G.R. No. 63609, June 6, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANICIO MASONGSONG, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Anicio Masongsong was charged with rape with homicide. The information alleged that on August 16, 1982, in Santa Maria, Laguna, Masongsong, armed with a deadly weapon, forcibly had carnal knowledge of 67-year-old Amanda Reyes Vda. de Matibag. On the occasion thereof, he tied her hands, feet, and mouth, and threw her into an irrigation canal, causing her death by drowning. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty despite having executed an extra-judicial confession detailing the crime. The trial court convicted him and imposed the death penalty.
The prosecution evidence established that Masongsong and his uncle, Sergio Ocampo, went to the victim’s house to steal livestock. While Sergio stole a pig and chickens, Masongsong went upstairs, raped the elderly widow at knifepoint, and then tied her up. After the act, he discovered the victim had freed herself and was fleeing. He recaptured her, bound her securely, and threw her into an irrigation canal where she drowned. The victim’s body was found the next day, still bound, with post-mortem findings confirming vaginal laceration and death by massive water ingestion. The stolen pig and a pair of shoes were later recovered, leading investigators to Sergio and, subsequently, to Masongsong.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the extra-judicial confession admissible and credible, as it was corroborated on material points by independent evidence, including the physical condition of the victim’s body, the recovery of the stolen pig, and the testimonies linking the appellant to the crime scene. The Court rejected the defense of alibi, noting it was not only physically possible for him to be at the crime scene but his presence was positively established. His flight to Siniloan after the incident and his silence when confronted were deemed indicative of guilt.
The Court addressed the lack of an eyewitness to the rape itself by recognizing that rape is typically committed in secrecy, and the only direct witness—the victim—was killed to eliminate testimony. The evidence, taken together, formed an unbroken chain leading to the sole conclusion of the appellant’s guilt. However, pursuant to the constitutional prohibition on the death penalty at the time, the Court reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The indemnity to the victim’s heirs was also increased to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00). The decision of the Regional Trial Court was thus affirmed with these modifications.