People v. Villaflores PDF
People v. Villaflores PDF
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
366
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
367
368
BERSAMIN, J.:
Circumstantial evidence is admissible as proof to establish both
the commission of a crime and the identity of the culprit.
Under review is the conviction of Edmundo Villaflores for rape
with homicide by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 128, in
Caloocan City based on circumstantial evidence. The Court of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 4-33; penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa (retired),
with Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon (retired) and Associate Justice Edgardo F.
Sundiam (deceased) concurring.
2 The real names of the victim and members of her immediate family are withheld
pursuant to Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Child
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) and Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-
Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004). In place of the real names,
369
1994 based on her certificate of live birth.3 When her very young
life was snuffed out by strangulation on July 2, 1999, she was only
four years and eight months old.4 She had been playing at the rear of
their residence in Bagong Silang, Caloocan City in the morning of
July 2, 1999 when Julia, her mother, first noticed her missing from
home.5 By noontime, because Marita had not turned up, Julia called
her husband Manito at his workplace in Pasig City, and told him
about Marita being missing.6 Manito rushed home and arrived there
at about 2 pm,7 and immediately he and Julia went in search of their
daughter until 11 pm, inquiring from house to house in the vicinity.
They did not find her.8 At 6 am of the next day, Manito reported to
the police that Marita was missing.9 In her desperation, Julia sought
out a clairvoyant (manghuhula) in an adjacent barangay, and the
latter hinted that Marita might be found only five houses away from
their own. Following the clairvoyant’s direction, they found Marita’s
lifeless body covered with a blue and yellow sack10 inside the
comfort room of an abandoned house about five structures away
from their own house.11 Her face was black and blue, and bloody.12
She had been tortured and strangled till death.
The ensuing police investigation led to two witnesses, Aldrin
Bautista and Jovy Solidum, who indicated that Villaflores might be
the culprit who had raped and killed
_______________
fictitious names are used. See People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September
19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.
3 Records, p. 285 (Certificate of Live Birth, Exhibit “K”).
4 Id., p. 278 (Certificate of Death, Exhibit “E”).
5 TSN, August 3, 2000, p. 14.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
370
“That on or about the 2nd day of July, 1999 in Caloocan City, Metro
Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused with lewd design and by means of force, violence and
intimidation employed upon the person of one Marita, a minor of five (5)
years old, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lie and
have sexual intercourse with said Marita, against the latter’s will and
without her consent, and thereafter with deliberate intent to kill beat the
minor and choked her with nylon cord which caused the latter’s death.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
“After pre-trial was terminated, the trial proceeded with the prosecution
presenting witnesses namely, Aldrin Bautista, Jovie Solidum, Manito, Dr.
Jose Arnel Marquez, SPO2 Protacio Magtajas, SPO2 Arsenio Nacis, PO3
Rodelio Ortiz, PO Harold Blanco and PO Sonny Boy Tepase.
From their testimonies, it is gathered that in the afternoon of July 3,
1999, the lifeless body of a 5-year old child, Marita (hereinafter Marita)
born on October 21, 1994, (see Certificate of Live Birth marked as Exhibit
K) was discovered by her father, Manito (hereinafter Manito) beside a toilet
bowl at an unoccupied house about 5 houses away from their residence in
Phase 9, Bagong Silang, Caloocan City. The day before at about noon time
his wife called him up at
_______________
13 TSN, February 17, 2000, p. 11.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
14 Id., p. 17.
15 Records, p. 1.
16 Id., pp. 11-12.
371
his work place informing him that their daughter was missing, prompting
Jessie to hie home and search for the child. He went around possible places,
inquiring from neighbors but no one could provide any lead until the
following morning when his wife in desperation, consulted a “manghuhula”
at a nearby barangay. According to the “manghuhula” his daughter was just
at the 5th house from his house. And that was how he tracked down his
daughter in exact location. She was covered with a blue sack with her face
bloodied and her body soaked to the skin. He found a yellow sack under her
head and a white rope around her neck about 2 and a half feet long and the
diameter, about the size of his middle finger. There were onlookers around
when the NBI and policemen from Sub-station 6 arrived at the scene. The
SOCO Team took pictures of Marita. Jessie was investigated and his
statements were marked Exhibits C, D and D-1. He incurred funeral
expenses in the total amount of P52,000.00 marked as Exhibit L and sub-
markings. (See other expenses marked as Exhibit M and sub-markings).
Two (2) witnesses, Aldrin Bautista and Jovie Solidum, came forward and
narrated that at about 10:00 o’clock in the morning of July 2, 1999, they saw
Edmundo Villaflores, known in the neighborhood by his Batman tag and a
neighbor of the [victim’s family], leading Marita by the hand (“umakay sa
bata”). At about noon time they were at Batman’s house where they used
shabu for a while. Both Aldrin and Jovie are drug users. Aldrin sports a
“sputnik” tattoo mark on his body while Jovie belongs to the T.C.G.
(“through crusher gangster”). While in Batman’s place, although he did not
see Marita, Jovie presumed that Batman was hiding the child at the back of
the house. Jovie related that about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same
day, he heard cries of a child as he passed by the house of Batman (“Narinig
ko pong umiiyak ang batang babae at umuungol”). At about 7:00 o’clock in
the evening, Jovie saw again Batman carrying a yellow sack towards a
vacant house. He thought that the child must have been in the sack because
it appeared heavy. It was the sack that he saw earlier in the house of
Batman.
Among the first to respond to the report that the dead body of a child was
found was SPO2 PROTACIO MAGTAJAS, investigator at Sub-station 6
Bagong Silang, Caloocan City who was dispatched by Police Chief
Inspector Alfredo Corpuz. His OIC, SPO2 Arsenio Nacis called the SOCO
Team and on different vehicles they proceeded to Bagong Silang, Phase 9
arriving there at about 2 o:clock in the af-
372
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
ternoon of July 3, 1999. They saw the body of the child at the back portion
of an abandoned house where he himself recovered pieces of evidence such
as the nylon rope (Exhibit N) and the yellow sack inside the comfort room.
The child appeared black and blue, (kawawa yong bata wasak ang mukha”).
He saw blood stains on her lips and when he removed the sack covering her
body, he also saw blood stains in her vagina. The yellow sack that he was
referring to when brought out in court had already a greenish and fleshy
color. The sack was no longer in the same condition when recovered,
saying, when asked by the Court: “medyo buo pa, hindi pa ho ganyang sira-
sira.” There was another sack, colored blue, which was used to cover the
face of the child while the yellow sack was at the back of the victim. He
forgot about the blue sack when SOCO Team arrived because they were the
ones who brought the body to the funeral parlor. He had already interviewed
some person when the SOCO Team arrived composed of Inspector
Abraham Pelotin, their team leader, and 2 other members. He was the one
who took the statement of the wife of Edmundo Villaflores, Erlinda, and
turned over the pieces of evidence to Police Officer SPO2 Arsenio Nacis
who placed a tag to mark the items. When the SOCO Team arrived, a
separate investigation was conducted by Inspector Pelotin.
PO3 RODELIO ORTIZ, assigned at Station 1, Caloocan City Police
Station, as a police investigator, took the sworn statement of Aldrin Bautista
upon instruction of his chief, SPO2 Arsenio Nacis, asked Aldrin to read his
statement after which he signed the document then gave it to investigator,
SPO2 Protacio Magtajas. During the investigation, he caused the
confrontation between Aldrin Bautista and Edmundo Villaflores. Aldrin
went closer to the detention cell from where he identified and pointed to
Villaflores as the one who abducted the child. Villaflores appeared angry.
SPO2 ARSENIO NACIS’ participation was to supervise the preparation
of the documents to be submitted for inquest to the fiscal. He asked the
investigator to prepare the affidavit of the victim’s father and the statement
of the two witnesses and also asked the investigator to prepare the referral
slip and other documents needed in the investigation. He ordered the
evidence custodian, PO3 Alex Baruga to secure all the physical evidence
recovered from the scene of the crime composed of 2 sacks. In the afternoon
of July 3, the suspect, Edmundo Villaflores was arrested by PO3 Harold
373
Blanco, SPO1 Antonio Alfredo, NUP Antonio Chan and the members of
Bantay Bayan in Bagong Silang.
PO1 HAROLD BLANCO of the Sangandaan Police Station, Caloocan
City, as follow-up operative, was in the office at about 1:00 o’clock in the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
afternoon of July 3, 1999, together with PO3 Alfredo Antonio and Police
Officer Martin Interia, when Police Inspector Corpuz, as leader formed a
team for them to go to the scene of the crime. They immediately proceeded
to Phase 9. Inspector Corpuz entered the premises while he stayed with his
companions and guarded the place. SPO3 Magtajas was already
investigating the case. They were informed that the group of Aldrin could
shed light on the incident. Blanco and the other police officers returned to
the crime scene and asked the people around, who kept mum and were
elusively afraid to talk. When he went with SPO1 Antonio Chan
accompanied by councilman Leda to the house of Batman, it was already
padlocked. They went to the place of SPO1 Alfredo Antonio nearby to
avoid detection and asked a child to look out for Villaflores. Soon enough, a
jeep from Phase 1 arrived and a commotion ensued as people started
blocking the way of Villaflores, who alighted from the said jeep. The
officers took him in custody and brought him to Sub-station 6 and SPO3
Nacis instructed them to fetch his wife. He was with police officer Antonio
Chan and they waited for the arrival of the wife of Villaflores from the
market. When she arrived, it was already night time. They informed her that
her husband was at Sub-station 6 being a suspect in the killing of a child.
There was no reaction on her part. She was with her 3 minor children in the
house. She went with them to the precinct. When Sgt. Nacis asked Mrs.
Villaflores if she knew anything about what happened on the night of July 2,
initially, she denied but in the course of the questioning she broke down and
cried and said that she saw her husband place some sacks under their house.
He remembered the wife saying, “noong gabing nakita niya si Villaflores,
may sako sa silong ng bahay nila, tapos pagdating ni Villaflores, inayos niya
yong sako at nilapitan niya raw, nakita niya may siko, tapos tinanong niya si
Villaflores, ano yon? Sabi niya, wala yon, wala yon.” The wife was crying
and she said that her husband was also on drugs and even used it in front of
their children. She said that she was willing to give a statement against her
husband. Their house is a “kubo” the floor is made of wood and there is
space of about 2 feet between the floor and the ground. She saw the sack
filled with something but when she asked her husband, he said it was
nothing. She related
374
that before she went outside, she again took a look at the sack and she saw a
protruding elbow inside the sack. She went inside the house and went out
again to check the sack and saw the child. It was Sgt. Nacis who typed the
statement of Erlinda Villaflores which she signed. He identified the sworn
statement marked as Exhibit X and sub-markings.
PO1 SONNY BOY TEPACE assigned at the NPD Crime Laboratory,
SOCO, Caloocan City Police Station also went to the crime scene on July 3,
1999 at about 2:50 in the afternoon with Team Leader Abraham Pelotin, at
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
the vacant lot of Block 57, Lot 12, Phase 9, Caloocan City. He cordoned the
area and saw the dead child at the back of the uninhabited house. She was
covered with a blue sack and a nylon cord tied around her neck. There was
another yellow sack at the back of her head. He identified the nylon cord
(Exhibit N) and the yellow sack. He does not know where the blue sack is,
but he knew that it was in the possession of the officer on case. The blue
sack appears in the picture marked as Exhibits S, T, and R, and was marked
Exhibits T-3-A, S-1 and R-2-A. Thereafter they marked the initial report as
Exhibit U and sub-markings. They also prepared a rough sketch dated July
3, 1999 with SOCO report 047-99 marked as Exhibit V and the second
sketch dated July 3, 1999 with SOCO report 047-99 marked as Exhibit W.
DR. ARNEL MARQUEZ, Medico Legal Officer of the PNP Crime
Laboratory with office at Caloocan City Police Station conducted the
autopsy on the body of Marita upon request of Chief Inspector Corpus. The
certificate of identification and consent for autopsy executed by the father of
the victim was marked as Exhibit G. He opined that the victim was already
dead for 24 hours when he conducted the examination on July 3, 1999 at
about 8 o’clock in the evening. The postmortem examination disclosed the
following:
POSTMORTEM FINDINGS:
Fairly developed, fairly nourished female child cadaver in
secondary stage of flaccidity with postmortem lividity at the
dependent portions of the body. Conjunctivae are pale. Lips and
nailbeds are cyanotic.
HEAD, NECK AND TRUNK
1) Hematoma, right periorbital region, measuring 4 x 3.5 cm;
3.5 cm from the anterior midline.
375
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
376
sketch representing the body of the victim was marked as Exhibit I and sub-
markings. The sketch of the head of the victim was marked Exhibit J. The
injuries on the head could have been caused by hard and blunt object while
other injuries were caused by coming in contact with a hard or rough
surface. There were also punctured wounds which could have been caused
by a barbecue stick or anything pointed. The ligature mark was congested
and depressed.
On cross-examination, among others, he explained the stages of
flaccidity which is the softening of the body of a dead person. The first 3
hours after death is the primary stage of flaccidity and after the third hour,
the body will be in rigor mortis and after the 24 hours, it is the secondary
stage. The victim could have been dead at least 9 o’clock in the morning on
July 2. As regards the multiple lacerations of the hymen, it is possible that
two or more persons could have caused it.”
Aunt was residing at Phase 10 which is about a kilometer from his place.
His residence is some 5 houses away from the place of the child. He knows
the child because sometimes he was asked by the wife of Manito to fix their
electrical connection. He corrected himself by saying he does not know
Marita but only her father, Manito. He denied carrying a sack and throwing
it at the vacant lot. He was arrested on July 3, 1999 and does not know of
any reason why he was charged. He has witnesses like Maring, Sherwin,
Pareng Bong and Frankie to prove that he had no participation in the killing.
377
ng bato”). At 42, he is older than Aldrin and Jovie. He knew Marita who
sometimes called him to his house to fix electrical wiring. He also knew his
wife, but does not know their children. On the night of July 2, Aldrin and
Jovie went to his house. He was arrested on July 3 in a street near the
precinct while walking with his wife. They came from Bayan. His wife
works in a sidewalk restaurant. Two of his children were in Phase 3, the
other two were in his house and two more were left with his siblings. When
he was arrested, he was carrying some food items which they brought in
Bayan. They did not tell him why he was being arrested. He saw his wife
once at Police Station 1 before he was brought to the city jail. Aldrin and
Jovie harbored ill feelings against him because the last time they went to his
house he did not allow them to use shabu. He admitted using shabu
everytime his friends went to his house. He is not legally married to his
wife. She visited him for the last time on July 19, 1999. He denied that the
door of his house had a sack covering neither was it locked by a piece of
string. He has not talked with the father or mother of the child nor did he ask
his wife for help. He just waited for his mother and she told him, they will
fight it out in court, “ilalaban sa husgado.”
On re-direct he said that Aldrin and Jovie often went in and out of his
house. His bathroom is in front of his house.
SHERWIN BORCILLO, an electronic technician and neighbor of
Edmundo Villaflores told the court that the charges against Villaflores were
not true, the truth being, that on the night of July 2, 1999 he saw Aldrin and
Jovie at the back of his house holding a sack containing something which he
did not know. They were talking to Batman and offering a dog contained in
the sack and then they left the sack near the comfort room outside the door
of the house of Batman. They came back and took the yellow sack. He
followed them up to the other pathwalk and then he went home. The
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
following day he learned that Villaflores was being charged with the killing
of Marita. At first, he just kept quiet because he thought Villaflores should
be taught a lesson for being a drug user, but later when he had a drinking
spree with his father and uncle, he told them what he knew because he could
not trust any policeman in their place. He told them what really happened
and they advised him to report the matter to the barangay. So he went to the
purok and made a statement in an affidavit form. He executed the
“Salaysay” in the presence of their Purok
378
secretary and barangay tanod. It was the Purok secretary who gave him the
form. He saw Aldrin and Jovie about midnight of July 2, 1999. There was
also another person with them, one Jose Pitallana, who is the eldest in the
group and considered their “Amo-amo”. In his affidavit, he said: “Ako ay
lumabas ng bahay at sinundan ko siya at nakita ko si Jose na tinalian ng
nylon and bata. Tapos po ay may narinig po akong kung sino man ang
titistego sa akin ay papatayin ko, basta kayo ang saksi sa ginawa in
Batman.” He said he was sure that the sack contained the child because he
saw the head of the child, it seemed like she was staring at him and asking
his help. He executed the statement after the arrest of the accused. He did
not go to the police station to narrate his story. He made his statement not in
the barangay hall but only at their purok.
On cross-examination, among others, he said that on July 2, 1999 he left
the house at about 11:00 o’clock in the morning to go to school in PMI at
Sta. Cruz, Manila. He did not see Batman, nor Aldrin, or Jovie about noon
time of July 2. He arrived home at about 8:00 o’clock in the evening
because he passed by the Susano Market in Novaliches to see his mother
who was a vendor there. They closed the store at about 6:30, then they
bought some food stuffs to bring home. He was not sure of the date when
Batman was arrested. He admitted that Batman is his uncle being the brother
of his mother. His uncle is a known drug addict in the area. He usually saw
him using shabu in the company of Jose Pitallana, his wife, Aldrin and
Jovie. After he was informed that his uncle was arrested, he did not do
anything because he was busy reviewing for his exam. He did not also visit
him in jail. After he made his statement, he showed it to their Purok Leader,
Melencio Yambao and Purok Secretary, Reynaldo Mapa. They read his
statement and recorded it in the logbook. It was not notarized. He had no
occasion to talk with Aldrin and Jovie. Jose Pitallana is no longer residing in
their place. He did not even know that Aldrin and Jovie testified against his
uncle. He never went to the police to tell the truth about the incident.”
_______________
17 Records, pp. 345-368.
379
Issues
Villaflores now reiterates that the RTC and the CA gravely erred
in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide
because the State did not discharge its burden to prove beyond
reasonable doubt every fact and circumstance constituting the crime
charged.
_______________
18 Supra, note 1.
380
Ruling
381
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
382
The phrases by reason of the rape and on the occasion of the rape
are crucial in determining whether the crime is a composite crime or
a complex or compound crime. The phrase by reason of the rape
obviously conveys the notion that the killing is due to the rape, the
offense the offender originally designed to commit. The victim of
the rape is also the victim of the killing. The indivisibility of the
homicide and the rape (attempted or consummated) is clear and
admits of no doubt. In contrast, the import of the phrase on the
occasion of the rape may not be as easy to determine. To understand
what homicide may be covered by the phrase on the occasion of the
rape, a resort to the meaning the framers of the law intended to
convey thereby is helpful. Indeed, during the floor deliberations of
the Senate on Republic Act No. 8353, the legislative intent on the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
“Senator Enrile. x x x
I would like to find out, first of all, Mr. President, what is the meaning of
the phrase appearing in line 24, “or on the occasion”?
When the rape is attempted or frustrated, and homicide is committed by
reason of the rape, I would understand that. But what is the meaning of the
phrase “on the occasion of rape”? How far in time must the commission of
the homicide be considered a homicide “on the occasion” of the rape? Will
it be, if the rapists happen to leave the place of rape, they are drunk and they
killed somebody along the way, would there be a link between that homicide
and the rape? Will it be “on the occasion” of the rape?
Senator Shahani. x x x It will have to be linked with the rape itself, and
the homicide is committed with a very short time lapse.
Senator Enrile. I would like to take the first scenario, Mr. President: If
the rapist enters a house, kills a maid, and rapes somebody inside the house,
I would probably consider that as a rape “on the occasion of”. Or if the
rapists finished committing the crime of
383
rape, and upon leaving, saw somebody, let us say, a potential witness inside
the house and kills him, that is probably clear. But suppose the man happens
to kill somebody, will there be a link between these? What is the intent of
the phrase “on the occasion of rape”?
xxx
xxx
Senator Shahani. Mr. President, the principal crime here, of course, is
rape, and homicide is a result of the circumstances surrounding the rape.
So, the instance which was brought up by the good senator from
Cagayan where, let us say, the offender is fleeing the place or is
apprehended by the police and he commits homicide, I think would be
examples where the phrase “on the occasion thereof” would apply. But the
principal intent, Mr. President, is rape.”19
II
The State discharged its burden of
proving the rape with homicide
beyond reasonable doubt
As with all criminal prosecutions, the State carried the burden of
proving all the elements of rape and homicide beyond reasonable
doubt in order to warrant the conviction of Villaflores for the rape
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
_______________
19 Record of the Senate (10th Congress), Individual Amendments – S. No. 950,
Volume I, No. 8, August 7, 1996, pp. 254-255.
20 See People v. Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, August 21, 2001, 363 SCRA 452, 464.
384
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
21 Id.
22 People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 104497, January 18, 1995, 240 SCRA 191, 198;
citing Gardner, Criminal Evidence, Principles, Cases and Readings, West Publishing
Co., 1978 ed., p. 124.
23 Amora v. People, G.R. No. 154466, January 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 485, 491.
385
_______________
24 People v. Ramos, supra, note 22; citing Robinson v. State, 18 Md. App. 678,
308 A2d 734 (1973).
25 No. L-25484, September 21, 1968, 25 SCRA 36, 41.
26 61 Phil. 216, 221-222 (1935).
27 Rollo, p. 28.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
386
_______________
28 TSN, October 14, 1999, p. 5; and November 4, 1999, pp. 5-6.
29 TSN, December 3, 2001, p. 7.
30 TSN, December 16, 1999, pp. 5-6.
31 TSN, December 3, 2001, pp. 5, 16.
32 TSN, November 4, 1999, pp. 8-9.
33 TSN, May 24, 2001, p. 5.
34 TSN, December 13, 2000, p. 20.
35 TSN, February 17, 2000, p. 11.
387
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
white rope was the same rope tied to the door of his house,36 and the
yellow sack was a wall-covering for his toilet.37 Eighthly, the
medico-legal findings showed that Marita had died from
asphyxiation by strangulation, which cause of death was consistent
with the ligature marks on her neck and the multiple injuries
including abrasions, hematomas, contusions and punctured wounds.
Ninthly, Marita sustained multiple deep fresh hymenal lacerations,
and had fresh blood from her genitalia. The vaginal and periurethral
smears taken from her body tested positive for spermatozoa.38 And,
tenthly, the body of Marita was already in the second stage of
flaccidity at the time of the autopsy of her cadaver at 8 pm of July 3,
1999. The medico-legal findings indicated that such stage of
flaccidity confirmed that she had been dead for more than 24 hours,
or at the latest by 9 pm of July 2, 1999.
These circumstances were links in an unbroken chain whose
totality has brought to us a moral certainty of the guilt of Villaflores
for rape with homicide. As to the rape, Marita was found to have
suffered multiple deep fresh hymenal lacerations, injuries that Dr.
Jose Arnel Marquez, the medico-legal officer who had conducted
the autopsy of her cadaver on July 3, 1999, attributed to the insertion
of a blunt object like a human penis. The fact that the vaginal and
periurethral smears taken from Marita tested positive for
spermatozoa confirmed that the blunt object was an adult human
penis. As to the homicide, her death was shown to be caused by
strangulation with a rope, and the time of death as determined by the
medico-legal findings was consistent with the recollection of
Solidum of seeing Villaflores going towards the abandoned house at
around 7 pm of July 2, 1999 carrying the yellow sack that was later
on found to cover Marita’s head. Anent the identification of
Villaflores as the culprit, the testimonies of Solidum and Bautista
attesting to Villaflores as the person
_______________
36 Id., p. 21.
37 Id., p. 20.
38 TSN, February 10, 2000, pp. 5-6.
388
they had seen holding Marita by the hand going towards the
abandoned house before the victim went missing, the hearing by
Solidum of moaning and crying of a child from within Villaflores’
house, and the tracing to Villaflores of the yellow sack and the white
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
_______________
39 TSN, September 8, 2001, p. 3.
40 Id., p. 16.
41 An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines,
repealing Republic Act 8177 otherwise Known as the Act Designating Death by
Lethal Injection, Republic Act 7659 otherwise
389
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/23
10/16/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 669
“Article 266-B. Penalties.—xxx.
xxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
xxx
5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
xxx”
_______________
Known as the Death Penalty Law and All Other Laws, Executive Orders and
Decrees.
42 Article 2230, Civil Code.
43 Article 2229, Civil Code.
390
SO ORDERED.
_______________
44 See People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 738,
752, People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 189580, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 625, 637-
638.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dd3da5433654546b1003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/23