G.R. No. 181041 ; February 23, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. FABIAN G. ROMERO, Appellant.

FACTS

On the evening of September 5, 2004, Joanna Pasaoa, a Grade 2 student, saw her friend, AAA, walking towards the appellant Fabian G. Romero’s house. Joanna followed and saw AAA and the appellant watching television together. The appellant instructed Joanna to buy a bottle of Red Horse beer, which she did before going home. Later, Joanna returned to the appellant’s house to fetch AAA. When she was about four meters away, she saw the appellant outside his house repeatedly stabbing AAA. Joanna ran and reported the incident to her mother.
That same evening, around 8:00 p.m., BBB (AAA’s father) and CCC (BBB’s brother-in-law) searched for AAA. Passing by the appellant’s place, they saw him pouring liquid into a fire. As they approached, the appellant fled into his house. BBB and CCC inspected the fire and found partially burnt grasses and clothes. One meter away, they discovered AAA’s lifeless body, half-naked, partially burnt, and bearing multiple stab wounds, covered with grass. CCC lifted the body while BBB shouted invectives. Townspeople, barangay officials, and police arrived, surrounding the house and arresting the appellant.
The prosecution charged the appellant with the special complex crime of rape with homicide. The appellant denied the charges, claiming he was drinking with friends until 8:30 p.m. that night. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the death penalty, plus civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and increased the damages awarded.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the appellant’s conviction for the special complex crime of rape with homicide based on circumstantial evidence.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction but modified the award of exemplary damages. The Court held that both rape and homicide were established beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, which satisfied the requisites under Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court: (a) more than one circumstance; (b) established facts from which inferences are derived; and (c) a combination of all circumstances that unavoidably leads to a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The circumstances proving rape were: (1) AAA and the appellant were seen together watching television at his house; (2) AAA’s half-naked, partially burnt body was found near where the appellant was burning clothes; (3) AAA’s legs were spread apart with her labia gaping; (4) Dr. Jesus Arturo De Vera testified to hymenal and anal lacerations consistent with penetration by a hard object like an erect penis; (5) Nerigo Daciego, a medico-legal officer, found positive signs of anal and vaginal penetration and confirmed rape occurred while AAA was alive due to mucosal erosion.
The homicide was established by: (1) Joanna’s positive identification of the appellant as the person repeatedly stabbing AAA, which was deemed credible as she was four meters away under illumination from the house and no ill motive was imputed to her; (2) corroboration by Dr. De Vera and Daciego that the victim suffered 29 stab wounds; and (3) physical evidence from the appellant’s house, including a bloodstained kitchen knife, towel, broomstick, T-shirt, pillow case, blanket, and bloodstains at the door, all containing “female genes” as per PNP Crime Laboratory findings.
The appellant’s alibi and denial were rejected as they contradicted positive evidence of his presence at the crime scene. However, the Supreme Court reduced the exemplary damages awarded by the CA from ₱100,000.00 to ₱50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. The decision of the CA was affirmed with this modification.