THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RICARDO UMALI Y MARASIGAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Automatic review of the decision of the Court of First Instance
of Laguna, Branch IV, dated September 22, 1972, in Criminal Case No. SC-165,
convicting Ricardo M. Umali of the crime of rape with homicide and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of death.

The information against Umali reads as follows:

“At the instance of FAUSTINO PANGHULAN, in a complaint under
oath, the undersigned Acting Provincial Fiscal accuses RICARDO UMALI Y MARASIGAN
alias ‘Carding’ of the crime of ‘RAPE
WITH HOMICIDE’, committed as follows:

‘That on or about the 17th day of September 1970, at Canlubang,
Calamba, Laguna, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the accused above-named, with lewd design and by means of
force and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, drag said CORAZON PANGHULAN, a minor, to a secluded place and with
the use of force and violence, have sexual intercourse with her against her
will, and by reason or on the occasion thereof, said accused, with intent to
kill, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and strangulate said
CORAZON PANGHULAN, thereby causing her death.'”

The People’s version of
the facts is as follows:

“The deceased Corazon Panghulan, daughter of Mr. and Mrs.
Faustino Panghulan of Calamba, Laguna, was, at the time of her brutal death on
September 17, 1970, only thirteen years old (Exhibit “G”; p. 59,
t.s.n. Mendoza) and a mere sixth-grade pupil at the Canlubang Elementary
School. She used to walk to school,
which was about two kilometers from their house in sitio Apat na Bahay, barrio
Happy Valley, Calamba. She would leave
the house at about 6:00 A.M., return home at noon, go back to school after
lunch, and finally go home at 5:00 P.M. (pp. 31, 55-56, t.s.n., id.).

“On the other hand, the accused Ricardo Umali is thirty years
old, married, and with no fixed re­sidence of his own. When he was still single, he used to work as
a laborer at the Canlubang Sugar Estate (pp. 21, 76, t.s.n., id.). He later married a Visayan woman known only
by the first name ‘Inday’ (p. 78, t.s.n., id.). Thereafter, he was charged before the municipal court of Calamba
for having raped inside the compound of the Can­lubang Sugar Estate on February
13, 1964, one Zenaida Dizon, a 12-year old girl from Barrio Lantikan, Calamba,
which case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 2573 (Exhibit “I”). However, the case was settled after Umali
gave the girl’s parents the sum of P200.00, and the court dismissed the case at
the instance of the girl’s father. As a
result of this incident, Ricardo Umali was dismissed by said sugar company, and
he thereafter earned his living by cutting grass (Exhibit “J”; pp.
62, 71-72, 77, t.s.n., id; pp. 35-39, 41-43, t.s.n., Sept. 8, 1971,
Desamero). Later, he left his wife to
cohabit with a certain Flaviana Vanguardia, and they lived together as
common-law husband and wife in Barrio Layos, Tanauan, Batangas, for five years
(pp. 78, 87, 90, t.s.n., Mendoza). Thereafter, the accused resided either with his parents in Barrio
Mayapa, Calamba, Laguna, or with his common-law wife in Barrio Layos, Tanauan,
Batangas (pp. 6, 21, 31, 78, t.s.n., id.). Then, he ‘fell in love’ with 13-year old Corazon Panghulan of Barrio
Mayapa, Calamba, and he decided to do something about it (p. 50, t.s.n., id.).

“At about 9 o’clock in the morning of Septem­ber 17, 1970, the
accused Ricardo Umali visited Teodora Gaynilo, wife of Domingo Panghulan and
whom he had known for over three years, in the latter’s house in sitio Apat na
Bahay, barrio Happy Valley, Calamba, and the two had a long talk. During the conversation, the accused asked
Teodora what time Corazon Panghulan usually came home from school, and Teodora
answered that Corazon usually came home between 11:30 to 12:00 o’clock noon
(pp. 30-31, 34, t.s.n., id.). Teodora’s
husband is the brother of Corazon’s father, and only one house separates their
homes in sitio Apat na Bahay (pp. 31-35, t.s.n., id.).

“At about 11:30 A.M. that same day of September 17, 1970,
Teodora Gaynilo and her husband left their house to go to the market in
Canlubang proper. On the road, they met
the accused Ricardo Umali who was going towards the opposite direction. Ten minutes later, said couple met their
niece, Corazon Panghulan, who had just come from school. After a while, the couple heard a shout for
help, and when they looked towards the direction of the shout they saw, on a
curve in the road 150 to 200 meters away, the accused Ricardo Umali dragging
and pulling Corazon Panghulan towards the interior of the sugar cane
field. Teodora called out, ‘Ricardo,
Ricardo’ in a loud voice, and she also called her niece, ‘Corazon, Corazon’,
but the accused continued to drag the girl until they disappeared from the
couple’s view at the curve of the road. Teodora Gaynilo’s husband was about to rush to the accused, but Teodora
stopped him because she noticed that the accused was armed with a scythe and he
was also bigger than her husband. The
couple then decided to report the matter to the police in Canlubang, and so
they hurried to Canlubang proper, where Teodora went to the market while her
husband went directly to the authorities to report what had happened to their
niece Corazon Panghulan. Teodora also
did not buy food anymore and instead proceeded to the house of the parents of
Corazon, arriving thereat at about 12:30 P.M., but unluckily, Corazon’s mother
was not at home. Mrs. Panghulan arrived
home only at about 3:00 P.M., and Teodora imme­diately informed her about the
incident involving her daughter. Thereafter, Teodora and some neighbors joined in the search for Corazon,
but they failed to find her (pp. 32-33, 36-38, t.s.n., id.; pp. 17-18, 21, 23,
t.s.n., March 31, 1971, Desamero).

“What happened between the accused Ricardo Umali and the
abducted girl Corazon Panghulan in the meantime, is described in the sworn
statement Exh. “A” given by the former to the police authori­ties of
Canlubang on October 7, 1970, wherein he made the following revelations:

“After dragging the girl towards an isolated and secluded
place inside the sugar cane field, he forced her to lie on the ground, telling
her that if she would not do so, he would kill her. Very much frightened, the girl lay on the ground as told. He then rode on top of her and succeeded in
having sexual intercourse with her. After this intercourse, the private part of the girl (who was a virgin)
bled profusely. He again raped the
girl, and while doing so, he also squeezed her breast and kissed her face. After consummating the second rape, he
strangled the girl in the neck with his hands until her life was snuffed
out. Afterwards, he left the dead girl
and went home to barrio Mayapa.

“The accused later admitted to the municipal judge before whom
he subscribed to his statement Exh. “A” that he killed the girl in
order that she would not report to her parents what he had done to her (p. 50,
t.s.n. April 21, 1972, Desamero).

“By a strange coincidence, when the accused Ricardo Umali came
out of the sugar cane field after raping and killing the girl Corazon
Panghulan, Pablo Mendoza, a resident of Barrio Sirang Lupa, Calamba, was
cutting grass nearby. As Umali had
bloodstains on his polo shirt and on a portion of his pants, Mendoza inquired
why he had bloodstains on his clothes, and Umali explained that he had
accidentally hurt himself with his bolo while he was inside the plantation
cutting sugar cane (pp. 19-20, 25-27, t.s.n. Mendoza). Mendoza had known the accused for a long
time because both of them used to work at the Canlubang Sugar Estate. He also knew that the accused then resided
in Barrio Mayapa, Calamba, Laguna, and that the latter’s house was just about
four kilometers from the place where they met that afternoon (p. 27, t.s.n.
id.).

“Going back to the couple Domingo Panghulan and Teodora
Gaynilo, the former, upon reaching Canlubang proper on the afternoon in
question, immediately went to the Canlubang Security De­partment and reported
to Abundio Suarez, a security guard of said company, the abduction incident and
the place where it had happened. Acting
on the report, Suarez and some companions proceeded to the place where the
abduction took place and they found, about two feet from the road, pieces of
paper with the name of Corazon Pang­hulan written on them. The group traced the path taken by the
abductor and his girl victim to the interior of the sugar cane field, but
unable to find the missing girl, they returned to their of­fice and reported
the matter by phone to the police department of Calamba (pp. 41-44, t.s.n.
Mendoza; pp. 24-26, 28, t.s.n. Feb. 19, 1971, Desamero).

“Faustino Panghulan, father of Corazon, arrived home from work
at about 8:00 P.M. that same day of September 17, 1970, and his wife imme­diately
told him what had happened to their daughter Corazon as reported by Teodora
Gaynilo. Faustino immediately went to
the place mentioned by Teodora, and there he saw some residents of his barrio
and some policemen already searching for his missing daughter. Throughout that night and until the follow­ing
day, September 18, 1970, they searched for the girl, but to no avail (pp.
44-45, 59, t.s.n. Mendoza). Whereupon
Teodora Gaynilo and the mother of Cora­zon Panghulan appealed to the police
authorities of Calamba for them to help look for the missing girl, and they
were assured by Lt. Vivencio Manaig of the Calamba police that they would be
given the requested police assistance
(pp. 5-6, 12-13, t.s.n. March 31, 1971, Desamero).

“Earlier that same day of September 18, 1970, at about 12:00
o’clock noon, Linda Vidal, a niece of Faustino Panghulan, came to the place
where the people searching for her cousin Corazon were taking a rest and
informed her uncle Faustino that she had met earlier that day her neighbor
Pablo Mendoza, who told her that he saw the accused Ricardo Umali the day
before coming out of the sugar cane field with bloodstains in his clothes. With this new information, Faustino
Panghulan, together with his son Pablo and neighbor Eladio Opeña, went to see
Pablo Mendoza at the latter’s house in Barrio Sirang Lupa, and Pablo Mendoza
told them that he really saw the accused come out of the sugar cane field
between 2:00 to 3:00 o’clock P.M. the day before with bloodstains on his shirt
and pants. Pablo Mendoza thereafter accompanied
Faustino Panghulan and his companions to the place aforesaid (pp. 57-58, 65-66, t.s.n. Mendoza).

“With the assistance of Pablo Mendoza, the search party,
including the policemen, divided themselves into several groups and renewed
their search for the missing girl. The
search went on for another hour until Eladio Opeña, who was with the group of
Faustino Panghulan, saw the dead body of Corazon. Opeña shouted about his discovery, and the search party came and
saw the dead body of Corazon on the ground with face upward, with no clothes
on, and with her private parts soaked in blood. Upon seeing her dead daughter, the father Faustino Panghulan felt
as if he was going to lose his mind, but he did not touch the body of her
daughter since it was prohibited by the police. After a while, Faustino started walking home to get some clothes
for the naked body of his daughter (pp. 23, 58-59, 68-69, t.s.n. Mendoza).

“About 350 meters from his house, Faustino Panghulan met some
Calamba policemen riding in a jeep, who informed him that his daughter had
already been found, not knowing that Faustino had already seen his dead
daughter. The policemen also informed
Faustino that they had already put some clothes on the body of his daughter,
which they were bringing to Calamba, and that he better just follow them to the
police station there. Faustino and his
wife thus proceeded to Calamba, where they saw the body of their daughter in
the municipal morgue (p. 5, t.s.n. Feb. 19, 1971, Desamero). Dr. Eusebio Panganiban, municipal health
officer of Calamba, arrived later (pp. 59, 69-70, t.s.n. Mendoza) and made an
autopsy examination of the dead girl’s body upon the written request of the
Calamba police department. The cadaver
was by that time already rigid (pp. 13-14, t.s.n., Feb. 8, 1971).

“In the course of said
autopsy examination, Dr. Panganiban found interstitial hemorrhages in
the muscles of the dead girl’s neck constituting evidence of
strangulation. He also found fresh
multiple lace­rations in the dead girl’s hymen and spermatozoa inside her
vaginal orifice, both of which indicated that she was forcibly abused and that
she was still a virgin when she was raped (pp. 13-16, t.s.n., Feb. 8, 1971;
Exhibits 8, E and E-1). Dr. Pangani­ban
extracted smears from the inside of the vaginal orifice of the dead girl,
placed them in slides (Exhibits F-1, F-2 and F-3), and sent the slides to the
National Bureau of Investigation in Manila for de­termination whether they
contained human sperm cells or not (p. 16, t.s.n., Feb. 8, 1971). Dr. Panganiban also had the girl’s cadaver
photographed with special focus on the head, chest, and nipples, which revealed
occlusion of the respiratory tract (Exhibits D, D-1, D-2, and D-3; pp. 16-17,
t.s.n., Feb. 19, 1971, Desamero; pp. 31-34, t.s.n., Sept. 23, 1971, Desamero).

“Maria P. de los Santos, medical technologist of the NBI,
conducted on September 19, 1970, a laboratory examination of the three slides
(Ex­hibits F-1, F-2, and F-3) sent to her by Dr. Panga­niban, and found them to
be positive of human spermatozoa, which findings she incorporated in her
laboratory report No. SC-70-5 (Exhibit C and C-1) (pp. 51-54, t.s.n., April 23,
1971). This re­port was given to the
Calamba police department which, in turn, forwarded it to Dr. Panganiban (p. 9,
t.s.n., Feb. 8, 1971).

“On the basis of his own findings and the laboratory report of
the NBI, Dr. Panganiban reached the conclusion that the dead girl had recently
been raped and afterwards strangled to death (pp. 13-16, t.s.n., Mendoza). The doctor set down his findings in a
‘Medico-Legal Necropsy Report’ dated October 6, 1970, the pertinent portions of
which read:

‘MEDICO-LEGAL
NECROPSY REPORT’

Date: October 6, 1970

NECROPSY REQUESTED BY: Chief of Police, Calamba, Laguna

MORGUE: Municipal
NECROPSY NO. 232

NAME: Corazon Panghulan

AGE: 13

SEX: Female

NATIONALITY: Filipina

RACE: Brown

COLOR: Brown

RESIDENCE: Canlubang Sugar Estate

OCCUPATION: School Pupil

DIED AT: Canlubang, Laguna

DATE AND TIME: 7:30 p.m. Sept. 18, 1970

LENGTH: 146 cm.

WEIGHT: . . . . . . . . . . IDENTIFIED

BY: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS: Shock, asphyxia by strangulation, rape.

‘POSTMORTEM
FINDINGS’

1.    Bleeding from nose.

2.    Rigidity
of whole body.

3.    Both
lungs left and right were edematous and ecchymotic.

4.    Both
lungs were both overdistended with interstitial emphysema.

5.    Supleural and subpericardial, hemorrhage.

6.    Heart
presence of blood right side is distended.

7.    Contusion of neck.

8.    Finger nail abrasions in front of neck.

9.    Interstitial
hemorrhages in the muscles of the neck.

10.  Petchial
hemorrhages and congestion of the larynx and pharynx.

11.  Hemorrhages
present in the capsule or the thyroid.

12.  Hemorrhages
present in the submaxillary and paratoid glands.

13.  Liver edematous.

14.  Stomach, intestines were empty.

15.  Multiple
lacerations of the hymen, and presence of spermatozoa.

CAUSE OF DEATH:
Shock, asphyxia by strangu­lation.

REPORT SUBMITTED: October 6, 1970.

(SGD.) EUSEBIO P. PANGANIBAN, M.D.

Municipal Health Officer

Calamba, Laguna’

(Exhibit “B”, p. 8, Records).

“The sex-killing incident was duly entered by the Calamba
Police Department in its blotter (p. 8, t.s.n., Mendoza). Members of said
police depart­ment then tried to apprehend the suspect Ricardo Umali but could
not find him in Calamba. Having
received information that Umali had no fixed home, residing sometimes in Barrio
Mayapa in Calamba, Laguna, and sometimes in Barrio Luyos, Tanauan, Batangas,
some Calamba policemen went to Tanauan, Batangas on September 18, 1970, and
requested the help of the chief of police of Tanauan in the appre­hension of
the suspect. The Tanauan police finally
apprehended Umali on October 7, 1970 and brought him to the Canlubang Sugar
Estate Security Depart­ment in Calamba, which in turn delivered him to the
Calamba Police Department (pp. 3, 6-7, 8, t.s.n., Mendoza; pp. 39-48, t.s.n.,
April 21, 1972, Desamero).

“In the office of Chief of Police Mario Ignacio of Calamba,
the accused Ricardo Umali was investigated and his statement Exhibit
“A” taken. The investigation
was conducted by police investigator Capt. Vivencio Manaig in the presence of
the chief of police. Before the
investigation started, Manaig informed the accused that it was his right not to
answer or to refuse to make a statement, but the accused manifested that he was
willing to give a statement. Then,
Manaig propounded questions to the accused in Tagalog and the latter an­swered
also in Tagalog. The investigation
started at about 1:45 P.M. and lasted for one hour. There­after, Umali
thumbmarked his statement (pp. 3-4, 48-49, 52-53, t.s.n., Mendoza).

“Umali was then
brought to the office of Calamba Municipal Judge Domingo Angeles by Chief of
Police Ignacio and Capt. Manaig. Before
Judge Angeles started his investigation of Umali on the latter’s statement Exh.
“A”, he asked the Chief of Police and the police investigator to step
out. Ignacio and Manaig were, however,
only about two or three meters from the wall of the office of the judge and
could hear the latter asking Umali why he committed the offense, and they heard
Umali answer that he fell in love with the girl and that he could not resist
not doing something to her. When the
judge asked Umali why he killed the girl afterwards, the latter replied that he
killed her so that she could not tell her parents what had happened to
her. Chief of Police Ignacio denied
having maltreated or threatened Umali either dur­ing his investigation of the
latter or when Umali subscribed to his
statement Exh. “A” before Judge Angeles (pp. 49-50, t.s.n., April 21,
1972, Desa­mero).

“On his part, Municipal Judge Domingo Angeles testified that
in administering the oath to suspects who have given statements to the police
it is his policy to send out of his office the police officers or investigators
who are with the suspects in order that he can freely question the declarants
about their statements, which procedure he followed in the case of the accused
Ricardo Umali (pp. 48, 51, t.s.n., Mendoza). And since the affidavit of Umali was in the nature of a confession, he
took a longer time investigating the latter regarding the same. Because Umali did not know how to read, the
judge asked his clerk of court, Cresencio Abesamis, to read to him (Umali) the
contents of his statement Exh. “A”. The judge then asked Umali further questions, and from the latter’s
answers, the judge was convinced that Umali’s statement Ex­hibit “A”
was freely and voluntarily given and that he fully understood the same. The judge then asked Umali to swear to the
truth of his statement, and thereafter, the latter voluntarily imprinted his
thumbmark on said statement upon the judge’s instruction (Exhibits
“A-5” and “A-6″) (pp. 49-51, t.s.n., April 23, 1971; pp.
39-41, t.s.n., Sept. 8, 1971).” (Brief, pp. 3-18.)

For the sake of clarity,
Exhibit A is reproduced in full as follows:

“SALAYSAY NI RICARDO UMALI Y
MARASIGAN, KUHA NI CAPT. VIVENCIO S. MANAIG, DITO SA HIMPILAN NG PULISYA NG
CALAMBA, LAGUNA, NGAYONG IKA?7 NG OKTUBRE, 1970, SA GANAP NA ALA-1:45 NG
HAPON

1. TANONG:      Sang-ayon
sa Batas nating umiiral, ikaw ay may karapatang hindi magbigay ng salaysay at
matapos kong maipabatid sa iyo, ikaw ba ay handa rin magbigay ng salaysay at
ang lahat mong sasabihin ay pawang katotohanan lamang?

SAGOT:          Opo.

2. T :          Kung gayon ay sabihin mo
ang iyong pangalan at iba pang pagkakakikilanlan ng iyong sarili?

S :            RICARDO
UMALI y MARASIGAN, may 32 taong gulang, may-asawa, nagtatrabaho, at sa kasalu­kuyan
ay sa nayon ng Mayapa, Calamba, Laguna, naninirahan.

3. T :            Bakit ka naririto
ngayon sa Himpilan ng Pulisya ng Calamba, Laguna at kinukunan ng tanong?

S :            Ako
po ay nagkasala.

4. T :          Anong pagkakasala ang
ibig mong sabihin dito?

S :            Ako
po ay nanggahasa ng isang dalagita at pagkatapos po ay aking pinatay.

5. T :          Sino naman ang
dalagitang iyong sinasabi mo?

S :          Hindi
ko po alam ang pangalan ngunit alam ko po na siya ay duon tumitira sa Sitio
Apat na Bahay, Happy Valley, sakop ng nayon ng Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna.

6. T :          Kailan
at saan nangyari ang mga bagay na ito?

S :          Noong
pong ang oras ay humigit-kumulang sa alas-2:30 ng hapon, ika-17 ng Septiembre,
1970, duon sa nayon ng Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna.

7. T :         Nalalaman mo ba naman
kung sino ang mga magulang noong dalagitang iyong ginahasa at pinatay?

S :          Hindi
ko kilala ang kanyang mga magulang, ngunit nakikilala ko ang kapatid nitong
dalagitang ito sa ngalang Pablo.

8. T :         Papaano ang iyong ginawa
bago mo ginahasa at napatay itong dalagitang ito?

S :          Ako
po noon ay papauwi na sa amin sa nayon ng Mayapa at noong pong malapit na ako
sa nayon ng Canlubang ay aking nasalubong itong dalagitang ito at duon po sa
pagkakataong iyon ay aking siyang hinawakan sa kamay at pagkatapos ay aking
kinaladkad sa loob ng tubuhan.

9. T :        Noong kayo
ay naroroon na sa loob ng tubuhan, ano naman ang iyong ginawa, kung mayroon
man?

S :         Akin
po siyang pinahiga at kusang nahiga po naman sa takot sa akin.

10. T :        Matapos
na makahiga itong dalagitang ito, ano pa ang iyong ginawa?

S :         Akin
pong pinatungan at akin pong ginahasa ang dalagitang ito?

11. T :         Sinabi mo na iyong
ginahasa iyong dalagitang ito, iyon ba namang titi mo ay naipasok mo sa poke ng
dalagitang ito?

S :         Opo.

12. T :         May ilang ulit mo naman
ginahasa ang dalagitang ito?

S :         Dalawang
ulit po.

13. T :         Noong una mong gahasain,
ano naman ang ginagawa noong dalagita?

S :         Hindi
na po siya kumikibo sa dahilang siya ay aking pinagsabihan na pag siya ay
sumigaw at hindi ko nakuha ang gusto ko siya ay aking papatayin.

14. T :        Doon sa una mong
pagkakagahasa, ano naman ang nangyari duon sa kabahagi noong dalagita?

S :         Nagdugo
po ang kanyang kabahagi.

15. T :        Samantalang itong
dalagitang ito ay iyong ginagahasa, ano pa ang iyong ginagawa duon sa
pagkakataong iyon?

S :       
Aking pong hinihipuan ng suso at hinahalikan sa pisngi.

16. T :        Matapos mong magahasa ng
dalawang beses, ano pa ang iyong ginawa?

S :        Akin
pong sinakal itong dalagitang ito.

17. T :        Ano ang nangyari kung ito
ay iyong sinakal?

S :        Nakita
ko pong nangatal ang kamay at pag­katapos po noon ay nakita kong patay na.

18. T :       Matapos mong mapatay iyong
bata, ano pa ang iyong ginawa?

S :        Lumabas
na po ako sa kalsada at ako po ay umuwi na sa amin sa Mayapa.

19. T :        May ilang beses ka ng
gumagawa ng ganitong panggagahasa?

S :        Dalawang
beses na po ngunit iyong pong una ay hindi ko pinatay.

20. T :       Ano naman ang dahilan at
iyong pinatay itong dalagitang ito?

S :        Para
huwag na pong makapagsumbong sa kanyang mga magulang.

21. T :        Katotohanan bang lahat ang
iyong sinabi rito at handa mo rin bang sumpaan at lagdaan sa harap ng Hukuman
ang iyong salaysay na ito?

S :        Opo.

(SGD.) (THUMBMARKED)

RICARDO UMALI

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7th day of October, 1970, at
Calamba, Laguna, Philippines.

(SGD.) DOMINGO M. ANGELES

Municipal Judge

Calamba, Laguna”

During the trial, the
accused interposed the defense of alibi. He testified that on September 16, 1970, at about 7:30 p.m., he met his
mother, Consolacion Marasigan, while he was on board a jeepney parked at
Tanauan, Batangas; that his mother was crying because his brother, Ernesto
Umali, left home; that his mother requested him to accompany her to Sariaya,
Quezon, to look for his brother; that they arrived at Sariaya at about 8:00 p.m.; that they stayed
in a certain store which was
open the whole night; that in the afternoon of the follow­ing day, September
17, 1970, they went to Lucena City to continue their search; that they arrived
in Lucena City at about 8:00 p.m.; that they stayed there up to the following
day, September 18, 1970; that he suggest­ed to his mother to proceed to Manila
to look for his brother in the houses of their relatives; that his mother
heeded his advice and pro­ceeded to Manila while he continued his search in
Lucena City; that when he still could not find his brother, he went home; that
on October 1, 1970, he left home to look for a job; that he was not able to
find one so he returned home on October 7, 1970; that when he was about to
alight the BTCo bus, six policemen accosted him and dragged him to their jeep
and brought him to the municipal building of Tanauan, Batangas; that when he
asked why he was arrested, the policemen answered that he will know the reason
in Canlubang, Laguna; that the policemen then brought him to Canlubang; that
after the Tanauan policemen left him, the Canlubang policemen dragged him to a
room and maltreated him until he lost consciousness; that one of the
policemen who maltreated him was Abundio Suarez; that when he regained
consciousness, he was on board the vehicle of Calamba policemen on their way to
the Calamba Police Department; that he noticed his fingers to be bluish in
color; that upon arrival at the Calamba Police Department, a Calamba policeman
read to him a thumbmarked document containing his name; that he was then
brought to the Municipal Judge of Calamba; that the Judge read to him the
document and asked him to swear to the truth of the statements therein by
affixing his thumbmark on the document; that he was forced to affix his
thumbmarks on the document be­cause a policeman poked a gun at his back; that
the Judge could not see what the policeman was doing and could not hear the
three policemen at his back whispering to him that something will happen to him
when he returns back to his cell if he will not affix his thumbmark on the
document; that they were then a little over one meter from the Judge and were
standing in front of him; and that he knew how to sign his name but did not
tell the Judge about it.

Consolacion Marasigan,
mother of the accused, testified that on September 16, 1970, at about 3:30 in
the afternoon, she went to her son, Ricardo Umali, in Tanauan, Batangas, to ask
him if her other son, Ernesto Umali, who ran away from home, went to him; that
when she reached Tanauan, she saw her son Ricardo in one of the parked
jeepneys; that after learning that Ricardo had not seen her other son, she asked Ricardo to
accompany her in looking for Ernesto; that they then went to San Pablo
City; that they arrived at San Pablo City at about 5:00 p.m.; that they then
boarded a bus bound for Sariaya, Quezon; that they reached Sariaya at about
8:00 p.m.; that they stayed in a certain restaurant and waited there until the
following morning; that they searched for her son in Sariaya the whole day of
September 17, 1970, but could not find him; that the following morning, they
proceeded to Lucena City; that they spent the whole day of September 18, 1970,
looking for her son in Lucena City; that when they still could not find
Ernesto, Ricardo suggested that she look for him in Manila while he would
continue his search in Lucena City; that she heeded Ricardo’s advice and
proceeded to Manila on the evening of said day; that she stayed in the house of
her nephew in Manila up to September 25, 1970, when she returned to Mayapa,
Calamba, Laguna, unable to find her son; and that Ernesto returned home only
after she had appealed in a radio station.

And Flaviana Vanguardia, wife of the accused, testified that on
September 16, 1970, the mother of Ricardo went to their house in Tanauan to ask
Ricardo to accompany her in looking for her other son who was missing; that her
husband returned to their house only on September 19, 1970; that sometime in
October, 1970, she was informed by her mother-in-law that her husband was being
detained in the municipal jail of Calamba; that she went to Calamba to see her
husband but the latter was already transferred to Santa Cruz, Laguna; that she
then went to Santa Cruz, Laguna and found her husband in the provincial jail;
that she asked him why he was detained and why his body was swollen and her
husband replied that he did not know why he was detained and that he was beaten
up by the policemen.

After trial the court rendered the following judgment:

“In view of the foregoing considerations, this Court finds the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide as defined
and pe­nalized by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic
Act No. 2632 and Republic Act No. 4111. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
death.”

In this appeal, appellant’s counsel has made only one assign­ment
of error, namely:

“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERLOOKING OR FAILING TO CONSIDER
CERTAIN FACTS OF WEIGHT AND IMPORTANCE WHICH SHOW THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS
STAGE-MANAGED BY THE PROSECUTION.”

After a careful review of the evidence on record, We are convinced
and so hold that the guilt of the accused of the crime of rape with homicide
had indeed been proven beyond reasonable doubt. That the accused Ricardo Umali had dragged the victim Corazon
Panghulan towards the interior of the sugarcane field, forced her to have
sexual intercourse with him and, thereafter, strangled her to death had been
sufficiently proven not only by evidence supplied by third persons
(namely: the testimony of Teodora
Gaynilo that she saw the accused dragging the victim towards the interior of
the sugarcane field; the testimony of Pablo Mendoza that he saw the accused
coming out of the sugar­cane field with blood stains on his shirt and pants;
the testimo­nies of Faustino Panghulan and Pablo Mendoza that the victim was
found dead and naked inside the sugarcane field; the testimony of Dr. Eusebio
Panganiban that his autopsy of the body of the victim showed that she was raped
and strangled to death; the testimony of NBI Medical Technologist Maria P. de
los Santos that the smear on one of the slides submitted by Dr. Panganiban was
positive of human spermatozoa; and other corroborating evidence) but also by
the extrajudicial confession (Exh. “A”) of the accused himself. His subsequent retraction and denial of the
voluntariness of his confession cannot be given credence in the light of the
positive testimonies not only of the police officer (Capt. Vivencio Manaig) who
took down his confession but also of the Municipal Judge (Judge Domingo M.
Angeles) before whom the same was acknowledged that his statements were given intelligently and voluntarily. Umali failed to substantiate his claim that
he was maltreated by the policemen in Canlubang including Abundio Suarez who,
incidentally, was not a Canlubang policeman, as claimed by Umali, but a security
guard of the Canlubang Sugar Estate. He
himself admitted that the document containing his confession was read to him in
the office of Judge Angeles and that he, thereafter, thumbmarked the same in
front of said judge. His claim that he
was merely forced to acknowledge his confession because a policeman behind him
poked a gun at his back and that the other policeman at his back whispered to
him that something would happen to him should he refuse to thumbmark the
document is too crude to be convincing. It should be noted that by his own admission they were then merely a
little over one meter from the judge whereas Judge Angeles categorically
testified that he required the policemen to get out of the room before
inquiring from the accused about the voluntariness of his confession.

The accused’s counsel de
oficio contends that since the record fails to show that the accused was
informed of his right to counsel and that he had unquestionably waived such
right, Exh. “A” is inadmissible in evidence under Sec. 20, Art. IV of
the new Consti­tution. He fails to take
into account that the extrajudicial confession was executed on October 7, 1970,
while the new Constitution took effect only on January 17, 1973. And it is now settled that the right to
counsel at custodial investigations is applicable only after the effectivity of
the 1973 Constitution and not before (People vs. Hipolito, G.R. No. L-31402,
August 17, 1981, 106 SCRA 610, 617, citing People vs. Molleda, G.R. No.
L-34248, November 21, 1978, 86 SCRA 667; Magtoto vs. Manguerra, G.R. Nos.
L-37201-02, March 3, 1975, 63 SCRA 4).

Umali’s alibi does not
merit consideration by the Court not only because of the weaknesses which
inhere in such a defense but more so because it is actually based on flimsy
excuses. His claim that he was in
Lucena City at the time of the commission of the of­fense because his mother
asked him to accompany her in looking for his brother who ran away from home
simply does not inspire belief. As the
trial court correctly pointed out:

“Ernesto, the son for whom this mother pretends to be so
solicitous, was no longer a child when he allegedly ran away because of a
quarrel with his father. He was already
married. As a matter of fact, the
supposed cause of his quarrel with his father was because his father allegedly
wanted him to return home to his wife whom he had left.

“Considering the age
of Ernesto, it is unbelievable that his mother would immediately be
alarmed at his failure to return home on the same day he allegedly had a
quarrel with his father, so much so that she rushed to her other son, the
accused herein, to frantically seek his help to locate Ernesto who had
allegedly ran away from home. Flaviana
Vanguardia’s attempt to corroborate the testimony of her common-law husband and
that of her common-law mother-in-law, is ineffectual. By her own admission on cross-examination, she said that it was
merely a passenger of a jeepney who informed her that her common-law husband
was sending word to her that he had gone to Sariaya to look for his missing
brother together with his mother.

“Aside from the fact that alibi, as has been repeatedly held,
is at best weak defense. (People vs.
Lumantar, L-16383, May 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 157; People vs. Pelagio, L-16177, May
24, 1967, 20 SCRA 153; People vs. Tontanoza, L-19421, May 29, 1967, SCRA 249;
People vs. Gomez, L-25815, May 31, 1969, 28 SCRA 440; People vs. Bulawin,
L-30069, September 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 710) in this particular case, it is also
not credible. The story of the accused,
his mother and common-law wife is simply unconvincing.” (Decision, pp.
17-18, rollo, pp. 34-35.)

Finally, We cannot agree with the contention of the accused’s
counsel de oficio that the prosecution’s evidence is “just
too pat to be true” and that the same is “too full of improbable
coincidences that can only happen when the evidence is contrived or
stage-managed but could not have happened in reality”; for to do so would
be to doubt the credibility of the prosecution witnesses whom the trial court
con­sidered to be worthy of belief. We
affirm the trial court’s finding on the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses not only because of the time-honored rule that the conclusions of
trial courts on cre­dibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect by
appellate courts since it is the former courts who actually observed the
witnesses’ demeanor and manner of testifying, but more so because We have
actually reviewed the testimonial evidence and have found the same to be
credible.

In view of all the foregoing, We affirm the trial court’s
conclusion that the guilt of Ricardo Umali of the crime of rape with homicide
has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and its imposition of the supreme
penalty of death. Considering however
its failure to provide for the accused’s civil liability to the heirs of the
deceased victim despite the absence of express waiver thereof or reservation of
the same, the decision is modified accordingly.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby
affirmed with the sole modification that the accused is further ordered to
indemnify the heirs of Corazon Panghulan in the amount of P12,000.00. Costs de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad
Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., see his brief
concurrence.

Fernando, C.J., no part.