of the imposition of the death penalty, the case was forwarded to the CA for review.
It having been established beyond any shadow of a doubt that appellant raped [AAA] and killed her on the occasion thereof, the mandatory penalty of death is inescapable. However, with the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346 which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, should instead be imposed on accused-appellant.
The trial court correctly awarded P100,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of [AAA] commensurate with the seriousness of the said complex crime. Likewise, the heirs of [AAA] are entitled to temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00, despite the paucity of evidence as to actual damages, inasmuch as it is reasonable to expect that they incurred expenses for the coffin, burial and food during the wake. Moreover, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, the award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should be increased to P75,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION by imposing on accused-appellant Leodegario Bascuguin y Agquiz the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole, and ORDERING him to further indemnify the heirs of [AAA] in the increased amount of P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Bascugin's confession was freely, intelligently, and deliberately given. Judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order. The presumption is that no sane person would deliberately confess to the commission of a crime unless prompted to do so by truth and conscience.[18] Admission of guilt constitutes evidence against the accused pursuant to the following provisions of the Rules of Court:
Q: At that point, did you come to know the cause of your physical injury? A: Yes, sir. Q: What may be the reason? A: According to the doctor, the injury I sustained was a result of a person's bite, sir. Q: For how long did you stay at that hospital? A: Less than an hour, sir. Q: After one (1) hour of staying in that hospital, what happened next? A: While on our way out at the hospital, I was invited by police investigators to go with them to the police station and I voluntarily went with them to face the consequences of what I did, sir. Q: Could you tell to this Honorable Court what do you mean by the consequences of what you did? A: That if I did something wrong on that time, I should pay for it, sir. Q: So you mean to say that you have this thinking that you have committed something wrong? A: Yes, sir. Q: And you are willing to confront the same, freely, voluntarily and without offering any resistance? A: Yes, sir. COURT: Q: Are you thinking of this case against you? A: Yes, Your Honor. Q: Meaning to say you might have committed the same? A: Yes, Your Honor. ATTY. CHAVEZ: Q: You said that you were being brought to the police station. What happened there, Mr. Witness? A: The investigator incarcerated me, sir. Q: And at that time, do you know the reason why you were incarcerated by the police? A: No, sir. Q: What was the date when you were being detained at the police station? A: June 4 already, sir. Q: Are you sure of that, Mr. Witness? A: Yes, sir, because it was already early morning. Q: At the police station, Mr. Witness, what happened? A: At around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, [AAA] arrived, sir. Q: Who were with [AAA]? A: [Her] parents and the police officers, sir. Q: Was she still alive during that time? A: No longer, sir. Q: What was your reaction upon seeing [AAA]? A: During that moment I was so sorry and I cannot explain and I cannot understand what happened, sir. Q: Do you mean to tell us that you have this feeling at that time that you were responsible for the killing and raping of this [AAA]? A: Yes, sir. Q: Did you feel any remorse or resentment to what happened with you and [AAA]? A: Yes, sir. Q: I noticed also, Mr. Witness, that at the course of the proceedings of this case you are always changing your plea of not guilty/to guilty. Why is it so, Mr. Witness? A: Because I am bothered by my conscience and I was always changing my plea but I feel responsible for what I did, sir. Q: Do you know fully the consequences of your testimony, Mr. Witness? A: Yes, sir. ATTY. CHAVEZ: I have no more questions, Your Honor. COURT: Cross? PROS. ALIX: Yes, Your Honor. Q: By your own testimony you are not admitting that you are responsible for the death of [AAA] and that you did have carnal knowledge of that? Before you do that, may the Court remind this witness that he has the right to answer or not the question. COURT: The Court would like to remind you that you have the right to choose whether to answer or not to answer the question. You can remain silent so before you answer the question, think of the question carefully. WITNESS: A: Yes, sir. COURT: Q: Meaning to say that you not only admit that you killed her but you also raped her? A: Yes, Your Honor.[17]
SEC. 4. Judicial admissions.--An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. [Rule 129]Furthermore, Bascugin's confession is consistent with the evidence. We agree with the trial and appellate courts' finding that the chain of events constitutes circumstantial evidence that is sufficient to support a conviction. From the testimonies of witnesses and the physical evidence gathered, it was established that the victim was last seen with Bascugin in his tricycle; his tricycle was seen parked near a waiting shed in the premises of which the victim's personal belongings were later found; his pieces of clothing were found positive for human blood that matches the victim's; and the medico-legal report states that Bascugin had sexual intercourse with the victim.
SEC. 26. Admissions of a party.--The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. [Rule 130]
SEC. 33. Confession.--The declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be given in evidence against him. [Rule 130]