G.R. No. L-39712 November 21, 1980
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. GOMEZ SALIGAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

This case involves the automatic review of a death penalty for the crime of “Attempted Rape with Homicide.” The victim, Teofista Maloloy-on, was found dead on July 3, 1972, near a hanging bridge in Maco, Davao del Norte. She had sustained multiple stab and incised wounds, including a fatal hacking wound to the neck. An autopsy revealed her vaginal opening was gaping, but no semen, lacerations, or signs of violent penetration were found. The accused, Gomez Saligan, was linked to the crime as he was the last person seen with the victim, having agreed to meet her at the bridge. His hat was found near the body, and he subsequently executed a sworn confession (Exhibit “A”) admitting to the rape and killing.
The procedural history is significant. The case was initially remanded by the Supreme Court in 1972 due to the trial court’s failure to observe the stringent guidelines for accepting a plea of guilty in a capital offense. Upon re-arraignment with counsel, Saligan pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Court of First Instance convicted him of Attempted Rape with Homicide and imposed the death penalty, leading to this automatic review.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the crime of Attempted Rape with Homicide, or any constituent crime thereof, based on the evidence presented, particularly the extrajudicial confession and the corpus delicti.

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED Gomez Saligan. The legal logic centered on the insufficiency of evidence to prove the corpus delicti of rape, which is a necessary element for the complex or attempted complex crime. The Court emphasized that an extrajudicial confession, like Exhibit “A”, is not sufficient for conviction unless corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti—the fact that a crime has been committed.
The medical findings were critically examined. The Necropsy Report indicated a gaping vaginal opening but explicitly noted the absence of spermatozoa, vaginal lacerations, bleeding, or any physical evidence of recent sexual intercourse or violent assault on the victim’s genitals. The Court, citing medico-legal authority, held that a gaping vaginal opening alone, without other corroborative signs, is not conclusive proof of sexual intercourse, much less of rape. It could be caused by other factors, including the advanced state of relaxation after death. Therefore, the corpus delicti of rape was not established.
With the rape unproven, the foundation for the complex crime of “rape with homicide” or “attempted rape with homicide” collapsed. The Court could not sustain a conviction for a crime whose very existence was not corroborated by independent evidence. While the evidence strongly pointed to Saligan as the perpetrator of the homicide, his conviction for the complex crime was based on an invalid confession uncorroborated by the requisite proof of the rape itself. Consequently, the decision of the lower court was reversed, and Gomez Saligan was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.