PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL GANNABAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an automatic review of the Decision dated July 30, 1998 of
the Regional Trial Court, Second Judicial Region, Branch 18, Ilagan,
Isabela, sentencing the accused-appellant to death for killing and
raping a ten-year old girl.

On July 13, 1995, an Information was filed charging said
accused-appellant for the crime of Rape with Homicide committed as
follows:

That on or about the 4th day of March, 1995, in the municipality
of Ilagan, Province of 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, intimidation
and with lewd designs, have carnal knowledge with one Rea Ballesteros, a
minor, against the latter’s will and consent;

That on the occasion and by reason of the said rape, the said
accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, wit
intent to kill and without any just motive, assault, attack and hit a
blunt instrument the said Rea Ballesteros, inflicting upon her, injuries
on the head, which directly caused her death.

CONTRARY TO LAW.^[1]

Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial,
thereby, ensued with the prosecution presenting (1) Rita Ballesteros,
(2) Alfredo Manabat, (3) Mariano Tumolva, (4) Placido Gangan, (5)
Elizabeth Deraco, (6) SPO2 Walberto Agpawa and (7) Dr. Conrado Gabriel,
Sr. as their witnesses. For the defense, the accused-appellant and his
live-in partner, Susan Domalanta testified in court.

The facts as found by the trial court are as follows:

In the early morning of February 28, 1995, ten (10) years old
Rhea Ballesteros bade good-bye to her mother Rita Ballesteros to attend
her classes at East Central Elementary School, Ilagan, Isabela. She was
dressed with the school regulation uniform of white shirt, blue skirt,
white socks with brown shoes and carried a school bag colored black and
green. Inside her bag were ruled pad, pencil, notebook and a school
book.

Manuel Gannaban works as a baker at Elsa’s Bake Shop owned by
Elizabeth Deraco of Centro, Ilagan, Isabela. During his stint as a baker
in that shop, he befriended Rhea according to Deraco (see also Exh.
“E”). At about 11:00 A.M. on February 28, 1995, Gannaban left the Bake
Shop for Barangay San Ignacio, Ilagan, Isabela.

On the same day, February 28, 1995, between 3:00 and 4:00 P.M. ,
Alfredo Manabat was playing basketball at the barangay park with Mario
Carino and others at San Ignacio, Ilagan, Isabela. Manabat saw Gannaban
pass by the park with a young girl. She was wearing a white shirt and
blue skirt. Both were going towards the northern direction of the
barangay (see also Exhibit “A”).

On the same day, between 4:00 and 5:00 P.M., Mariano Tumolva, a
fisherman and a widower was at home at Barangay San Ignacio, Ilagan,
Isabela. Gannaban and a young girl about 10 years old arrived in the
house and asked for food. Gannaban who is well known to Tumolva, cooked
salted fish with tomatoes and rice. The young girl ate, Gannaban did
not. They stayed in the house for less than 30 minutes. After the young
girl took her meal, she left with Gannaban, southbound. According to
Tumolva, they were going home to the town proper Ilagan (see also Exh.
“B”).

Placido Gangan, of Baculud Norte, Ilagan, Isabela, arrived at his
house at about 7:00 P.M., February 28, 1995 to rest after making his
daily routine with his motorized passenger tricycle. Gangan found
Gannaban and a young girl at their house. His wife asked for the name of
the young girl who was dressed with a white shirt and blue skirt and he
came to know from the wife her name as Rhea Ballesteros. Gannaban was
asking accommodation for the night. His wife cooked cabbage for supper
and they shared and dined together. They were given another room of the
house to spend the night. At about 5:00 A.M., March 1, 1995, the
visitors of Gangan left their house.

At about 6:00 A.M., March 1, 1995, Gannaban returned to the
bakeshop of Deraco. When Deraco confronted him where he came from
Gannaban told her he came from San Ignacio. Deraco also confronted
Gannaban why he was with Rhea but Gannaban kept silent. In the evening
of March 1, 1995, Gannaban, together with a certain Inggo and Larry had a
drinking spree in a carinderia on the top floor of Ilagan supermarket.
In the early morning of March 2, 1995 at about 3:00 A.M., Deraco went to
her bakeshop to wake up Gannaban. She found out Gannaban was no longer
there. He took all his belongings and left without taking his unpaid
salary of P300.00. Since that time, Gannaban never returned to the shop.

In the meantime, when Rhea did not go home, Rita Ballesteros
together with her husband and sons, looked for her around the town. She
was nowhere to be found. On the second day, March 1, 1995, they again
looked for her and reported her missing to the PNP of Ilagan and one
Crisel Ferrer, a Bombo reporter. Ferrer reported over Bombo Radio about
the missing Rhea.

At about 7:00 A.M., March 4, 1995, SPO2 Walberto Agpawa received a
report from one, Oscar Adorio, that he found a “cadaver of foul play”
at his cornfield at Bagumbayan, Ilagan, Isabela. Agpawa, together with
Station Commander Nepomuceno Alindada, Jr., and Dr. Conrado S. Gabriel,
Sr., proceeded to the corn plantation of Adorio. Alindada must have
dropped by the house of Rita Ballesteros before they reached the
cornfields reason for which Rita was present in that cornfield. When
they reached the cornfield, they found the body of a young girl in rigor
mortis. The right side of her head was bashed and there was a crack on
that side. The cadaver was wearing a white T-shirt, her blue skirt was
raised to her waist, her panty was in her legs exposing her private
parts. Rita Ballesteros identified Rhea thru a mole found at her upper
right back. Scattered around her were her school bag, papers, pencil and
her shoes.

Dr. Conrado Gabriel, Sr. conducted a post mortem examination and submitted Exhibit “D”, Medico Legal Report, as follows:

“BODY:

1) SKULL = Right mastroid process damage.

2) VAGINA = a) Cervix laceration 5 o’clock 12 o’clock

Body = state of decomposition

“CAUSE OF DEATH:

Hypovolemic shock, due to Internal Hemorrhage, Rape Accident.”^[2]

On July 30, 1998, the RTC rendered its judgment with the following dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, and in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the
accused MANUEL GANNABAN guilty beyond any reasonable doubt for the rape
and death of Rhea Ballesteros. No matter how personally revolting on the
Court to impose the death penalty, this Court must bow and obey the law
of the land. Manuel Gannaban is hereby sentenced to suffer the supreme
penalty of death as provided for and penalized under Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659. He is further
ordered to indemnify the heirs of young Rhea the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND
(P50,000.00) PESOS, to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages and the further
sum of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS, as exemplary damages and to
pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.^[3]

In this appeal, the accused-appellant raised the following assignment of errors:

I

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
GUILTY OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE BASED ON PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE DEFENSE PUT UP
BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE ESSENCE OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE
DOCTOR WHO CONDUCTED THE POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION ON THE VICTIM.^[4]

The only issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or not
the accused-appellant’s guilt for the crime of rape with homicide has
been proven beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence.

Conviction can be had on the basis of circumstantial evidence so
long as a combination of all the circumstances proven produces a logical
conclusion which suffices to establish accused-appellant’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.^[5]
Circumstantial evidence may be sufficiently cogent to satisfy the
judicial conscience and may be as potent as direct testimony in tending
to connect the accused-appellant with the commission of the offense.^[6]
As clearly pointed out by the OSG, the circumstances testified by the
prosecution witnesses lead to the inevitable conclusion that the
accused-appellant is the author of the crime, to wit:

Rita Ballesteros, the mother of Rhea Ballesteros testified:

Q (PROS. FAUSTO CABANTAC)

Madam Witness it has been admitted that your daughter was last seen by you on February 28, 1995, where did you see her alive?

A (RITA BALLESTERO)

The last time I saw her alive was at home, sir.

Q (COURT)

Where was she going?

A To school, sir.

Q (PROS. CABANTAC)

What school?

A Ilagan East Central School, sir.

Q What was her clothes when she left for school?
A White T-shirt and blue skirt, sir.

Q What about her shoes or slippers, if you remember?
A Brown shoes and white socks, sir.

Q When she went to school, was she carrying something?
A Her bag, sir.

x x x x x x x x x

Q (PROS. CABANTAC)Now what were contained in that bag?
A Books, papers, notebooks and her pencil, sir.

Q That bag, does it have a handle?
A Yes, sir.”

(pp. 7-9, TSN, January 30, 1996; underscoring supplied)

Another circumstance was testified to by prosecution witness Alfredo Manabat, thus:

Q (PROS. FAUSTO CABANTAC)

On February 28, 1995, between the hours of 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon to 4:00 o’clock, do you remember where were you?

A (ALFREDO MANABAT)

Yes, sir.

Q Where were you on that date and time?
A I was at the basketball court.

Q What were you doing in that basketball court?
A We were playing basketball.

Q Who were your companion playing basketball?
A Antonio Malana and Mario Cariño.

Q While you were playing basketball, do you know if you have seen a person by the name of Manuel Gannaban?

x x x x x x x x x

COURT: Interpreter.

He said ‘yes, sir’.

x x x x x x x x x

Q How far were you when you saw Manuel Gannaban passed by in that basketball court where you were playing.

A About 20 meters.

x x x x x x x x x

Q Do you know if he has a companion when you saw him?
A Yes, sir.

x x x x x x x x x

Q How about the appearance of that woman whom you saw with
the companion of the accused, can you tell us if she (sic) elderly woman
or younger?

A A young girl (balasitang).

Q Do you remember what were the clothes wore (sic) by that girl?
A If I am not mistaken, white T-shirt and blue skirt.”

(pp. 1-12, TSN, January 16, 1996; underscoring supplied)

The testimony of witness Mariano Tumolva initially sealed the fate of appellant Manuel Gannaban. Mariano testified:

Q (PROS. FAUSTO CABANTAC)

At around 4:00 in the afternoon up to 5:00 o’clock, do you remember what specific place where you were on February 28,1995?’

A (MARIANO TUMOLVA)

I WAS IN OUR HOUSE.

Q Now, do you remember if there were visitors who came to see you on that time?
A Two visitors came to the house, one is Manuel and the other one is a little girl whose name I do not know.

x x x x x x x x x

Q When Manuel Gannaban went to your house on February 28, 1995, do you already know his name on that date?
A I used to know him, sir.

x x x x x x x x x

Q How often does he go to your house?
A He has visited me for several times and that’s the time he
came together with the little girl. They were hungry and they asked for
food.

x x x x x x x x x

Q Can you tell us the age of that girl if you know?

x x x x x x x x x

A If I am not mistaken, she was about ten (10) years old.

Q Now, the girl that accompanied the accused Manuel Gannaban, what was she wearing when they came to you?
A She was wearing a white T-shirt and blue skirt.

Q Did you talk to them when they came to you?
A I talked with them. In fact, he was even the one who
prepared tomatoes and salted fish (bagoong) and the rice which they ate.

x x x x x x x x x

Q How long did they stay in your house?
A Less than 30 minutes. After the little girl ate, Manuel bad (sic) goodbye. They were going
home.

(pp. 4-8, TSN, November 26, 1997; underscoring supplied)

Although he failed to inquire from appellant or the young girl
herself about the latter’s name, Mariano Tumolva identified (through a
picture) the victim as the same young girl companion of appellant. He
testified:

Q (PROS. FAUSTO CABANTAC)

If a picture will be shown to you, will you be able to identify
that girl who came to your house on that afternoon of February 28, 1995?
A Yes, sir.

Q I am showing to you a picture depicting an older woman and a
young girl, will you tell us if this one marked with “X” was the girl
that you saw?
A Yes, sir.”

(pp. 8-9, TSN, November 29, 1997; underscoring supplied)

The circumstance that was testified to by prosecution witness Placido Gannagan is difficult to rebut. Thus:

Q (PROS. FAUSTO CABANTAC)

Mr. Witness, why do you know the accused Manuel Gannaban in this case?

A (PLACIDO GANGAN)

He is the brother of my compadre.

x x x x x x x x x

Q In the evening of February 28, 1995, do you know if you have seen the accused Manuel Gannaban?

A Yes, sir.

Q Where did you see him?
A They came to the house, sir.

x x x x x x x x x

Q (COURT)

Who was his companion who went to your house?

A Rhea Ballesteros.

x x x x x x x x x

Q (PROS. CABANTAC)

Now, how did you know that the companion of the accused who came to your house was Rhea Ballesteros?

A I recognized her, sir.

x x x x x x x x x

Q And when did you come to know that the companion of the accused on February 28, 1995 was Rhea Ballesteros?
A I came to know from my wife because she asked her name.

Q You mean to tell me when your wife talked to Rhea Ballesteros you were present?

x x x x x x x x x

A Yes, sir.

Q When the accused together with Rhea Ballesteros came to your house on February 28, 1995, what was their purpose?
A They came to ask for accommodation during the night.

Q And did you accommodate them?
A Yes, sir. I let them sleep for one night.

x x x x x x x x x

Q Did your wife ask why Rhea Ballesteros was with the accused on February 28, 1995?
A She asked her.

Q What was the answer?
A She did not answer.

Q Now, you said they slept for one night in your house on February 28, 1995, where did they sleep?
A In the bed, sir.

Q Where (sic) you together in the same room when you sleep (sic) with the accused?
A No, sir.

Q In relation to your house, where did they sleep?
A In the other room, sir.

Q Now, the following day, what happened?
A They asked permission to leave then left.

Q What time did they leave your house?
A 5:00 o’clock in the morning, sir.

Q Now, do you remember what was Rhea Ballesteros wearing when you saw her on February 28, 1995?
A Yes, sir.

Q Will you please tell us?
A White T-shirt and blue skirt.”

(pp. 4-10, TSN, January 23, 1996; underscoring supplied)

x x x x x x x x x

Prosecution witness Elizabeth Derraco, the owner of the bakery
where the appellant Manuel Gannaban was employed as baker for two (2)
months testified, thus:

Q (PROS. ISAAC DE ALBAN)

On February 28, 1995 at 11:00 o’clock in the morning, do you remember having seen Manuel Gannaban in your establishment?
A (ELIZABETH DERRACO)

He left without my permission about 11:00 o’clock.

x x x x x x x x x

Q And did he ever return to your business establishment?
A He returned in the morning of March 1, about 6:00 o’clock in the morning, sir.

Q When Manuel Gannaban returned to your business
establishment the following day, March 1, 1995 at about 6:00 in the
morning, did you ever confront him?
A Yes, sir, I asked him where he came from and he answered that he came from San Ignacio, Canapi.

Q And what else did you tell him?
A No more, sir. I also asked him why he was with Rhea
Ballesteros and I even told him not to go with her because the father of
that girl is a killer.

x x x x x x x x x

Q In the evening of March 1, 1995, do you remember if Manuel Gannaban still slept in your business establishment?
A Yes, sir, because they had a drinking spree in the carinderia on top of the supermarket.

Q The following morning, that is March 2, about 3:00 o’clock in the morning, do you remember if you went to your bakeshop?
A Yes, sir, because I had to wake him up so he would bake but he was no longer there and took all his clothes.

x x x x x x x x x

Q Before Manuel Gannaban left in the early morning of March 2, do you remember if you have paid all his salary?
A I still owe him P300.00, sir.”

(pp. 5-8, supra; underscoring supplied) ^[7]

SPO2 Walberto Agpawa testified that on March 4, 1995, he found the
lifeless body of Rhea Ballesteros in the cornfields with her head
bashed. She was wearing white T-shirt and blue skirt and her underwear
partially removed so that her private parts were exposed. The police
also found at the scene of the crime the victim’s school bag, notebooks
and books scattered all over the place.^[8]

Dr. Conrado Gabriel, Sr. retired Municipal Health Officer of
Ilagan, Isabela who conducted a post-mortem examination on the cadaver
of Rhea Ballesteros testified that the body was already in a state of
decomposition. The victim had a broken mouth. An examination of her
vagina revealed hymenal lacerations at the 5 o’clock and 12 o’clock
positions. Dr. Gabriel concluded that the victim died of hypovolemic
shock due to internal hemorrhage caused by the broken mouth. He further
stated that this case was a rape accident.^[9]

The accused-appellant questions the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses alleging that each one of them has an ax to grind against him
or that they were rehearsed witnesses. Against these positive assertions
of the prosecution witnesses, however, it is quite difficult to believe
the accused-appellant’s version. For his defense, the accused-appellant
interposed alibi which to the mind of the Court is so weak and does not
engender belief. His live-in partner’s testimony that the
accused-appellant was with her during the time of the commission of the
crime is not enough to overcome the positive assertions of the
prosecution witnesses that they last saw the victim with the
accused-appellant. No other witnesses were presented to corroborate the
allegation that the accused-appellant and his live-in partner, Susan
Domalanta lived together continuously for two months. When the issue is
one of the credibility of the witnesses, weight is given to the findings
of the trial court as it is more in the position to observe the
demeanor of these witnesses.
Undoubtedly, the victim was last seen in the company of the
accused-appellant by prosecution witness Placido Gangan who testified
that both of them slept in their house on the night of February 28, 1995
and left at 5:00 o’clock in the morning of the next day, March 1, 1995.
Rhea Ballesteros was in her school uniform when they left the place of
Placido Gangan and her lifeless body which was discovered on March 4,
1995, already decomposing, still donned the same uniform. While it is
true that the accused-appellant apparently reported to the bakery at
6:00 o’clock in the morning of March 1, 1995 and had a drinking spree
that night, his sudden flight from the bakery the early morning of March
2, 1995 was quite suspect. He was silent when he was confronted by his
employer Elizabeth Derraco about the whereabouts of Rhea Ballesteros who
was reported missing already at that time.^[10]
If he had nothing to do with the disappearance of Rhea Ballesteros
during that time, why did the accused-appellant flee from the place
without any warning at all, bringing with him all his belongings and
without even bothering to get the remaining balance of his salary? There
appears no other reason for this sudden departure except Elizabeth
Derraco’s persistent warning for him not to see Rhea Ballesteros because
the latter’s father is a killer. She had basis to warn him because she
knew that the accused-appellant and the victim were together.^[11] The accused-appellant’s immediate flight is strongly indicative of his consciousness of guilt ^[12] for as the proverb says, “the wicked flee when no man pursueth; but the righteous are as bold as a lion.”^[13]

Furthermore, we agree with the trial court’s observation that it
was rather strange for the accused-appellant to be sleeping together
with the victim in one room at the house of Placido Gangan in the night
of February 28, 1995. If he really had good intentions of the victim, he
should have slept separately from her, out of delicadeza.^[14]
Apparently, the accused-appellant had an evil motive for the victim.
The fact of rape was also clearly established by the medico-legal report
which states that the victim had lacerations in her vagina. The body
was found with the victim’s blue skirt up to her waist and her panty
pulled down to her legs, exposing her private parts. Unfortunately, a
thorough autopsy examination of the body was no longer conducted as the
body was already in its third state of decomposition.^[15] Notwithstanding, the tell-tale signs of rape were apparent.

After all evidence considered, the Court is constrained to affirm
the penalty of death imposed by the trial court. Three justices of the
Court continue to maintain the unconstitutionality of R.A. 7659 insofar
as it prescribes the death penalty. Nevertheless, they submit to the
ruling of the majority to the effect that this law is constitutional and
that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.

Anent the amount of damages awarded by the trial court, there is
need to modify the same in accordance with recent jurisprudence on the
matter. R.A. 7659 provides that: “when by reason or on the occasion of
the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty is death.” In rape with
homicide, civil indemnity is increased to P100,000.00.^[16] An award of P50,000.00 for moral damages without need of proof is also in order.^[17]
The exemplary damages of P50,000.00 awarded by the trial court should
be deleted, there being no proof of aggravating circumstance.
Considering that it was admitted in court that the heirs of the victim
spent P15,000.00 for funeral and burial expenses,^[18] the Court shall allow the same.

WHEREFORE, the conviction of Manuel Gannaban is
hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant is directed to indemnify the heirs of
the victim in the amount of P 100,000.00 as civil indemnity. In
addition, the accused-appellant is also hereby ordered to pay P50,000.00
as moral damages and P15,000.00 as actual damages.

In accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending
Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code, upon finality of this decision,
let the records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of the
President for possible exercise of the pardoning power.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, and Corona, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 6.

^[2] Id., at 14-16.

^[3] Id., at 20.

^[4] Id., at 35.

^[5] People v. Ortiz, 316 SCRA 407 (1999).

^[6] People v. Eubra, 274 SCRA 180 (1997).

^[7] Id., pp. 77-85.

^[8] TSN, August 21, 1996.

^[9] TSN, March 6, 1996.

^[10] TSN, November 19, 1997, p. 7.

^[11] Ibid, pp. 7, 14.

^[12] People v. Magdadaro, 197 SCRA 151 (1991).

^[13] People vs. Naag, 322 SCRA 716 (2000).

^[14] RTC Decision, p. 6, Rollo, p. 19.

^[15] TSN, March 6, 1996, p. 19. This is the next to the last stage of total decomposition.

^[16] People v. Robles, 305 SCRA 273 (1999).

^[17] Supra.

^[18] TSN, January 30, 1996, p. 4.