G.R. No. 173510/G.R. No. 174099 March 15, 2010
ERPASCUAL DIEGA y PAJARES, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent. / PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ERPASCUAL DIEGA y PAJARES, Appellant.

FACTS

The victim, “AAA,” a 13-year-old student, was found dead on March 18, 1995, inside a plantation in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, where appellant Erpascual Diega y Pajares worked as a stay-in security guard. Her body was covered with leaves, a wood vine was tied around her neck, her head bore wounds, her school uniform was crumpled, and her panty was missing. The medico-legal report indicated death from asphyxia by strangulation and traumatic injuries, and fresh hymenal lacerations compatible with recent loss of virginity. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence: (1) Juanito Manalo III testified that on March 17, 1995, he saw appellant, clad only in shorts, standing over the unconscious victim, who then pointed a pistol at him, ordered him to touch the body and tie a vine around her neck, and threatened to kill him if he revealed the incident; (2) Martin Gailan and Arnel Alminana corroborated that Juanito was seen fleeing and that appellant had threatened Juanito afterward; (3) appellant was not at his post on the day of the crime; (4) appellant had fresh scratches on his arms, neck, and back when questioned; (5) prior to the crime, appellant had lecherously looked at the victim, whistled at her, touched her arm, and told her aunt to take care of her. The defense denied the allegations, claiming alibi and that he was falsely accused due to a land dispute with the victim’s family, who were squatters in the plantation. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of the complex crime of rape with homicide and imposed the death penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification, increasing the civil indemnity.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. An accused may be convicted based on circumstantial evidence provided the proven circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. The elements of the special complex crime of rape with homicide were established beyond reasonable doubt by the combination of circumstances: (1) the victim was last seen alive traversing the path near appellant’s post; (2) appellant was seen with the victim’s unconscious body; (3) the medico-legal findings confirmed rape and homicide; (4) appellant had fresh scratches consistent with a struggle; (5) appellant exhibited lewd behavior towards the victim prior to the incident; (6) appellant threatened the eyewitness; and (7) appellant fled after being released on custody. These circumstances are consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, and inconsistent with innocence or any other rational hypothesis. The penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in accordance with prevailing law, and the award of damages was modified.