G.R. No. 185709 ; February 18, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. MICHAEL A. HIPONA, Appellant.

FACTS

Michael A. Hipona (appellant) was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City for the special complex crime of “Rape with Homicide (and Robbery)” and sentenced to death. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Second Amended Information charged appellant, together with Romulo Seva, Jr. and one John Doe, with Robbery with Rape and Homicide. The victim, AAA (appellant’s aunt), was found dead in her house on June 12, 2000, having been raped, physically manhandled, strangled, and robbed. Investigation revealed a hole bored into the wall of her comfort room, and the main electrical switch was turned off, suggesting the perpetrator was familiar with the house layout. Appellant’s mother, BBB, informed police that appellant confessed to her, saying, “Mama, I’m sorry, I did it because I did not have the money.” Appellant was arrested on June 13, 2000, while wearing AAA’s missing necklace. During a media presentation, he apologized but claimed he only acted as a look-out, blaming co-accused Seva and “Reypacs.” The following day, in a broadcast interview, appellant answered “Because of my friends and peers” when asked why he committed the crime, and later cited poverty. Post-mortem examination confirmed AAA died from asphyxia due to manual strangulation and showed fresh hymenal lacerations consistent with rape. Appellant did not present evidence in his defense. The trial court convicted him based on circumstantial evidence, including his possession of the stolen necklace, his confessions to relatives and media, and his familiarity with AAA’s house. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346 .

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming appellant’s conviction for the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide based on circumstantial evidence and his extrajudicial statements.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The conviction was sustained based on sufficient circumstantial evidence meeting the requisites under Rule 133, Section 4 of the Rules of Court: (1) more than one circumstance; (2) proven facts from which inferences are derived; and (3) a combination of circumstances producing conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence included: appellant’s frequent visits to AAA’s house, indicating familiarity with its layout; his admission to relatives and media of presence during the crime (even as a look-out); his possession of AAA’s necklace at the time of arrest; and his extrajudicial confession to a radio reporter attributing the crime to peer influence and poverty. The Court rejected appellant’s argument that negative DNA results exonerated him from rape, citing jurisprudence that presence of spermatozoa is not essential to prove rape; penetration is sufficient, and the fresh hymenal lacerations found in the post-mortem examination were consistent with rape. The Court also held that appellant’s confessions to the media were admissible as they were made voluntarily to news reporters, not to police investigators. The penalty was properly modified to reclusion perpetua in accordance with Republic Act No. 9346 . The awards of damages were also affirmed: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.