G.R. No. 115215 September 16, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ELIZALDE FACO y FABIANA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Elizalde Faco, a tricycle driver, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide for the death of Lenny Catalan, a 17-year-old bakery store manager. The victim was last seen boarding appellant’s tricycle on August 8, 1993. Her decomposing body was found three days later in a vacant lot. Appellant was the last person seen with her. The prosecution presented evidence that appellant, after fetching the victim, was involved in a hold-up with two companions named Danny and an unidentified person. Appellant initially confessed to police officer PO3 Junie June Hervias, stating he and Danny planned to rob the victim, but Danny and his companion wanted to rape and kill her, leading to a struggle. Appellant later led police to where the victim’s body was dumped. At trial, however, appellant presented a new version, denying participation and claiming he was also a victim of a hold-up by Danny and the companion, and that he escaped after a struggle. The trial court found his testimony not credible and convicted him based on circumstantial evidence and his extrajudicial confession, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay indemnity and damages.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of Robbery with Homicide based on circumstantial evidence and his extrajudicial confession, despite alleged violations of his constitutional rights during custodial investigation and inconsistencies in the evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction. The Court held that while appellant’s extrajudicial confession made to PO3 Hervias was inadmissible due to violations of his constitutional rights under Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution and Republic Act No. 7438 (as he was not informed of his rights to remain silent and to counsel, and no counsel was present), the conviction was still validly based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence—including appellant being the last person seen with the victim, his possession of the tricycle used that night, his flight and failure to report the incident, his knowledge of the location of the body, the physical evidence (scratches on his body), and the medical findings indicating robbery and homicide—formed an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that appellant was the perpetrator. The Court found appellant’s alternative version of events not credible. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, and the award of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity was also upheld, but the award of actual damages was deleted for lack of sufficient evidence.