G.R. No. 104498 October 22, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Saturnino Remollo y Retes, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Saturnino Remollo y Retes was charged with the complex crime of rape with homicide. The information alleged that on the evening of April 27, 1991, in Barangay Cancawas, San Jose, Negros Oriental, the accused, by means of force and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with six-year-old Maryjin Superal against her will, and by reason or on the occasion of the rape, killed her. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay indemnity and damages. The prosecution’s evidence established that on the evening of April 27, 1991, the victim’s father, Gabriel Superal, brought Maryjin to the house of the accused’s parents for a drinking party. The accused pulled Maryjin and took her to the kitchen. Later, Gabriel went home, discovered Maryjin was missing, and searched for her. The following morning, Linda Catilok found Maryjin’s dead body near a tree about 100 meters from the accused’s house. A post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Bienvenida Palong-Palong revealed the victim died from asphyxia due to strangulation, had a lacerated hymen, and spermatozoa was found in her vagina. Two young nephews of the accused, Angelito Remollo and Eddie Singco, testified that on that evening, the accused woke them up, asked for soap to bathe, informed them he had killed Maryjin Superal, and warned them not to tell anyone. The accused presented an alibi, claiming he was at a dance in San Jose from around 6:15 p.m. until 4:00 a.m. the next day. The accused also contested the admissibility of his extrajudicial confession.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in according weight and credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Angelito Remollo and Eddie Singco.
2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the extrajudicial confession of the accused obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.
3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great respect. The testimonies of Angelito Remollo and Eddie Singco were straightforward and candid, and the accused failed to show any grudge or improper motive for them to falsely testify against their uncle. Their testimonies were therefore entitled to full faith and credence. On the second issue, the Court found that the extrajudicial confession was admissible. The claim that the confession was in English and not translated was contradicted by Atty. Alfredo Renacia, who testified it was read in English and translated into Visayan. The accused was informed of his constitutional rights before the investigation, as stated in the confession itself and affirmed by Police Sgt. Gregorio Aniñon and Atty. Renacia. The claim of a hostile and intimidating atmosphere was not substantiated, and the confession was detailed and contained facts only the perpetrator would know, indicating voluntariness. On the third issue, the Court ruled that the prosecution proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The corpus delicti of rape and homicide was established by the medical findings. The accused’s extrajudicial confession, corroborated by the testimonies of the two boys and the medical evidence, left no doubt of his guilt. The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification and confession. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, and the award of damages was modified to P50,000.00 as indemnity for death, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.