People v. Nescio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The facts involve the elements of rape with homicide under Philippine law. Investigation identified two accused and an information for rape with homicide was filed against them. One accused was discharged to be used as a state witness upon the prosecutor's motion under Section 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. The discharged co-accused testified for the prosecution; medical testimony and other evidence were presented establishing sexual assault and fatal injuries to the victim. Procedural History: Upon arraignment both accused pleaded not guilty. On June 21, 1990 the prosecutor moved to discharge one co-accused to be a state witness; the trial court granted the motion and proceeded against the remaining accused. On March 14, 1991 the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Cebu City convicted the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of rape with homicide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnification of P30,000 to the victim's heirs. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed alleging (1) error in discharging the co-accused whose discharge was alleged to be invalid because he appeared equally guilty and (2) error in crediting the testimony of the discharged co-accused which, according to appellant, was opposed to common human experience.
Issue(s)
Whether the discharge of co-accused Pablo Bacalso and his use as a state witness was valid under Section 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the discharged co-accused, which appellant contends is contrary to common human experience. Whether the Joint Affidavit and alleged extrajudicial statements are admissible as part of the res gestae despite the absence of counsel during custodial interrogation. Whether the appellant's claim of alibi was sufficiently established to negate presence at the scene. Whether the indemnification awarded should be modified in accordance with jurisprudence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction of accused-appellant Edgardo Nescio for the special complex crime of rape with homicide and the sentence of reclusion perpetua. The Court MODIFIED the appealed decision by increasing the indemnification awarded to the victim's heirs from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the discharge under Section 9, Rule 119 was valid: The Court reviewed the five conditions stipulated in Section 9, Rule 119 and found that the prosecutor was satisfied that those conditions existed: absolute necessity for the testimony of the defendant to be discharged, absence of other direct evidence, substantial corroboration of the defendant's testimony in material points, the defendant not appearing to be the most guilty, and no prior conviction for offenses involving moral turpitude. The Court held that the trial prosecutor's invocation of Section 9, Rule 119 was proper and the trial court did not err in granting the discharge. The opinion notes that the discharged co-accused's testimony was substantially corroborated by medical evidence and other testimony presented at trial. The Court further explained that discharge to make a defendant a state witness effectively results in the acquittal of that co-accused but is permissible when statutory conditions are met. The Court emphasized that the trial court's discretion in evaluating the circumstances surrounding such discharge will not be disturbed absent clear abuse. On Whether the testimony of the discharged co-accused was credible despite being 'contrary to common human experience': The Court rejected appellant's contention that the state witness' testimony was implausible, observing that the witness testified in a straightforward, direct and positive fashion with no hesitance. The Court reasoned that the witness was a 14-year-old lad who would reasonably have been fearful of the accused, a burly adult allegedly armed with a bolo, and therefore his failure to physically intervene was understandable and consistent with human experience rather than contrary to it. The Court also pointed to corroborating evidence, including autopsy findings and other witness identifications, that supported the material points of the witness' testimony. The Court reiterated the established doctrine that in statutory rape the gravamen is carnal knowledge of a girl under twelve years and that force or intimidation need not be proved, which further supported acceptance of the testimony. The Court concluded that the conviction was supported beyond reasonable doubt. On the admissibility of the Joint Affidavit and alleged extrajudicial statements as res gestae: The Court agreed with the trial court that the Joint Affidavit containing alleged extrajudicial statements was inadmissible because the statements were made during custodial investigation without the assistance of counsel. The Court noted that the statements were made five days after the incident and therefore were not uttered contemporaneously as part of the 'startling occurrence' or immediately subsequent thereto; consequently they could not be considered part of the res gestae. The Court reaffirmed the principle that extrajudicial confessions obtained without counsel during custodial interrogation are inadmissible, and that delay between incident and statement undermines any claim of res gestae. On the appellant's alibi defense: The Court found the appellant's alibi not credible, particularly given the proximity of the appellant's residence and work to the scene and the positive identification by the prosecution's witness. The Court recalled settled doctrine that an alibi is accepted only upon the clearest proof that the accused was not or could not have been at the crime scene when it was committed. In the absence of such clear proof, and in light of corroborating evidence, the Court held that the alibi failed to create reasonable doubt. On indemnification: The Court increased the indemnification awarded to the heirs from P30,000.00 to P50,000.00 in accordance with existing jurisprudence, concluding that the lesser amount originally awarded was inadequate.
Main Doctrine
Affirmation of conviction for rape with homicide where the discharge of a co-accused as state witness was properly granted under Section 9, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure; extrajudicial confession given without counsel is inadmissible and not part of the res gestae when made days after the incident; alibi requires the clearest proof.