G.R. No. 108180 February 8, 1994
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Eduardo dela Cruz y Laoang, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Eduardo dela Cruz y Laoang, was charged with the crime of rape with homicide. The information alleged that on or about March 19, 1990, in Aguilar, Pangasinan, the accused, with force and violence, had sexual intercourse with Merly Caburnay, a girl under twelve years of age, against her will, and on the occasion thereof, with intent to kill, attacked and struck her, inflicting fatal injuries which caused her death. The accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted him and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim.
The prosecution’s case, as summarized from its brief, established the following circumstantial evidence: In the early dawn of March 19, 1990, prosecution witness Cesar Soliven saw the accused, who smelled of liquor, follow the victim, Merly Caburnay, as she walked towards her home. Later that morning, the victim’s naked and lifeless body was found in a ricefield. Mayor Domingo Madrid, informed of the crime, was told a man had left the scene suspiciously. The Mayor overtook the accused, who was walking away from the area. The accused had dirty clothes, a torn maong pants stained with blood, a T-shirt with bloodstains, scratches on his neck and arms, and dried palay stalks sticking to the back of his pants. His explanation for his appearance was that he had slept in a ricefield. He was arrested. Soliven later positively identified the accused from a police line-up as the man he saw following the victim. The autopsy by Dr. Wilma Flores-Peralta confirmed the victim was raped and died of cardio-respiratory arrest after a struggle. The examination of the accused revealed linear excoriations and abrasions on his body, and his clothing bore human blood stains. The victim was ten years old; the accused was forty-eight.
In his defense, the accused claimed he was at the town fiesta, drank liquor, attended mass, and was walking home when arrested. He denied committing the crime and claimed there were no rice stalks on his pants when arrested.

ISSUE

Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of rape with homicide.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court held that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence is permissible provided the following requisites concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. All these requisites were satisfied in this case.
The circumstantial evidence consisted of: (1) Soliven’s testimony that he saw the accused follow the victim in the early morning of the crime; (2) the discovery of the victim’s naked, lifeless body in a ricefield; (3) the accused being overtaken while walking away from the crime scene, looking suspicious; (4) the accused’s physical condition when apprehended—dirty and torn pants with human bloodstains and dried palay stalks, a dirty T-shirt with bloodstains, and scratches on his neck and arms, which were consistent with a struggle; (5) the positive identification of the accused by Soliven; and (6) the autopsy findings confirming rape and a violent struggle leading to death. The combination of these circumstances leads to the inescapable conclusion that the accused committed the crime.
The Court rejected the accused’s defenses. His alibi was weak and could not prevail over the positive identification and the physical evidence. Furthermore, for alibi to succeed, it must be shown that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the crime scene. Here, the accused’s claimed location was only about ten meters from the crime scene, negating physical impossibility. The Court also found the accused’s explanation for his physical condition unconvincing and inconsistent.
The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto.