THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARCELO ALMENARIO @ “TOTOY”, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

People versus Almenario

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Marcelo Almenario, known as Totoy, for the complex crime of rape with homicide. The accused was charged with having carnal knowledge of Visitacion Gares by force, violence, and intimidation, and of strangling her to death on the same occasion in order to silence her. The case matters because the accused admitted the killing but denied the rape, and the Supreme Court had to decide whether the evidence established the rape that qualifies the killing and raises the penalty to its maximum. It is a study in how the qualifying circumstance of rape may be proved by circumstantial and medical evidence even without an eyewitness.

Procedural History

The accused was arraigned in open court, duly assisted by counsel, and entered a plea of guilty. Because of the gravity of the charge, the trial court, Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court of Abuyog, Leyte, still set the case for hearing and received the prosecution's evidence. The accused was then allowed to testify and explain certain matters, and he narrated circumstances justifying the killing while denying the rape. After trial, the trial court rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to indemnify the heirs of Visitacion Gares in the amount of 30,000 pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning a single error against the trial court's decision.

Facts

On March 10, 1989, at around one o'clock in the afternoon, Alicia Briones had friends drinking in her house, among them Jaime and Aparicia Silvio, Isabelo Herbas, Arcadio Tesado, the accused Marcelo Almenario, and the victim Visitacion Gares. The drinking lasted until about one o'clock that afternoon, after which the group moved to the house of the accused. Around four o'clock in the afternoon, Jaime and Aparicia Silvio and Beloy went back to the house of Alicia Briones, leaving the accused and Visitacion behind.

The following day, Visitacion was nowhere to be found. Learning that the accused was the last person seen with her, Alicia Briones asked him whether Visitacion had slept in his house that evening, and he answered in the negative, saying he had accompanied her back to her house. Alicia reported the matter to Barangay Captain Anacleto Tisado, the police took notice, and the accused, the sole suspect, was arrested. He confessed his participation in the killing and the rape and told the police where the body could be found. Accompanied by the barangay captain and Alicia Briones, he led them to a ricefield where the body was dumped, hidden between talahib or cogon grass.

Upon the request of the Station Commander of the Leyte Integrated National Police, the body was exhumed. Dr. Floro Camenforte Jr., medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation in Tacloban City, examined it and reported contusions on the neck and arm, an incomplete, deep hymenal laceration with sharp and coaptible edges at the three o'clock position, and asphyxia by manual strangulation as the cause of death. He also found penetration of the vaginal wall caused by sexual intercourse as a result of rape. Dr. Ernest Lajara, Municipal Health Officer of Javier, Leyte, testified that he examined the accused and found linear, skin-deep wounds on the neck, the back, and the left deltoid, which could have been caused by fingernails or sharp grass. The accused testified that on the way home Visitacion pulled out a nine-inch stainless knife, said they would not see each other again, and tried three times to stab him, but he could not fully explain why she would do so.

Issues

• Whether or not the evidence is sufficient to establish that the accused raped Visitacion Gares, so as to qualify the killing as the complex crime of rape with homicide.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused of rape with homicide despite the alleged insufficiency of evidence on the rape.

Applicable Provisions

The information charges the crime as committed by force, violence, and intimidation, and the decision quotes the accusatory allegation in these terms:

That on or about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of March 10, 1989, in Barangay Calzada, Javier, Leyte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused Marcelo Almenario alias "Totoy" did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force, violence, and intimidation, to wit: by the use of a bladed weapon musculine force, and threats then and there pinning down one VISITACION GARES an unmarried woman, succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her and by reason or occasion thereof and in order to silenced her, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously strangled her by the neck, which was the direct cause of her death.

This allegation frames the two elements the prosecution had to prove: carnal knowledge by force, violence, and intimidation, and the killing committed by reason or on the occasion of the rape.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the rape was sufficiently established. There was no eyewitness to the actual commission of the rape, but the Court found ample evidence clearly and unmistakably linking the accused as its author. The medical findings were decisive: the hymenal laceration and the penetration of the vaginal wall showed sexual intercourse, and the cause of death was asphyxia by manual strangulation. The trial court's reasoning, quoted with approval, asked why the accused choked the victim rather than use the knife he claimed to have wrested from her, and why he bore skin-deep linear wounds that the examining physician said could have come from fingernails or sharp grass. The Court accepted the inference that those wounds were caused by the victim's fingernails as she tried to ward off his lustful advances, and that he choked her to stifle her resistance. It found the accused's story of a knife-wielding victim muddled and confused, a mere fabrication.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court did not err. The killing was undisputed; what remained was whether the rape attended it, and the circumstantial and medical evidence supplied that qualifying circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction for the complex crime of rape with homicide therefore stood.

Doctrine

First, in the complex crime of rape with homicide, the rape is the qualifying circumstance that raises the penalty to its maximum, and it must be proved with the same rigor as the killing itself. Second, rape may be proved by circumstantial and medical evidence even without an eyewitness, so long as the evidence clearly and unmistakably links the accused to the crime. Third, the physical findings on the victim's body, such as hymenal lacerations and penetration of the vaginal wall, together with the cause of death, may establish both the sexual assault and the killing. Fourth, the accused's flight from the truth, here his false statement that he accompanied the victim home, and the implausibility of his defense, may be weighed against him. Fifth, the civil indemnity for the heirs of a victim of this crime is fixed at 50,000 pesos.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court finding Marcelo Almenario guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, with the modification that the indemnity to the heirs of Visitacion Gares be increased to 50,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize this line: rape with homicide is proved even without an eyewitness when medical findings of hymenal laceration and penetration, the cause of death by strangulation, and the accused's implausible defense clearly and unmistakably link him to the crime. Examiners use this case to test the sufficiency of circumstantial and medical evidence to establish the qualifying rape, and the standard award of 50,000 pesos as civil indemnity.