G.R. No. 144886. April 29, 2002.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO SILVANO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On October 7, 1991, the body of Maramanay Tomas was found near a river in Sitio Inudaran, Alamada, Cotabato. A necropsy revealed she died from multiple stab wounds, but the examination of her genitalia showed no findings. More than a year later, on March 9, 1993, a criminal complaint for attempted rape with homicide was filed against Antonio Silvano. The information was later amended to charge consummated rape with homicide, alleging he used a bladed weapon, had carnal knowledge of the victim against her will, and then stabbed her to death. The prosecution’s case primarily rested on the testimony of Constancio Jimenez, accused-appellant’s nephew, who claimed that at a birthday party on December 3, 1992, accused-appellant confessed to raping and killing a Muslim girl out of fear she would testify against him. Jimenez admitted on cross-examination that he harbored hatred against accused-appellant due to prior quarrels over animals. The prosecution also presented the victim’s father and the medico-legal officer, but failed to formally offer its evidence. The defense consisted solely of accused-appellant’s denial of the confession and alibi that he was at his house on the day of the crime, asserting Jimenez’s testimony was motivated by ill will. The Regional Trial Court convicted accused-appellant of rape with homicide and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with civil indemnity and moral damages.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of rape with homicide based on the evidence presented, particularly the alleged extrajudicial confession.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the trial court’s decision and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Antonio Silvano on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged extrajudicial confession, recounted by a witness who admitted to harboring ill feelings against accused-appellant, was uncorroborated and insufficient to sustain a conviction. No other evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, physical evidence linking accused-appellant to the crime, or proof of corpus delicti for rape (as the necropsy showed no findings on the victim’s genitalia), was presented. The prosecution’s failure to make a formal offer of evidence was deemed a waiver. Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires that the circumstances form an unbroken chain leading to one reasonable conclusion of guilt to the exclusion of all others, which was not established here. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and when it fails to discharge this burden, the accused need not even present evidence. Moral certainty of guilt was lacking.