THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RIZAL A. RAMOS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Automatic review of a decision dated April 13, 1972 of the Court of
First Instance of Ilocos Norte finding the accused Rizal A. Ramos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Rape with Homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death, with
the accessories of the law, and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased Modesta Battulayan
in the amount of P12,000.00, plus P5,000.00 as moral damages.

The factual background of the case is as follows:

In the morning of November
21, 1971, Cristina Manglallan Battulayan, while walking along an isolated road on her way
to the Poblacion of Batac, Ilocos Norte to sell vegetables, found the lifeless body of
her eighteen year-old daughter, Modesta Battulayan, lying face up on the ground, with legs spread
apart and clothes torn and bloody. 
Cristina shouted for help and her husband and two sons, as well as the
Barrio Captain, arrived at the scene. 
The police authorities were sent for and the cadaver was first brought
to the town hall, then to the Battulayan residence.  An examination of said cadaver was conducted
by Dr. Zacarias Aoigan,
Rural Health Officer of Batac, Ilocos
Norte, who indicated in his report (Exhibit “C”) and later on
testified in open court that the victim sustained a total of five (5) stab
wounds on various parts of the body and two (2) lacerated wounds on the head,
and that the cause of death was shock due to internal hemorrhage.  Vaginal findings indicated an irregular
perforation of the hymen, 3/4 of an inch in diameter.

After the discovery of the victim’s body, an investigation was
conducted by the police authorities of Batac.  The police were informed of the identities of
persons who were seen near the vicinity of the situs
of the crime, namely Reynaldo Aguibitin and Rizal Ramos.  After
looking in vain for these persons in their respective homes, they found them
later that day sleeping in the house of Juanito Ramos
at Barrio Capacuan, Batac, Ilocos Norte.  When
they were told to go to the Poblacion, Rizal Ramos escaped from the police.  They were able, however, to pick up Rizal Ramos at 4:00
a. m. on November 22, 1971.  Nestor Aguibitin, a
young man 14 years of age, when investigated by the police revealed that while
he and Rizal Ramos were walking together near the
scene of the crime, appellant Ramos left him to answer a call of nature.  He heard the screams of a woman coming from
the direction where Ramos went.  And when
Ramos returned he was excited and breathing very hard.  He warned him not to reveal where they went
that night.  As a result of Aguibitin’s testimony, appellant Rizal
Ramos was brought in for questioning.

On November 22, 1971,
the appellant gave a statement (Exhibit “A”) wherein he admitted
having raped Modesta Battulayan
and later having stabbed and killed her in order to silence her, as she knew
him personally.  This statement was
subscribed and sworn to by the appellant before Assistant Fiscal Fernando Alcantara of Ilocos Norte, after
having previously signed the same in the presence of the investigating police
authorities.

On January 8, 1972,
an Information for the crime of Rape with Homicide was filed against the appellant
in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte.  Upon arraignment, Rizal
Ramos pleaded not guilty of the crime charged, and at the trial of the case,
repudiated his confession (Exhibit “A”) on the ground that the same
was signed by him only because he was maltreated and threatened with death by
the police investigators.

After trial, the court a quo rendered the aforementioned
decision and the case is now before this Court for automatic review.

Appellant reiterates his repudiation of Exhibit “A”,
alleging that said statement was concocted by the police investigators and that
his signature thereon was affixed by him because he was maltreated and
threatened by them.

The lower court refused to give credence to this allegation of
the appellant, finding that the confession was actually voluntarily and freely
given and hence admissible in evidence. 
We agree with the court a quo.  It is on record that the accused underwent an
X-ray examination and physical examination but no indications or signs of
maltreatment were found on his body.  Moreover,
Fiscal Fernando Alcantara, before whom the confession
was subscribed and sworn to, testified that when the appellant was brought
before him, he examined his person and found no signs of any physical injuries
whatsoever, except a few scratches on his arms which, according to the
testimony of the accused, were caused by the frantic struggles of the victim to
free herself.  The Fiscal likewise
inquired of him if he freely and voluntarily made the statement, even
translating the questions and answers to him from English to Ilocano to ensure that he understood the same, and he
answered in the affirmative.  After he
had subscribed to the confession and as he was about to leave, the Fiscal asked
him if he was regretting having given his statement and he gave a negative
reply.  It appears undisputed that at the
time appellant was investigated by the police in the afternoon of November 22, 1971, there were
several persons present, namely, Dr. Gaudencio Flojo, Benedicto Tinio and Atty. Nalupta.  Dr. Flojo declared
that appellant’s answers to the questions of the police investigator were
spontaneous.  In his extrajudicial
confession (Exhibit “A”), appellant declared, among others, as
follows:

Q:   Do you know why the Police Force came to pick
you up in your home?

A:    Yes,
sir.

Q:   What
do you know about it?

A:    Because
I know that the Police suspected me to be the one who raped and killed one,
MODESTA BATTULAYAN, of Sitio Sibbo,
Bo. of Camguidan, 25-N, Batac,
Ilocos Norte.

Q:   When
did you commit this crime?

A:    Last
Saturday evening between the hour of 1730H. to 1800H.  November
20, 1971.

Q:   Where
did you commit this crime?

A:    At
the Barrio Road from Bo.
27-E leading to Sibbo, Bo. Camguidan,
Batac, Ilocos Norte.

Q:   Can
you specifically point that point where you did the dastardly crime?

A:    Just
a few meters at the top of the grade of the barrio road leading to Bo. Camguidan, on top of the big flat stones found at the
center of said barrio road.

Q:   What
made you make up your mind to commit that kind of crime?

A:    I
was then in the influence of liquor, sir.

Q:   Where
did you get that liquor?

A:    In
my house, sir.

Q:   Did
you really commit a sexual intercourse with the late deceased, Modesta Battulayan?

A:    Yes,
sir.

Q:   Did
the woman give any resistance when you committed that sexual intercourse?

A:    Yes,
sir, she put up a firm resistance that was why there were scratches made, on my
right arm and left hand and also infront above my
breast.

Q:   After
you have committed the sexual intercourse with the late deceased Modesta Battulayan what else did
you do to her?

A:    I
rendered several stab wounds only I am not certain how many injuries inflicted
on her.

Q:   You
stated that you stabbed her several times what weapon did you use?

A:    A
single bladed weapon (IMOCO), sir.

Q:   Who
is the owner of that bladed weapon which you use in stabbing your victim?

A:    I
borrowed from Andres Aguibitin, a resident of Bo. Camguidan, Batac, Ilocos Norte.

Q:   If
that bladed weapon is shown to you now can you still identify it?  (Investigator showing to him the subject
knife [IMOCO] about 7-1/2 inches blade) Is this the same knife you used in
stabbing the late Modesta Battulayan?

A:    Yes,
sir.

Q:   At
the time when you were forcing the late Modesta Battulayan in raping her, aside from putting up a fight
with you what else did she do?

A:    She
had been screaming for help.

Q:   How
many times did you hear her screamed?

A:    I
could only recall three times, sir.

Q:   Did
anybody come to her rescue?

A:    None,
sir.

Q:   After
you have satisfied your lust by raping the woman, what prompted you further to
stab or inflict so many fatal wounds on the late Modesta
Battulayan?

A:    I
wanted to silence her perpetually because of the fact that the deceased knows
me personally.

Q:   After
you have raped her and inflicted stab wounds on different parts of her body,
what more did you do to her, if any?

A:    The
last act I did was to stab her so that the wound on the left of the head was
inflicted ahead of the stab wounds.  When
I was able to force her to lay on the ground she still put up a fight so that I
had to pick up a stone nearby and use it to knock her head, and that made her
unconscious.

Q:   Showing
to you this stone now in the possession of the police authorities (Investigator
showing the stone to the subject, which stone was found by the Police at the
scene of the crime, or just near the left side of the head of the victim), is
this the same stone you used in knocking the victim on the head?

A:    Yes,
sir, this is the same stone used in knocking the victim on the head.

Q:   Why
were you at that particular part of the barrio road at that time and date?

A:    My
purpose was to visit one Hospicio Cienda
at Bo. Camguidan but because I saw a woman walking
alone we had to purposely follow that lone woman on that barrio road.

Q:   Is
it true that when you saw that lone woman walking on that barrio road on that
late hour of the day you had already made up your mind to commit the heinous
crime?

A:    Yes,
sir.

* * *                                  *
* *                              * * *

Q:   When
you left her at the place where you inflicted those wounds on the person of the
late Modesta Battulayan,
was she already dead at the time?

A:    No,
sir, but she was still moaning and groaning, sir.”

It is apparent from the answers given by the appellant that they
are replete with details that only the declarant
could have known.

Aside from the confession given by the appellant and the
testimony of Nestor Aguibitin, there are other
evidence which points to appellant Rizal Ramos as the
perpetrator of the heinous crime. 
Scratches on his arms, hands and chest indicate the struggles of the
victim and the resistance she put up in defense of her honor and her life.  Likewise, We take cognizance of other pieces
of evidence in the possession of the court a quo, in the nature
of autoptic profference,
consisting in a pair of men’s briefs (Exhibit “J”) and a handkerchief
(Exhibit “K”) belonging to the appellant with tell-tale bloody spots
on them.  The trial court, therefore,
committed no error in not giving credence to appellant’s claim that this
confession was extracted through force, violence and intimidation for this is
refuted by:  (a) the testimony of the
Assistant Provincial Fiscal before whom the confession was subscribed and sworn
to by appellant; (b) the firm hand with which the signature was written, twice
on the left margin of pages 1 and 2 (Exhibits “A-3”, “A-4”,
“A-5”, “A-6″) and at the bottom of page 3 (Exhibits “A-1”
and “A-2); (c) the profusion of details in the confession; and (d) the fact
that some of the details of the confession were confirmed by other
evidence.  The presumption of law is in
favor of the spontaneity and voluntariness of a
statement given by an accused before police officers, and the confessant
carries the burden of convincing the trial judge that his admissions are
involuntary or untrue.^[1]

Appellant further contends that aside from the confession of
appellant Ramos, there is not enough evidence
to prove that the deceased was actually raped.

As correctly found by the
trial court, there are physical facts which prove the commission of the crime
of rape.  There is the report (Exhibit
“B”) of Dr. Zacarias Aoigan,
Rural Health Officer of Batac, Ilocos
Norte, who conducted an autopsy on the body of the deceased.  According to Dr. Aoigan,
he found “irregular perforation on the hymen of the victim, 3/4 of an inch
in diameter, which perforation of the hymen was still fresh.  Her dress was stained with blood (Exhibit
“D”).  Her blouse (Exhibit
“D-1”) and her panties were also bloody and torn.  Her half-slip was torn on several portions
and ripped from top to bottom.  As shown
by the pictures taken of the victim’s body soon after it was found by her
mother (Exhibits “F” and “F-1″), the legs of the victim were
bent at the knees and spread wide apart, a position strongly indicating the
posture of a woman who has been sexually abused.

As stated heretofore, the
admission of appellant contained in his confession is further corroborated by
the testimony of Nestor Aguibitin, a boy 14 years old
at the time of the trial.  This witness
testified that on November 20, 1971, between 5:00 and 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon, he was at the residence of
Rizal Ramos to collect his older brother’s wage for
harvesting rice from appellant.  As the palay representing said wage had not yet been segregated,
he announced that he was going home but Rizal Ramos
asked him to wait so that the two of them can go together.  Nestor noticed that appellant was drunk and
that he had on his person a small, sharp, pointed bolo (Exhibit “H”)
known in the Ilocano dialect as an “immoco“.  After
they had walked some seventy (70) meters, Rizal told
Nestor to wait for him as he was going to move his bowels.  Rizal walked
southward and was gone for about forty (40) minutes.  He felt somewhat uneasy waiting for
appellant, especially when he heard a woman scream about three or four times,
coming from the direction of the top of the trail off the barrio road where appellant
went When Rizal Ramos returned, witness noticed that
he looked tired and was gasping for breath. 
Rizal warned Nestor that:  “Whatever you heard, please do not tell
it to anybody but if you do I
will kill you.”  At the suggestion
of Ramos, they abandoned their original southward route which have brought them
to the residence of the Aguibitins but instead took a
farther and more roundabout one by going first northward and then proceeding
eastward.  In the course of their
journey, appellant told him to go faster so they moved at a faster gait, until
they reached their destination.

The lower court
considered the testimony of Nestor Aguibitin to be
credible and convincing.  It made the
observation that Nestor had no motive whatsoever to falsify the truth.  It found, on the contrary, that the Aguibitins and the Ramoses are
close and intimate friends and that Rizal is
even married to a cousin of the Aguibitins.  According to Patrolman Crisanto
Casela it was after the appellant was confronted by
Nestor Aguibitin that the latter admitted the
commission of the crime.  The lower
court, which had the fullest opportunity to observe the demeanor of this
witness, stated that it was impressed with the “candor and
forthrightness” of Nestor “whose testimony was confirmed in its
details by the evidence of the defense”. 
It is a cardinal rule of evidence that an appellate court will not
disturb a trial court’s findings as to the credibility of a witness because
such trial court had full opportunity to observe the witness’ demeanor on the
stand, which the appellate court does not have.^[2]
We, therefore, hold that the voluntary extrajudicial confession of appellant,
together with the evidence of corpus
delicti and the other relevant and
material evidence afore-stated, are sufficient to sustain the finding of guilt
of the trial court.

Appellant, however,
questions the imposition of the death penalty upon him.  It is his position that such a penalty is a
cruel and unusual punishment proscribed by the Constitution.  We are constrained to say that at this
juncture this is but an academic exercise. 
This is not a judicial question, but a proper subject of discussion
among behavioral scientists, criminologists and penologists.  Having found that accused is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of rape with homicide, this Court
has no alternative but to impose the penalty prescribed by the law therefor, namely, death.  Article 335, as amended by Republic Act No.
2632 and Republic Act No. 4111, of the Revised Penal Code provides, among
others, that “When by reason or on the occasion of a rape a homicide is
committed, the penalty shall be death (last paragraph).  Death is provided as a single, indivisible
penalty and, therefore, neither the court a quo nor this Tribunal has
any discretion with respect to the severity of the penalty to be imposed upon a
person found guilty of rape with homicide. 
We are bound by the mandate of
the law.  Even if mitigating
circumstances had attended the commission of the crime (which is not the case
here), the imposition of the indivisible penalty of death would still be called
for.^[3]

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from, finding Rizal A. Ramos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Rape with Homicide, ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in
the amount of P12,000.00 plus P5,000.00 as moral damages, and imposing upon him
the penalty of death, is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

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

Fernando, C.J., took no part.

^[1]
People v. Pereto, L-20894, Dec. 29, 1967, 21
SCRA 1469; People v. Manuel, L-23786-87, Aug. 29,1969, 29 SCRA 337; People v. Baluran, L-28582, March 25, 1970, 32 SCRA 71; People v. Pingol, L-26931, May 28,1970, 33 SCRA 73.

^[2]
People. v. Caoile, L-31104, Nov. 15, 1974, 61 SCRA 73; People v.
Jovellano, L-32421, March 27, 1974, 56 SCRA 156; People v. Beraces,
L-25016, March 27, 1971,
38 SCRA 127; People v. Dominguez, L-22474, Nov. 26, 1970, 36 SCRA 59.

^[3]
People v. Amit, L-29066, March 25, 1970, 32 SCRA 95.