G.R. No. L-69251 September 13, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DANILO GOLE CRUZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On December 22, 1977, in Caypombo, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, Teresita Gumapay was found brutally attacked. Witness Antonio San Victores discovered her nude from the waist down, with severe neck wounds, lying at a washing area. Before she died, the victim twice identified her assailant to San Victores as “Danilo Gole Cruz, the son of Pio.” San Victores had earlier seen the accused, Danilo Gole Cruz, fleeing from the scene by jumping over a fence. The autopsy revealed the victim was strangled, stabbed, and her head battered; a sticky substance resembling semen was also found in her vagina. The accused surrendered to police that same night.
The accused was convicted of Rape with Homicide by the trial court and sentenced to death. On appeal, he challenged the credibility of the dying declaration, the admissibility of his extrajudicial confession, and the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to prove the rape element.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the complex crime of Rape with Homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua, in accordance with the constitutional prohibition of the death penalty at the time. The Court upheld the trial court’s findings. The victim’s ante-mortem statements to San Victores constituted a valid dying declaration, admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. The declaration was made under a consciousness of impending death, as her fatal wounds were severe and she died shortly after. The positive identification of the accused by the victim herself carries the highest probative value.
Regarding the extrajudicial confession, the Court found its admission harmless. Even disregarding it, the remaining evidence—the dying declaration, the witness seeing the accused flee, and the physical evidence—constituted proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also found the rape element sufficiently established. The circumstantial evidence—the victim found partially nude, the semen-like substance, and the lack of other suspects—formed an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that rape preceded the homicide. The accused’s defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over the positive evidence presented by the prosecution. The collective weight of the evidence left no moral doubt as to his guilt.