PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARTURO DEVELLES ALIAS “TURING DEVELLES,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from the decision dated December 3, 1990 of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas
City, Branch 16, convicting the appellant of the crime of rape with homicide.

On September 18, 1986, at about 11:45 o’clock in the morning, in Tabuc Norte, Panitan, Capiz, Marlene
Borro, eleven (11) years old, was walking home from school together with Dyna
Depliyan, fourteen (14) years old, along a path beside the Panay River. They saw the appellant half-naked, wearing
only a pair of blue short pants, standing beside a banana plant near the river
bank. Appellant called Marlene. When she approached him, he held her hands
and engaged her in conversation. After
waiting for a while, Dyna told Marlene she would go on home ahead.

At about the same time, Dioscoro Dorado, Jr., a neighbor of
Marlene, passed by on his way home from the market. He saw the appellant holding Marlene’s hands while talking to
her. Dioscoro proceeded on his way
home.

By 4:00 o’clock in
the afternoon of that same day, when Marlene had not yet arrived home from
school, her parents began looking for her. Her parents sought the help of their neighbors and of the “Mountain
Tigers,” a community assistance group, to look for Marlene. At about 7:30 in the evening of that same
day, Marlene’s body was found in the Panay River under waist-deep water. She was tied with barbed wire to a bamboo
pole which was driven into the bed of the Panay River. Her dress was pulled up to her head covering
her face and her panty had been removed.

An autopsy performed on the cadaver revealed that she had been
dead for more than six (6) hours and that she was already dead before she was
submerged in the river. She had
multiple abrasions on her neck, contusions on her jaw, multiple abrasions on
her chest, lower abdomen, and her vulva was gaping with extensive hymenal
laceration at 1:00 o’clock position extending up to the clitoris, and another
one at 6:00 o’clock position extending up to the pereneium. Dr. Encarnacion Belvis who performed the
autopsy testified that Marlene was raped and could have been killed by
strangulation or that she died of shock and hemorrhage due to extreme pain and
bleeding caused by extensive hymenal laceration.

On December 4, 1986, an information for rape with homicide was
filed against the appellant, Arturo Develles, in the Regional Trial Court of
Roxas City, Branch 16, and docketed as Criminal Case No. C-2386. It reads:

“The undersigned Assistant Provincial Fiscal, accuses ARTURO
DEVELLES alias “TURING DEVELLES” of the crime of RAPE WITH HOMICIDE, committed
as follows:

“That on or about 11:45 o’clock in the morning of September 18,
1986, at Barangay Tabuc Norte, Panitan, Capiz, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with criminal
intent and motivated by lewd design did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with grave abuse of confidence and taking advantage of superior
strength, by means of force, violence and intimidation have carnal knowledge
with one MARLENE BORRO, a minor who at the time was eleven (11) years of age;
that on the occasion of and in the furtherance of the act of rape MARLENE BORRO
was killed and thrown into the Panitan River by her assailant.

“That due to the untimely death of MARLENE BORRO her heirs are
entitled to death indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00 plus other damages in
consonance with the provisions of the Civil Code.

“ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW with the generic aggravating circumstances of
grave abuse of confidence and taking advantage of superior strength.” (p. 11,
Rollo.)

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded “Not Guilty.” After trial, the court rendered a decision on
December 3, 1990, the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, the court finds the accused
ARTURO DEVELLES alias ‘Turing’ GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE
with Homicide punishable under the provisions of the last paragraph of Article
335 No. 3, as amended, and hereby imposes upon him the single penalty of Cadena
perpetua (life imprisonment) with the corresponding accessory penalties; to
indemnify the heirs of Marlene Borro in the amount of P60,000.00 without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs of this
case.

“The accused being a detention prisoner he is hereby credited with
the full period of his detention as provided for under Art. 29, of the Revised
Penal Code as amended by R.A. 6127.” (p. 33, Rollo.)

The accused appealed in due time alleging that the trial court
erred:

1.  in convicting him despite lack of positive identification that
he was the perpetrator of the crime; and

2.  in convicting him on the basis of weak
circumstantial evidence.

There is no merit in the appeal.

Appellant’s contention that the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses identifying him as the perpetrator of the crime, were based on mere
speculations, is not well taken.

The prosecution presented no less than seven (7) witnesses who
testified on events and circumstances which constitute an unbroken chain
leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion that the appellant was the author
of the crime.

Marlene’s friend, Dyna Depliyan, who was 17 years old already by
the time she took the witness chair, testified that on the fateful day of
September 18, 1986 at 11:45 in the morning she and Marlene Borro were on their
way home from school. They were walking
by the river bank when they saw the accused Arthur Develles standing behind
some banana plants. He called Marlene
Borro, so she went near him.

Arturo Develles used to fish by means of hook and line on the
river bank. That morning, he was
wearing blue short pants without a polo shirt. He was half-naked.

Dyna mentioned that Marlene knew the appellant well, that was why
she approached him without hesitation when he called her. The accused used to ask Marlene Borro to
sell his fish and he used also to go to the house of Ponso Borro, Marlene’s
father (tsn, December 7, 1989).

Dioscoro Dorado, Jr., a
neighbor of Marlene Borro, corroborated Dyna. He passed by the river bank at around
11:45 on September 18, 1986 on his way home from the market. He saw Arturo Develles holding Marlene’s
hand near the banana plants. He was
about 3 arms length from them. Develles
was wearing a pair of short pants colored blue and nothing else.

Alfonso Borro, the father of the victim, knew the accused. They
were friends. Develles used to
come to his house twice a week whenever he caught fish in the Panay River. He would tease Marlene and put his arm
around her.

Marlene’s body was recovered only a few meters from the spot
where she was last seen alive by Dyna and Dioscoro, with the appellant.

Dr. Encarnacion G. Belvis, the Rural Health Physician of Panitan,
Capiz, who conducted an examination and autopsy of the cadaver of Marlene,
testified that Marlene was killed more than six (6) hours before her body was
discovered at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening of September 18, 1986, or
between the hours of 12:00 o’clock noon and 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon,
about the time that Marlene was last seen alive with the appellant.

Appellant’s defense was an alibi. He alleged that in the morning of September 18, 1986, he was in
Barangay Ilaya, Panitan, Capiz, fishing. He began fishing at about 10:00 o’clock in the morning and stopped in
the afternoon. He sold his catch to his
neighbors and ate the rest.

The trial court however did not believe his story.

“x x x the court is convinced and believes the testimonies of Dyna
Depliyan and Dioscoro Dorado, Jr. that the victim Marlene Borro, was last seen
being held by the hands by the accused Arturo Develles alias ‘Turing.’ The
court also believes that the accused engaged the victim to a conversation about
sweet-nothings taking advantage of the closeness of the child of tender age to
him. After being aware that no other
passer-by were taking the same pathway where they (accused and victim) were,
the accused with malice and lewd designs aforethought bestially and brutally
struck the victim with his fist hitting her on the left lower jaw. The victim became half-dazed. She started to cry out. To muffle her, the accused strangled her until
she was no longer resisting. The
accused then proceeded to do his thing. The victim was not yet dead. However, when the accused forced his rigid organ into her vagina and
causing lacerations on the hymen the already weakened condition of the victim was
aggravated and she died of shock.

“The  accused after
consummating his savage sexual desires, began to soothe the child. After all he had been very fond of her. Alas, he found out, that she was already
lifeless. With the devil still in him
he became cain and his first impulse was to conceal his misdeed.” (pp. 18-19,
RTC Decision.)

Although no one saw the appellant rape and kill the victim, the
following circumstances point unerringly to him as the culprit:

1.  Dyna Depliyan identified
him as the person who was standing beside some banana plants at the river bank,
the scene of the crime, when she and Marlene Borro, 11 years old, were passing
by;

2. He was half-naked at
the time;

3. He called her and
detained her at the river bank by engaging her in conversation.

4. Dioscoro Dorado, Jr.
also saw the appellant talking with Marlene at the riverside. He was holding her by the hands presumably
to detain her or prevent her from leaving;

5. The autopsy examination
performed by Dr. Encarnacion Belvis on the cadaver of Marlene Borro revealed
that she was raped, beaten up, and strangled to death by a full grown adult
male;

6. The autopsy examination also disclosed that the victim died
some six (6) hours before her cadaver was discovered at 7:00 p.m., September
18, 1986, or between 12:00 and 1:00 o’clock p.m. of September 18, 1986 which
was shortly after Dyna left her in the company of the appellant. That was mere minutes after Dioscoro Dorado,
Jr. had passed by and also saw her in conversation with the appellant who held
her hands;

7. The appellant being a family friend, the victim had no reason
to be afraid of him and had no premonition of evil when she went toward him;
and

8. The appellant having been positively identified as the person
who was with the victim on or about the time she was killed, his alibi that he
was fishing elsewhere the whole day on September 18, 1986 was a bare-faced lie
which pushed him deeper in the pit of his guilt.

These bits of evidence, pieced together, point to the accused as
the rapist-murderer of the 11-year-old Marlene Borro. The witnesses who testified for the prosecution were credible
witnesses and the circumstances they testified on are consistent with truth,
human nature, and the natural course of things, which, taken together, point
unerringly to the appellant as the rapist-killer (People vs. Agan, 181 SCRA
856).

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the appealed
decision of the trial court, we affirm its finding that the appellant, Arturo
Develles alias Turing Develles, is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal
of the crime of rape with homicide. The
Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
(the term used in Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, not “cadena perpetua” nor
“life imprisonment,”) with the accessory penalties provided by law. In other respects the decision is
AFFIRMED. Costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, and Medialdea,
JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., on leave.