G.R. No. 183091; June 19, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BERNESTO DELA CRUZ @ BERNING, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On March 19, 2001, an Information was filed charging Bernesto dela Cruz with the crime of rape with homicide for events occurring on or about May 27, 2000. The victim, AAA, left her house at 6:30 a.m. to gather gabi. When she did not return by 9:00 a.m., her sister, BBB, went to look for her. BBB found the gathered gabi and then saw the accused, Bernesto dela Cruz, from about ten arm-stretches away. He was undressed except for his blood-drenched briefs, cutting minongga tree branches and using them to cover something. Upon seeing BBB, Bernesto ran away, throwing the bolo he was using. BBB then discovered the headless body of AAA, covered by branches, with her head lying a few meters away. A post-mortem examination by Dr. Adoracion Florido revealed AAA’s head was severed, she had three other lacerated wounds, and her vaginal examination was positive for spermatozoa, indicating rape within 24 hours prior to the exam. The cause of death was homicide about ten hours before the examination. In his defense, the accused denied the allegations, claiming he was working on his farm and later met BBB while fully dressed, and he denied seeing AAA. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted the accused of rape with homicide and sentenced him to death, relying on circumstantial evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and adjusted the damages. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused for the crime of rape with homicide based on circumstantial evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification on the award of damages. The Court held that the conviction based on circumstantial evidence was proper. It reiterated that in cases of rape with homicide, where there are usually no living witnesses, circumstantial evidence may be resorted to establish the crime and the identity of the perpetrator, provided the evidence is credible and sufficient to lead to the inescapable conclusion of guilt. The Court enumerated the circumstantial evidence presented: (1) BBB saw the accused covering the victim’s body with branches while clad only in bloodied briefs; (2) the victim’s headless body was found, with her head a few meters away; (3) the victim’s body was exposed and her undergarments missing; (4) medical examination showed spermatozoa in her vagina; (5) the victim suffered hack wounds; (6) the bolo used and thrown by the accused was identified as belonging to the victim; and (7) the accused fled the scene upon being discovered. The Court found these circumstances constituted an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that the accused committed the complex crime of rape with homicide. The penalty was properly imposed as reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were modified in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.