PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JESSIE ROBIA Y ALMOGERA @ JESSIE DELA CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Robia

The Case

People versus Robia is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecute Jessie Robia for the special complex crime of rape with homicide. The victim was a five-year-old girl, referred to in the record as AAA, whose life was taken by strangulation. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons: it is a clean illustration of conviction on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness saw the crime, and it shows how the Court reasons through the elements of a special complex crime, the weakness of denial and alibi, and the penalty after the abolition of the death penalty.

Procedural History

An Information was filed on October 26, 1998, charging the accused with rape with homicide. He was arraigned on June 30, 1999, and pleaded not guilty. After trial, Branch 86 of the Regional Trial Court of Taal, Batangas, rendered judgment on November 17, 2011, convicting him and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, with awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages. Aggrieved, the accused filed an appeal directly with the Supreme Court. The Office of the Solicitor General defended the conviction, arguing that guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with a modification on interest.

Facts

On the afternoon of June 6, 1998, the accused and a companion went to the victim's house and asked her mother if they could use shabu there. She refused, so the two went to a nearby sugarcane field instead. The mother then saw her daughter AAA follow them into the field. She did not worry, because the accused was a townmate and the companion was the child's godfather.

Meanwhile, a boy playing basketball saw the accused enter and leave a poultry farm and head toward the sugarcane plantation. He saw AAA follow the accused, who handed her what looked like a candy before carrying her inside the plantation. Later, the companion returned to the mother's house, and about thirty minutes after, the accused followed. When the mother asked where her daughter was, he hurriedly left without answering, and she noticed he was agitated. A woman heading home then heard a child crying out for her mother from the sugarcane field and saw smoke rising there. She later learned AAA was missing, told her husband, and together they entered the field, where they found the child's lifeless body.

Earlier, at a poultry farm, the accused arrived drunk and sought treatment for wounds on both hands. When asked how he was hurt, he said he had an enemy who was beaten, had bones broken, was strangled and died, and that he ran to the sugarcane field. A co-worker who treated him noticed wounds that appeared to be human bites, and scratch marks. Policemen then arrived, handcuffed him, and brought him to the station, where he admitted the crime when asked about his wounds. The physician who examined the body found the cause of death to be asphyxia by manual strangulation and traumatic head injury, and testified that congestion of the labia and a shallow hymenal laceration strongly indicated rape. The accused denied everything, claiming he was merely sitting alone when he was apprehended, slapped, and later beaten and forced to admit the crime.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused for rape with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in disregarding the testimony of the accused.
• Whether or not the accused may be convicted on circumstantial evidence despite the absence of an eyewitness.
• Whether or not the extrajudicial admission of the accused, taken during custodial investigation, affects his conviction.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides:

(a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

This is the test the Court applies to the circumstantial evidence that identifies the accused as the perpetrator.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to the law reimposing the death penalty on heinous crimes, provides that when by reason or on the occasion of the rape a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death. This is the provision that fixes the penalty for the special complex crime, later reduced by the law prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the elements of the special complex crime were duly established: carnal knowledge of a woman, achieved by force, threat, or intimidation, and the killing of the woman by reason or on the occasion of that carnal knowledge. When the victim is a minor, it is sufficient that the evidence proves sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connection with the victim. Here, the physician's findings of congestion and hymenal laceration established the rape, and asphyxia by manual strangulation established the homicide.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court justifiably disbelieved the accused. All he offered was denial and alibi, which are intrinsically weak defenses and must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. Alibi is viewed with suspicion and caution because it is inherently weak and unreliable and can easily be fabricated. His defenses were barely corroborated and deserved no probative weight.

On the third issue, the Court held that circumstantial evidence was sufficient. It defined circumstantial evidence as that which indirectly proves a fact in issue, and applied the three requisites above. The Court found that the testimonies of the mother, the boy, and the woman who heard the cries, together with the human bite wounds and scratches on the accused, sufficiently linked him to the crime to the exclusion of others. It also rejected his argument that other possible perpetrators existed, because the two persons he named were actually one and the same person.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the claim regarding his extrajudicial admission was of no moment, because the trial court did not take that admission into account in convicting him, and the issue was raised only on appeal. At any rate, even without the admission, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for conviction.

On the penalty, the Court held that the trial court committed no grave error in imposing reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in view of the law prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty. The awards of damages were sustained, with interest at six percent per annum from the date of the killing up to finality, and twelve percent per annum from finality until fully paid.

Doctrine

• In a special complex crime of rape with homicide, the elements are carnal knowledge of a woman, achieved by force, threat, or intimidation, and the killing of the woman by reason or on the occasion of that carnal knowledge; both rape and homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
• When the victim is a minor, it is sufficient that the evidence proves sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connection with the victim.
• Circumstantial evidence suffices for conviction when there is more than one circumstance, the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven, and the combination of all the circumstances produces a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
• Denial and alibi are intrinsically weak defenses and must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability; alibi is viewed with suspicion and caution because it can easily be fabricated.
• Where the death penalty is abolished, the penalty for rape with homicide is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

Disposition

The appeal was denied, and the conviction of the accused for rape with homicide was affirmed with modification, imposing interest on the total amount of damages at six percent per annum from the date of the killing up to finality and twelve percent per annum thereafter until fully paid, with no costs.

Remember This

Remember the line that circumstantial evidence suffices when the circumstances, taken together, point to the accused to the exclusion of others. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of circumstantial evidence under Section 4 of Rule 133 and the elements of the special complex crime of rape with homicide.