People v. Diño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused Remy Diño, Jose Dequito, and Salvador Dequito were charged with three counts of Rape with Homicide for the death of Melinda Boglosa. The prosecution presented an eyewitness, ten-year-old Roberto Dumancas, who testified that he saw Salvador Dequito pull the victim down, Remy Diño hold her hands, and Jose Dequito hold her legs. Thereafter, Salvador Dequito had carnal knowledge of the victim, followed by Jose Dequito and Remy Diño taking turns. After the sexual assault, Salvador Dequito choked the victim and struck her with an engine cranker, then dragged her and pushed her head into a knee-deep rice paddy, where she was later found dead. The Necropsy Report indicated sexual abuse, death by asphyxia by strangulation and drowning. Procedural History: The trial court found all three accused guilty of three counts of Rape with Homicide, sentencing them to three penalties of reclusion perpetua each and ordering them to indemnify the heirs. Jose and Salvador Dequito withdrew their appeal. Remy Diño appealed his conviction. The Petition: Appellant Remy Diño assigned several errors, including the validity of the decision rendered by a judge who did not hear all the testimonies, the credibility of the eyewitness, the admissibility of his alleged confession, the failure to consider his defense and alibi, and the conviction itself.
Issue(s)
Whether the decision rendered by Judge Estenzo, who did not personally hear all the testimonies, is valid. Whether the testimony of the ten-year-old eyewitness, Roberto Dumancas, is credible and sufficient to establish guilt. Whether the extra-judicial confession of appellant Remy Diño is admissible in evidence, considering it was allegedly obtained through force and intimidation and without proper constitutional warnings. Whether the defense of alibi presented by Remy Diño, corroborated by Kathleen Hustace, is sufficient to acquit him. Whether the conviction for Rape with Homicide is proper and the imposition of three penalties of reclusion perpetua is correct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Remy Diño for Rape with Homicide, increasing the indemnity to P20,000.00. The Court ruled that the decision rendered by Judge Estenzo was valid, the eyewitness testimony was credible, the alibi was not sufficiently established, and the elements of Rape with Homicide were present. However, the Court ruled that Remy Diño's extra-judicial confession, though corroborated, was inadmissible due to violations of his constitutional rights under the 1973 Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the decision by Judge Estenzo: The Court held that a judge can decide a case based on evidence presented before a predecessor who resigned, provided the successor bases the decision entirely on the cold record. The Court noted that the crucial stenographic notes were available, and the accused's memoranda summarized the testimonies, allowing Judge Estenzo to render a decision based on the evidence presented by both prosecution and defense. On the credibility of the eyewitness Roberto Dumancas: The Court found the testimony of the ten-year-old eyewitness credible and sufficient. Despite his age, the Court found him to be a reliable and trustworthy witness, fully cognizant of the importance of an oath. His familiarity with the accused, all being from the same barrio, further supported his identification. His straightforward description of the acts performed by each accused corroborated the prosecution's case. On the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession: The Court declared Remy Diño's extra-judicial confession inadmissible. Although the confession detailed his participation and that of his co-accused, it was obtained after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. The Court found that the accused was not clearly and unequivocally informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, violating Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution. The prefatory statement about informing him of his rights was deemed merely perfunctory. On the defense of alibi: The Court rejected the defense of alibi. Even if Remy Diño and Kathleen Hustace were together feeding birds, this did not preclude the possibility that Remy Diño could have slipped away to commit the crime. To establish alibi, the accused must prove they were at another place for such a period that it was impossible for them to be at the crime scene. The location where they were feeding birds was in the same barrio as the crime scene, thus not establishing an impossible presence. On the conviction for Rape with Homicide: The Court affirmed the conviction. The elements of rape, including carnal knowledge by force and deprivation of consciousness, were established by the eyewitness testimony. The elements of homicide, namely the killing of a person by the accused without justifiable cause and with intent to kill, were also present. The medico-legal findings corroborated the eyewitness account of strangulation and drowning as the cause of death. The Court also found conspiracy among the three accused, making each liable for the acts of all, and affirmed the imposition of three penalties of reclusion perpetua, noting that the penalty would have been death had it not been abolished.
Main Doctrine
An extra-judicial confession obtained after the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution is inadmissible if the accused was not clearly informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel, even if the confession is otherwise corroborated by other evidence. However, guilt can still be established by other competent evidence, such as eyewitness testimony.