THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VICTOR GARCIA Y DALIT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is an automatic review of the decision dated July 21, 1976
of the Court of First Instance of Isabela, Hon. Constante R. Ayson presiding, in Crim. Case No. 617, convicting accused Victor Garcia y Dalit of the crime of Rape with Homicide and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of death, with all the accessory penalties
provided for by law; to indemnify the heirs of the victim, Imelda Cristobal, the sum of P20,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.

In an Information filed on January
6, 1975 by First Asst. Prov. Fiscal Simplicio C. Cabantac with the
Court of First Instance of Isabela, Victor Garcia y Dalit was charged with the crime of Rape with Homicide,
committed as follows:

“That on or about the 28th day of September, 1974, in the
municipality of Ilagan, province Isabela,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of
force and violence, have carnal knowledge with one Imelda Cristobal,
against the latter’s will and consent; that on the occasion of the said rape,
the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with
evident premeditation and taking advantage of his superior strength and with
intent to kill, treacherously assault, attack and use personal violence upon
the said Imelda Cristobal, by then and there giving
her several fist blows on her mouth and face and submerging her into a creek,
which directly caused the death of said Imelda Cristobal,
due to chest compression and drowning.”^[1]

Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty.^[2]
During the trial, the prosecution presented five (5) witnesses – (1) Ignacia Cristobal – mother of the
victim; (2) Rosa Lozano – aunt of the victim; (3) Wilfredo
Cristobal – brother of the victim; (4) Teodoro Cristobal – brother of
the victim; and (5) Conrado Gabriel – Municipal
Health Officer of Ilagan, Isabela
– and Exhibits “A” (Certificate of Death issued by the Local Civil
Registrar), “B” (Medico-Legal Findings), and “C”
(Certificate of Death issued by the Municipal Health Officer).

From the testimonies of the foregoing witnesses, the trial court
culled the following findings of facts:^[3]

“On September 28,
1974, about six o’clock p.m.,
Ignacia Cristobal, Wilfredo Cristobal and Teodoro Cristobal were resting in
their respective houses in Gayong-gayong Norte, Ilagan, Isabela.  They had just arrived from the field where
they went to work that afternoon.  Wilfredo’s house is about fifteen meters north of the house
of Ignacia while Teodoro’s
house is about ten meters north of Wilfredo’s.

“Suddenly, Ignacia, Wilfredo and Teodoro heard
someone shouting and screaming at the top of her voice, from the creek about 80
meters east of their houses.  Wilfredo reacted first for he observed that the voice was
that of his 16-year old sister Imelda Cristobal.  He went out of his house immediately, passed
and dropped at the nearby house of his aunt Rosa Lozano, first degree cousin of
his father Vicente Cristobal, and asked her (Rosa) to
‘please go to the creek and see Imelda’. 
But Wilfredo did not wait for Rosa
anymore.  He rushed to the creek followed
in a short while by Rosa and Teodoro.

“When Wilfredo, Rosa and Teodoro reached the creek, one after the other in that
order, they found Imelda.  It was a
pitiful and shocking sight they saw. 
Imelda was lying on the ground, face upward, naked and unconscious; her
face and cheeks swollen, lower lips cut and bleeding; her arms scratched and
bruised; hematoma on different parts of her body; and
her clothes about four meters away from her. 
Rosa took the clothes and they dressed up
Imelda.  Shortly later, Imelda regained
her consciousness.  Wilfredo
asked her:  ‘Who did this to you?‘
Imelda answered:  ‘Manong
Victor, manong‘, referring to Victor Garcia, accused
herein an husband of Juanita Cristobal, older sister
of Imelda.  Teodoro
asked what happened.  Imelda replied that
Victor abused and dishonored her.  When
Teodoro inquired how Victor did it, Imelda briefly
recounted what transpired and she said: 
‘When I was putting on my dress he held me by the neck from behind,
dragged me and upon reaching the deeper part of the creek he submerged me.  When I shouted he stuffed my mouth with
cloth.  Then he boxed face and I fell
unconscious.  When I regained my
consciousness, Victor was thumping on my chest. 
I shouted again, then manong Fred arrived.’

“Disgraced and maltreated hard, Imelda was suffering
bitterly.  Weak she could not stand
anymore.  Teodoro,
Wilfredo and Rosa carried her in their arms and with
the assistance of Faustino Corpuz they took her home.

“Imelda was laid on a bed. 
Her mother Ignacia Cristobal
asked her who was the perpetrator. 
Imelda answered in the presence of Marciano Corpuz, Narciso Lozano, Teodoro Cristobal, Faustino Corpuz, Fortunato Cristobal, Rene Cristobal, Juanita
Cristobal and her children that Victor Garcia was the
man who maltreated, abused and dishonored her. 
Again, Imelda told and recounted briefly to her mother and their
neighbors what transpired, thus:  ‘When I
was at the creek, putting on my dress, my brother-in-law held me from behind,
submerged me in the creek several times, boxed me, sat on my chest.  I lost consciousness then I did not know what
happened.’

“The parents, brothers and sisters of Imelda thought of
bringing her to town for immediate medical treatment but they desisted because
of the curfew hours.  They believed that
they would be overtaken by the curfew on their way.  Gayong-gayong Norte
is 17 kilometers to town.  In going to
the centro, one has to hike first to barrio San
Antonio, seven kilometers away, for about two to three
hours, and from there to town by passenger jeepneys.

“Imelda died at about nine
o’clock that night, three hours after the incident.  The following day, September 29, Teodoro went to town and reported the incident to the
police authorities.  Three policemen and
the municipal health officer, Dr. Conrado Gabriel,
proceeded to Gayong-gayong, arriving there before
high-noon.  The doctor examined the
victim.

“The findings of Dr. Gabriel as indicated in his medical and
death certificates (Exhibit B and C, pp. 4 and 6, record) and testified to by
him in Court are:

1.     
Hematoma on different
parts of the body of the victim – chest, neck and back;

2.     
Chest – soft and distended; when pressed it sunk
easily; ribs possibly broken;

3.     
Nipple, right side – removed; around it were
bruises;

4.     
Abdomen – plenty of fluid (water); abdominal
wall distended; when pressed twice, about 50 cc of water was expelled thru the
mouth; fluid in abdomen may have been caused by immersion in water or deliberately
introduced;

5.     
Hymen – fresh laceration at nine o’clock as a result of penetration; streak of blood
found in the vaginal wall; and

6.     
Cause of Death – internal hemorrhage due to
chest compression; presence of excessive fluid in the abdominal region as a secondary
factor.” (Underscoring supplied.)

Accused-appellant Victor Garcia interposed an alibi.  He testified that he could not have committed
the crime since he left Bo. Gayong-gayong Norte, Ilagan, Isabela, in the early
morning of September 28, 1974
and went to Bo. San Lorenzo of the same town of Ilagan to clear a parcel of land
by kaingin. 
He further testified that he stayed in the house of his brother’s
father-in-law, Domingo Espanto, in said Bo. San
Lorenzo for two months as he received, on September 30, 1974, a letter from his
wife, Juanita Cristobal Garcia, advising him not to
go home because he was suspected of having killed his sister-in-law, Imelda Cristobal.^[4]

To corroborate the testimony of the accused, the defense
presented the following witnesses:  (1)
Domingo Espanto (father-in-law of the brother of the
accused) who testified on direct examination that the accused arrived in his
house in Bo. San Lorenzo before noon of September 28, 1974 and stayed there for
sometime;^[5]
(2) Juanita Cristobal Garcia – wife of the accused,
and elder sister of the victim – who testified on direct examination that her
husband left barrio Gayong-gayong for barrio San
Lorenzo at 6:00 o’clock in the morning of September 28, 1974 and did not return
in the afternoon of that day; on cross-examination, she testified that her
husband never returned to barrio Gayong-gayong
because she wrote him a letter informing him that he was suspected to be the
author of the crime and advising him not to return to barrio Gayong-gayong;^[6] and,
(3) Antonio Garcia – elder brother of the accused – who testified on direct
examination that he delivered the letter of Juanita Cristobal
Garcia to the accused in barrio San Lorenzo.^[7]

The trial court rejected the alibi of the accused and, concluding
that the prosecution had proved the case for the State beyond doubt, convicted
the accused as charged and imposed upon him the supreme penalty of death.

Thus, this automatic review of the decision of the trial court.

Upon manifestation of accused-appellant Victor Garcia that he has
no lawyer to represent him in this appeal, this Court appointed Atty. Manuel B.
Tomacruz as counsel de oficio
for the aforesaid appellant.^[8]
Said counsel de oficio filed the
appellant’s brief on February 28, 1977.^[9]
The Acting Solicitor General, Vicente V. Mendoza^[10]
filed the appellee’s brief on May 27, 1977.^[11]
This case was considered submitted for decision on September 27, 1977.^[12]

In seeking reversal of the judgment of conviction, defendant-appellant,
through his counsel de oficio, assigns
the following errors allegedly committed by the trial court:^[13]

(I)     THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S CLAIM THAT HE WAS NOT AT THE PLACE OF THE COMMISSION OF
THE OFFENSE AT THE TIME THE SAME WAS COMMITTED.

(II)    THE LOWER COURT
ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT TO THE HEARSAY TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION
CONSIDERING THAT WHAT THE SAID WITNESSES ALLEGEDLY HEARD FROM THE VICTIM AS TO
THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OF HER DEATH FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A DYING DECLARATION.

(III)   THE LOWER COURT
FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION HAD THE
MOTIVE TO INCRIMINATE THE ACCUSED AND TO PERVERT THE TRUTH.

I.   On
the first assignment of error. 
Insisting that the claim of defendant-appellant that he was not at the
place of the commission of the offense at the time the same was committed has
been sufficiently established by the testimony of said appellant as confirmed
by defense witness Domingo Espanto who testified that
the appellant was in his house in barrio San Lorenzo on the day of the
perpetration of the crime in barrio Gayong-gayong,
counsel de oficio contends that the
trial court committed an error in rejecting said alibi.

We cannot agree.

a.  Whether or not the alibi
has been sufficiently established by accused’s
testimony and that of his witness Domingo Espanto
depends upon the weight accorded by the trial court to said testimonies, and
this, in turn, will depend on the credibility of said witnesses and of their
testimonies.  Apparently, the trial court
entertained serious doubts on the credibility of the defense witnesses, for, as
it observed –

“The demeanor, attitude and manner of testifying, candid,
direct and forthright answers of the prosecution witnesses show that their
story and version reflected the truth of the incident.  That of the defense witnesses on the other
hand indicate that they did not truthfully tell what they know of the incident
and that there is much wanting in their honesty, verity and credibility.”^[14]
(Underscoring supplied.)

We are not inclined to dispute such observation of the trial
court, for it was said court which actually heard the witnesses themselves and
observed their deportment and demeanor during the trial.  Thus, We have held, in a long line of cases,
that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will
generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that it is
in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses
themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the
trial, unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value
that, if considered, might affect the result of the case.^[15]

Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a
credible witness but must be believable in itself such as the common experience
and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.^[16]  The trial court assailed the credibility not
only of the defense witnesses but that of their testimonies as well when it
held, in no uncertain terms, that the claim that the defendant went to San
Lorenzo on that fateful day of September 28, 1974 to clear a parcel of land
by kaingin is unworthy of belief, for the reason
that “it was the end of September, rainy and wet season, not kaingin season as claimed, in the province of Isabela.”^[17]
Defendant-appellant did not take exception to this holding of the trial court.

It results, therefore, that defendant-appellant has no credible
evidence upon which to anchor his defense of alibi.

b.  As correctly pointed out
by the trial court, alibi is the weakest of all defenses since it is easy to
concoct but difficult to disprove.^[18]
Courts view it with caution and accept it only when proved by positive, clear
and convincing evidence, i.e., such evidence which would preclude the possibility
of the accused’s presence at the scene of the crime.^[19]

In the case at bar, the only evidence presented to corroborate
defendant’s self-serving claim that he was in barrio San Lorenzo at the time of
the commission of the crime in barrio Gayong-gayong
was the testimony of defense witness Domingo Espanto,
the owner of the house in barrio San Lorenzo where defendant allegedly stayed
on September 28, 1974.  But not only does
such testimony suffer the infirmity heretofore adverted to but, more
importantly, it lacks the requisite certainty and positiveness
to prove that the defendant was indeed in the house of the defense witness in barrio
San Lorenzo on September 28, 1974.  For,
as borne out by the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing on May 13, 1976, witness Espanto was not even sure of the month and the year when
defendant Garcia arrived and stayed in his house in barrio San
Lorenzo.  Thus, on direct
examination, Domingo Espanto testified as follows –^[20]

“Q.  By
the way, you said that on September
28, 1974 the accused Victor Garcia was in your house.  When did he arrive in your house?

 A.   He
arrived there on September 28, sir.

 Q.  At
what time?

COURT:

Q.   What
year?

A.    It
could be last year during the clearing season by kaingin.

Q.   I
remind you that this year is 1976.  Will
you please refresh your memory and try to recall the actual year?

 A.   It
was the season for clearing the field as we were then opening some lots.

Q.   At
what time on September 28?

COURT:

Your last answer is not
also clear.  The question is what year of
September 28 when Victor Garcia came to your house?

A.    What
I can remember is he arrived there on the 28th but I cannot remember the
month or the year because I did not bother to think of the date because you
know as a farmer I am occupied.” (Underscoring supplied.)

And on cross-examination, witness Espanto testified as follows –^[21]

“Q.  So
when you say that Victor Garcia arrived in your house on September 28, 1974 in answer to the question of the
defense counsel, do we understand from you that that was only a calculation
or your guess?

A.    Yes,
sir, because I do not know how to read so I just guessed.

Q.   Because
you are not sure, Victor Garcia could have arrived in your house on September 29, 1974?

ATTY. DOMINGO:

We object to the
question as argumentative and besides misleading.

COURT:

No, it is not
argumentative.  Neither is it misleading.  It is leading.

A.    Yes,
sir, he arrived because he stayed there.

Q.   Possibly
on September 29, 1974,
that is my question.

A.    As
I have stated, I cannot remember anymore because as I said, I do not think
of them.”  (Underscoring
supplied.)

It is clear from the foregoing testimony of defense witness
Domingo Espanto that he was uncertain of the date
when defendant Garcia arrived and stayed in his house in barrio San
Lorenzo.  Accordingly, the
requirement of a “positive, clear and convincing evidence” for an alibi
has not been complied with.  The same
must, therefore, be rejected.

c.   The trial court did not predicate its
rejection of defendant’s alibi solely on the weakness of the evidence for the
defense, but, primarily, on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution
which clearly belies defendant’s claim that he was not, and could not have
been, at the scene of the crime at the time the same was committed.  After a careful scrutiny of the prosecution’s
evidence, We accord full concurrence with the trial court’s conclusion that
defendant’s alibi deserves to be rejected.

Firstly, the defendant was seen leaving the crime scene by
prosecution witness Wilfredo Cristobal,
a brother of the victim.  Said witness
testified thus –^[22]

“Q.  Now,
while you were resting in your house that particular time in the afternoon of September 28, 1974, do you know or do
you remember of anything unusual that happened?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   What
was that unusual happening?

A.    While
I was resting I heard my younger sister shouted and immediately I ran towards
the place where the shout emanated and passed by the house of my Aunt Rosa
Lozano.  Upon my arrival there, I went
ahead to where my sister shouted.  I
saw Victor who came from the place where my sister was.

Q.   Where
did you see your sister?

A.    In
the creek.

x          x          x

Q.   And
you stated that upon your arrival you saw Victor Garcia running away from where
you saw your sister.  When you saw your
sister, what was the condition of your sister as you saw her?

A.    She
was naked, sir.

Q.   What
was her position at the time, was she standing, sitting or what?

A.    She
was lying with her face upward.

Q.   Now,
you said that you saw Victor Garcia running away from where you saw your
sister, towards what direction did Victor Garcia proceed?

When you said that when
you arrived at the place where you saw your sister Imelda you saw Victor Garcia
coming from where she was, did you try to talk with Victor Garcia as you saw
him going away from where Imelda was?

A.    No,
sir, because I went immediately to help my younger sister.

Q.   Now,
how about Victor Garcia, what did he do after you saw him coming from the place
of your sister?

A.    He
ran holding a long handled bolo.” (Underscoring supplied.)

Defendant’s claim that he was in barrio San
Lorenzo at the time of the perpetration of the crime in barrio Gayong-gayong simply cannot stand in the face of the
foregoing clear and positive proof of his presence at the scene of the crime
immediately after the same was committed.

Secondly, as aptly pointed out by the trial court,
“(A)t the creek after she regained consciousness and on her deathbed in
her parents’ home, Imelda recounted to her mother, brothers and sister and
neighbors what happened to her and explicitly named Victor Garcia as the man
who abused, dishonored and mercilessly maltreated her.”^[23]
Thus, Wilfredo Cristobal
testified as follows –^[24]

“Q.  And
what did you do after you saw Victor Garcia running away with a tabas from where you saw your sister?

A.    I
immediately carried her on my shoulder because she was then unconscious.

Q.   And
after that, what happened?

A.    Then
after a while my sister regained consciousness and I asked her who did that to
her.  She told me that it was Victor
Garcia.

Q.   How
did she tell you that it was Victor Garcia who did something to her?  I will reform the question.  What did Imelda, your younger sister,
actually tell you when she said it was Victor Garcia who did something to her?

A.    She
said that he (Victor) dishonored her.

Q.   And
what else did she say, if any?

A.    It
was my elder brother who continued interrogating her because immediately after
we put on her dress and carried her to the house of my father, it was my elder
brother who continued the interrogation.

x          x          x

Q.   When
your sister was brought to the house of your parents and you laid her down, do
you remember if anybody else talked with her?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Who?

A.    My
mother and father.  I mean my father was
not there then because he was in San Mariano.

Q.   And
how long did your mother talk to your sister?

A.    Maybe
about three (3) hours, sir.

Q.   And
you still remember what your sister Imelda told your mother if you were present
during their conversation?

A.    She
repeatedly reported what Victor Garcia did to her that she was raped by him.”
(Underscoring supplied.)

The elder brother, Teodoro
Cristobal, testified as follows –^[25]

“Q.  Now,
when you went to the creek, what did you find out?

A.    Upon
reaching the creek, I saw my sister Imelda Cristobal
being lifted by my brother Wilfredo Cristobal and I asked her what happened and she answered
me that she was abused by Victor Garcia. 
She told me in Ilocano, niramas
nac ni Victor Garcia.

Q.   And
when you were told by your sister that . . . I withdraw.  When she told you that she was abused by
Victor Garcia, what else did you ask her, if you asked her any further
questions?

A.    And
I asked her how he did it and she answered me by saying that when I was
putting on my dress, he held me by the neck and dragged me and upon reaching
the deeper part of the creek he submerged me in the creek then I
struggled.  Then he dragged me again and
when I shouted he stuffed my mouth with a cloth.  Then he boxed my face.  (Witness pointed to his mouth and his
cheeks.)

Q.   What
else did he tell you, if any?

A.    When
I regained consciousness, I felt that Victor was on top of my chest
thumping.  Then I shouted again.  That was the time that Manong
Fred arrived.

x      x        x

Q.   And
what did you do after you brought her home to the house of your father?

A.    Then
we laid her on the bed, sir.

Q.   And
what transpired when you laid your sister on the bed?

A.    My
mother inquired from her who did that thing to her and she answered that it was
Manong Victor Garcia.” (Underscoring
supplied.)

The victim’s mother, Ignacia
Cristobal, testified as follows –^[26]

Q.   And
when your daughter Imelda was brought home by her brothers, were you able to
talk with Imelda?

A.    Then
I asked Imelda what happened to you my daughter and she answered I did not like
what happened to me.  Do not blame me.

Q.   Did
you come to know what she meant when she said she did not like what
happened?  I withdraw.  And what else, if any, did Imelda tell you?

A.    That
she was hurt very much when she was boxed by him.

Q.   Did
she tell you who boxed her?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Whom
did she mention?

A.    She
said my Manong Victor.

Q.   Who
is that Manong Victor she referred to?

A.    Her
brother-in-law.

Q.   Do
you know the full name of her brother-in-law Victor?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Will
you please tell the court?

A.    Victor
Garcia.

Q.   And
what else . . .

COURT:

Q.       Is
he in court now?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Where
is he, point at him?

A.    That
man.  (Witness pointed to the accused
who gave his name as Victor Garcia.)

x      x        x

COURT:

Q.   Tell
everything that your daughter told you as soon as she was carried home by her
brothers Wilfredo and Teodoro
and her Auntie Rose Lozano.  (Witness is
crying after giving her answer to the question of the court.)

A.    She
told me this, sir.  When I was in the
creek about to put on my dress, my brother-in-law came from behind but I did
not notice him.  He placed his hand on my
neck from behind and submerged me in the creek several times.  He boxed me several times and even sat on my
chest for which I lost consciousness and I did not know what he did to me.

Q.   What
else did she tell you?

A.    Shortly
after, she died.” (Underscoring supplied.)

Rosa Lozano, the aunt of the victim who
helped Wilfredo and Teodoro
Cristobal carry the victim from the creek to the
house of her parents, likewise testified that the victim explicitly named the
defendant, Victor Garcia, as the one who raped and maltreated her.^[27]

In the face of the foregoing clear and positive identification of
defendant Victor Garcia as the one who raped Imelda Cristobal
and inflicted upon her the injuries which caused her death, his defense of
alibi clearly appears as nothing but a mere concoction – a fabrication designed
to exculpate him from violating the honor and taking the life of his 16-year
old sister-in-law.  And, We have
repeatedly held, the defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused as the author of the crime.^[28]

d. Finally, note must be taken of the fact that Atty. Simplicio Domingo, Jr., the lawyer who represented the
defendant during the trial, manifested in open court that the defendant was
willing to plead guilty if the crime charged in the Information would be
changed from Rape with Homicide to Murder.^[29]
The trial court did not, however, allow the amendment of the Information for
the reason that evidence proving the commission of the crime of Rape with
Homicide had already been presented by the prosecution.^[30]

In resume, appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in
rejecting his alibi is clearly without merit.

II.  On the second
assignment of error. 
Defendant-appellant, through his counsel de oficio,
assails the admissibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses re
the circumstances surrounding the victim’s death on the ground that the same
were not of their own personal knowledge but were only narrated to them by the
victim.  Alleging that such testimonies
are hearsay, appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting the
same.

We cannot agree.  It must
be noted that neither the defendant nor his counsel below objected to the
admission of the testimonies which are now being assailed as hearsay.^[31]
This is fatal to defendant-appellant’s present posture since the failure to
object to hearsay evidence constitutes a waiver of the right to cross-examine
the actual witness to the occurrence, rendering the evidence admissible.^[32]

Moreover, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as to the
statements of the victim on the circumstances surrounding her death are
admissible in evidence as her dying declaration, pursuant to Section 31, Rule
130 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides:

“SECTION 31.  DYING
DECLARATION. – The declaration of a dying person, made under a consciousness of
an impending death, may be received in a criminal case wherein his death is the
subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such
death.”

Appellant’s contention that the statements of the victim cannot
assume the character of a dying declaration, for the reason the prosecution
allegedly failed to show that the statements were given by the victim under a
consciousness of an impending death, is untenable.

We have held that “it is not necessary to the validity or
admissibility of a dying declaration that the declarant
expressly state that he has lost all hope of recovery; it is sufficient that
the circumstances are such as to lead inevitably to the conclusion that at the
time the declaration was made, the declarant did not
expect to survive the injury from which he actually died.”^[33]

That the victim, Imelda Cristobal, was
under a consciousness of an impending death at the time she made the statements
identifying the defendant as the one who raped her and inflicted upon her the
injuries which caused her death can be inferred from the circumstances under
which the declaration was made.  She had
just recovered her consciousness and her physical condition bespeaks the
imminence of her death.  She was so weak
that she had to be carried by her brothers and Aunt Rosa from the creek to the
house of her parents.  Added to the
physical pain which she was then suffering by reason of the serious injuries
inflicted upon her, was the mental anguish and shock brought about by the
unmitigated violation of her honor.  With
face swollen, lower lip cut and bleeding, hematoma
all over the body, broken ribs, right nipple removed and bleeding, hymen
lacerated, with blood streaks in the vaginal wall, and abdomen filled with
water, the victim could not have entertained any hope of surviving the beastly
attack on her by her “Manong Victor”.  In fact she died barely three (3) hours after
the beastly assault.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, this assigned error is
without merit.

III.  On the last
assignment of error.  Counsel de
oficio for defendant-appellant contends,
finally, that the prosecution witnesses had the motive to pervert the truth and
to incriminate the defendant and that the trial court consequently erred in
taking their testimony at their face value.

This contention is untenable. 
The alleged improper motive imputed by the defendant to the prosecution
witnesses does not find support in the evidence on record.  Except for Teodoro Cristobal who allegedly harbored ill-feeling against the
defendant, no evidence whatsoever was presented to prove that prosecution
witnesses Wilfredo Cristobal,
Ignacia Cristobal and Rosa
Lozano had the motive to pervert the truth and to incriminate the
defendant.  And the ill-feeling which Teodoro Cristobal allegedly had
against the defendant could not have been sufficient for the former to impute
against the latter, a brother-in-law, the heinous crime committed upon his sister
and to allow, in the process, the true culprit to escape liability.

Furthermore, contrary to the allegation of appellant’s counsel de
oficio, the trial court did not take the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses at their face value.  It did exert effort to ascertain the
credibility of the said witnesses as well as that of their testimonies.  Thus, the trial court expressly observed in
its decision that “(T)he demeanor, attitude and manner of testifying,
candid, direct and forthright answers of the prosecution witnesses show that
their story and version reflected the truth of the incident.”^[34]
And as to the credibility of their testimonies, the trial court took the pains
of stating in detail the corroborating points between the ante mortem
statements of the victim, as testified to by the prosecution witnesses, and the
medical findings of the Municipal Health Officer, thus –^[35]

“Imelda said the accused submerged her in the creek.  This was confirmed by the fact that her abdomen
was filled with plenty of fluid.  About
50 cc of water was expelled thru her mouth. 
Imelda said the accused boxed her face, stuffed her mouth, sat and
thumped on her chest.  This was confirmed
by the fact that her lip was cut and broken, her face swollen, her chest soft
and distended, her ribs possibly broken, her nipple removed and bleeding;
Imelda said she fought her attacker and this was confirmed by the scratches and
bruises on her arms and hematoma on many parts of her
body.  Imelda said that when she was
putting on her dress, her “manong Victor”
suddenly grabbed and held her from behind and dragged her to the water.  This was confirmed by the fact that she was
found naked.  Imelda said that Victor
dishonored her, took her womanhood.  This
was confirmed by the fresh laceration on her vagina, at nine o’clock and the streak of blood found at her vaginal
wall.  x x x“

Clearly, therefore, the last assignment of error is also without
merit.

All the foregoing considerations lead Us to the ineluctable
conclusion that the guilt of the defendant-appellant of the crime charged has
been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Isabela dated July 21, 1976 — convicting the defendant of
the crime of Rape with Homicide, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
death, with all the accessory penalties provided for by law, and
ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of P20,000.00 and to
pay the costs — is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Makasiar,
Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez, Guerrero, De
Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

Barredo, Antonio, and Aquino, JJ., concurs in a
separate opinion.

Fernando, Acting C.J., did not
take part.

Abad Santos, J., on official trip abroad to represent the Philippines in the Conference of the Law on the Sea.

---

^[1]
Records, p. 18.

^[2] Id.,
p. 19.

^[3]
Decision of the Court of First Instance of Isabela,
pp. 1-5 (Rollo, pp. 4-8).

^[4] T.S.N.,
Victor Garcia, hearing of March 15,
1976, pp. 1-7.

^[5] Id.,
Domingo Espanto, hearing of May 13, 1976, pp. 135-139.

^[6] Id.,
Juanita Cristobal Garcia, hearing of February 20, 1976, pp. 104 and 114.

^[7] Id.,
Antonio Garcia, hearing of May 13,
1976, p. 144.

^[8]
Resolution of the Court En Banc dated November 4, 1976 (Rollo,
p. 46).

^[9] Rollo, p. 60.

^[10]
Assisted by Asst. Sol. Gen. Ruben E. Agpalo and Trial
Atty. Magdangal M. de Leon.

^[11] Rollo, p. 65.

^[12]
Resolution of the Court En Banc dated September 27, 1977 (Rollo,
p. 72).

^[13] Brief
for Defendant-Appellant, pp. 1-2.

^[14]
Decision, p. 11(Rollo, p. 14).

^[15]
People vs. Gargoles, G.R. No. L-40885, May 18, 1978; People vs. Pascual, G.R. No. L-27569, Oct. 28, 1977, 80 SCRA 1; People vs. Ancheta, G.R. No. L- 29581-82, Oct. 30, 1974, 60 SCRA 333; People vs. Boduso, G.R. No. L-30450-51, Sept. 30, 1974, 60 SCRA 60; People vs. Cardenas,
G.R. No. L-29090, April 29, 1974,
56 SCRA 631; People vs. Carandang, G.R. No.
L-31012, Aug. 15, 1973, 52
SCRA 259; People vs. Espejo, G.R. No. L-27708,
Dec. 19, 1970, 36 SCRA
400.

^[16]
People vs. Dayag, G.R. No. L-30619, March 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 439; Vda. de Bonifacio vs.
B.L.T. Bus Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-26810, August
31, 1970, 34 SCRA 618.

^[17]
Decision, pp. 8-9 (Rollo, pp. 11-12).

^[18]
People vs. Bulawin, G.R. No. L-30069, September 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 710;
People vs. Cunanan, G.R. No. L-17599, April 24, 1967, 19 SCRA 769,
citing:  U.S.
vs. Olias, 36 Phil. 828, 829; People vs.
Pili, 51 Phil. 965, 966; People vs. Dizon, 76 Phil. 265, 272; People vs. Bautista,
L-17772, October 31, 1962;
People vs. Dayday, L-20806 & L-20807, August 14, 1965.

^[19]
People vs. Alcantara, G.R. No. L-26867, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 813; People vs.
Casillar, G.R. No. L-28132, Nov. 25, 1969, 30 SCRA 353; People vs.
Ali, G.R. No. L-18519, Oct. 30, 1969,
29 SCRA 756; People vs. Condemena, G.R. No.
L-22426, May 29, 1968, 23
SCRA 910.

^[20]
T.S.N., Domingo Espanto, hearing of May 13, 1976, pp. 136-137.

^[21] Id.,
pp. 140-141.

^[22] Id.,
Wilfredo Cristobal, hearing
of May 23, 1975, pp. 44-45.

^[23]
Decision, p. 8 (Rollo, p.11).

^[24]
T.S.N., Wilfredo Cristobal,
hearing of May 23, 1975,
pp. 45-48.

^[25] Id.,
Teodoro Cristobal, hearing
of May 28, 1975, pp. 53-55.

^[26] Id.,
Ignacia Cristobal, hearing
of February 10, 1975, pp.
26-28.

^[27] See,
T.S.N., Rosa Lozano, hearing of April
10, 1975, p. 34.

^[28]
People vs. Caoile, G.R. No. L-31104, Nov. 15, 1974, 61 SCRA 73; People vs.
Ancheta, G.R. Nos. L-29581-82, Oct. 30, 1974, 60 SCRA 333; People vs. Tumalip, G.R. No. L-28451, Oct. 28, 1974, 60 SCRA 303; People vs. Sangalang, G.R. No. L-32914, Aug. 30, 1974, 58 SCRA 737; People vs. Abletes, G.R. No. L-3304, July 31, 1974, 58 SCRA 241; People vs. Madera,
G.R. No. L-35133, May 31, 1974,
57 SCRA 349; People vs. Aquino, G.R. No.
L-27184, May 21, 1974, 57
SCRA 43; People vs. Cardenas,
G.R. No. L-29090, April 29, 1974,
56 SCRA 631; People vs. Bongo, G.R. No. L-26909, Feb. 22, 1974, 55 SCRA 547; People vs. Dorico, G.R. No. L-31568, Nov. 29, 1973, 54 SCRA 172; People vs. Carandang, G.R. No. L-31012, Aug. 15, 1973, 52 SCRA 259; People vs. Herila, G.R. No. L-32785, May 21, 1973, 51 SCRA 31; People vs. Tanjalali Gajali, G.R. No.
L-28534, July 31, 1972, 46
SCRA 130; People vs. Comelio, G.R. No. L-1289,
June 10, 1971, 39 SCRA 435;
People vs. Mercado, G.R. No. L-30298, March 30, 1971, 38 SCRA 168; People vs. Amit, G.R. No. L-30102, Feb. 27, 1971, 37 SCRA 793; People vs. Gande, G.R. No. L-28163, Jan. 30, 1970, 31 SCRA 347; People vs. Salip, G.R. No. L-21688, Nov. 28, 1967, 30 SCRA 389; People vs. Vicente,
G.R. No. L-26241, May 21, 1967,
29 SCRA 247; People vs. Bato, G.R. No.
L-23405, Dec. 29, 1967, 21
SCRA 1445; People vs. Susano, G.R. No.
L-19099, March 31, 1964, 10
SCRA 609; People vs. Regal, G.R. No. L-14753, July 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 703; People vs. Selfaison, G.R. No. L-14732, Jan. 28, 1981, 1 SCRA 235.

^[29]
T.S.N., hearing of April 10, 1975,
pp. 19-20.

^[30] Id.,
p. 20.

^[31] Id.,
Ignacia Cristobal, hearing
of Feb. 10, 1975, pp. 26-28; Id., Teodoro
Cristobal, hearing of May 28, 1975, pp. 53-54; Id.,
Wilfredo Cristobal, hearing
of May 23, 1975, pp. 46-48; Id., Rosa Lozano, hearing of April
10, 1975, p. 34; Id., hearing of June 18, 1975 (offer of
evidence), pp. 91 & 92.

^[32]
People vs. Paz, G.R. No. L-15050-53, August 31, 1964, 11 SCRA 667.

^[33]
People vs. Serrano, 58 Phil. 667 (citing People vs. Ancasan, 53 Phil. 779).

^[34]
Decision, p. 11 (Rollo, p. 14).

^[35] Id.,
pp. 10-11 (Rollo, pp. 13-14).

---

Clean

6 pt
6 pt
0
3

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}