March 13, 2013 plaintiff-appellee, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. GERALD SORIANO alias PEDRO, accused-appellant . Sereno, C.J.: NATURE: Appeal NATURE: Appeal of a CA decision imposing reclusion perpetua. Criminal case for rape with homicide. SUMMARY: Soriano SUMMARY: Soriano was accused of raping and killing an !ear"old girl. #e was convicted on the strength of his e$tra%udicial confession made to the town ma!or and police chief& also there was circumstantial evidence pointing to h im as the onl! possi'le culprit( he was seen drinking on the da! the crime happened& according to the witnesses he was the onl! person who was seen using the road nearest the crime scene at the time of commission of the crime& and that the dirt! clothes confiscated from him were the same ones he wore on the da! the crime was committed. )*C sentenced him to death& CA reduced his sentence to reclusion perpetua. +n appeal, SC acuitted him, holding that there was not enough circumstantial evidence to esta'lish 'e!ond reasona'le dou't that Soriano raped and killed AAA. *here *here were other factual possi'ilities that were not e$cluded '! the facts esta'lished '! the evidence in this case, so the dou't as to the guilt of the accused must 'e resolved in his favor. *he e$tra%udicial e$tra%udicial confession made to the ma!or and police chief is inadmissi'le in evidence 'ecause it was o'tained in violation of Soriano-s custodial investigation investigation rights under the Constitution, since he was not provided with counsel. DOCTRINE: n cases involving the special comple$ crime of rape with homicide 'oth the rape and the homicide must 'e proven 'e!ond reasona'le dou't, as the victim can no longer testif! against the perpetrator of the offense. *hus, a resort to circumstantial evidence 'ecomes inevita'le to prove the case. /nder Section , )ule 133 of the )ules of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction when the concurrence of the following factors o'tain( a there is more than one circumstance& ' the facts from which the inferences are derived have 'een proven& and c the com'ination of all the circumstances is such as would prove the crime 'e!ond reasona'le dou't. *hese circumstances and facts must 'e a'solutel! incompati'le with an! reasona'le h!pothesis propounding the innocence of the accused. CASE AT BAR: *he BAR: *he law enforcers missteps in the performance of the investigation and the prosecuting attorne!s careless presentation of the evidence cannot lead to an! other conclusion other than that there are dou'ts as to the guilt of the accused. FACTS •
•
•
•
•
4ecem'er 31, 155 (00 AM 6 7erald S+)A8+ arrived with the nephew of Alice #9A:A to drink liuor at her house in o ;atutungan,
/8A*A4CA8, who lived a'out two o meters awa! from her. o 3(00 ?M " #i'a!a saw Soriano leave with his other companions. o Around that time, time, @C;: 9earnea was graing graing her cara'ao on a palm palm road when she saw Soriano, clad in a !ellow t"shirt and 'lue denim, walking drunkenl! towards the shortcut to
•
•
'oth Soriano and the 4S<4 representative. Fe'ruar! 1G, 1555 " Soriano was charged with rape with homicide in an nformation, which reads in part( o *hat on or a'out 4ecem'er 31, 155 at around (00 o-clock HsicI in the afternoon at 9aranga! ;atutungan, Municipalit! of uinatadcan, where the! had a couple of 'eers. Around 3(30 ?M " Soriano claimed that he was not uite drunk when he went home using the shortcut to
•
•
•
Soriano filed a 8otice of Appeal under )ule 12, Sec. 13.
ISSUE (HELD)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
prove the case. /nder Section , )ule 133 of the )ules of Court, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction when the concurrence of the following factors o'tain( a there is more than one circumstance& ' the facts from which the inferences are derived have 'een proven& and c the com'ination of all the circumstances is such as would prove the crime 'e!ond reasona'le dou't. *hese circumstances and facts must 'e a'solutel! incompati'le with an! reasona'le h!pothesis propounding the innocence of the accused. CASE AT BAR: the prosecution failed to esta'lish the e$istence of an un'roken chain of circumstances that lead to no other logical conclusion 'ut the guilt of the accused. CRCU$STA!TAL &ASES O# T'E RTC DECSO! 1. Soriano and his companions admittedl! had a drinking spree at #i'a!a-s house and >uinatadcan-s store until 3(00 ?M of 4ecem'er 31, 155. 2. Soriano was seen '! one of the witnesses while she was graing their cara'ao at a'out 3(00 to B(00 ?M at the 'aranga! road leading to crossing HsicI when he passed '! under the influence of liuor, wearing a !ellow *"shirt and maong pants that appeared clean 'ut when witness was shown of the soiled and dirt! !ellow *"shirt and maong pants during the trial she affirmed that it was the same set of clothes 3. Soriano was wearing the same aforesaid clothes when he was seen '! AAA-s mother walking on the road to ;atutungan crossing, where the crime was committed at around or 'etween 3(00 to 3(30 p.m. on the same da!& . *hat the post mortem e$amination on the 'od! of AAA contained contusions which are signs of violence inflicted upon her, and that she was raped 'efore 'eing killed& and that there was laceration of the h!men& B. *hat the position of the 'od! of the victim indicated she had 'een raped and simultaneousl! killed. . *hat the 'od! of the victim was found in the grass! area near the canal where he r under pants was HsicI 'eside her and without clothes in her 'od!, where the accused was last seen to have pass HsicI '!. And that no other persons have passed '! e$cept the accused at that point in time. CRCU$STA!TAL &ASES O# T'E CA DECSO! Soriano was seen walking towards the direction of the Kshort"cutK road to
careless presentation of the evidence cannot lead to an! other conclusion other than that there are dou'ts as to the guilt of the accused. DISPOSITION CA decision )E@E)SE4 and SE* AS4E. Soriano AC>/**E4 and ordered immediatel! )E=EASE4.
