People v.

Bernesto dela Cruz

G.R. No. 183091 / 19 June 2013
Leonardo-de Castro, J. / kmd

Topic: Crimes against persons; rape

Summary:
In this case, RTC found dela Cruz guilty of rape with homicide which was affirmed by CA. The decision was
based on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of the victims sister who saw the dela Cruz in bloodied brief
covering the victims body with minongga tree branches. The SC recognizes that proving rape cases is difficult and that
usually only the victim is left to testify. It is more complicated in cases of rape with homicide as there may usually be no
living witness. In such cases, the court consider circumstantial evidence. In this case, medical officer and the sisters
testimony (despite minor inconsistencies) were given great weight. SC affirmed CA.
Doctrine:
The felony of rape with homicide is a special complex crime, that is, two or more crimes that the law treats as a
single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse.
The Supreme Court has often conceded the difficulty of proving the commission of rape when only the victim is
left to testify on the circumstances of its commission.
The difficulty heightens and complicates when the crime is rape with homicide, because there may usually be no
living witnesses if the rape victim is herself killed.
Facts:
On March 19, 2001, an information for the crime of rape with homicide was filed against Bernesto Berning dela
Cruz.
o [AAA] left her house at 6:30 am of May 27, 2000 to gather gabi in the nearby mountain farm about 50
meters away. When she did not return by 9:00 am, [BBB], [AAA]s sister, went to look for her. Along the
way, [BBB] found the gabi gathered by [AAA]. Then she spotted Bernesto de la Cruz, undressed
except for his blood-drenched briefs. He was cutting minongga tree branches and covering
something with them. He was also rubbing coconut husks on his body. When Bernesto saw
[BBB], he ran down the mountain slope towards his house, throwing the bolo he was using. Then
[BBB] found the headless body of [AAA], covered by minongga tree branches. She also found [AAA]s
head a few meters away from her body. Medical Officer, Dr. Florido, stated that [AAA] had been raped
due to the presence of spermatozoa in her vaginal secretion within more or less twenty-four hours prior to
her examination and that AAA had passed away ten hours prior to the examination.
Bernings defese: He had been working in his farm from 6:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon then went home. On his way
home, he saw [BBB] who asked him if he had seen [AAA]. He was fully dressed when the conversation occurred.
RTC: found appellant guilty of rape with homicide, sentenced to death to pay the amount of P75,000.00 as civil
indemnity to the heirs of [AAA] and the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages.
o It noted the lack of eyewitnesses to the crime and prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the
appellant by circumstantial evidence (the paragraph in bold font).
Court of Appeals affirmed the RTCs Judgment. CA found BBB to be a credible witness despite the minor
inconsistencies in her testimony. Other witness testimony was not significant enough to warrant the acquittal of
the appellant. Appellants bare denial of his guilt was worthless since it was uncorroborated. CA modified
damages to P50,000.00 as civil indemnity of rape; and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Issues:
1. WON appellant is guilty of rape with homicide. YES
2. WON the CA erred in holding that the deceaseds sister is a credible witness despite minor inconsistencies. NO
Holding:
1. SC affirmed the CA decision.
It held further that the felony of rape with homicide is a special complex crime, that is, two or more crimes that the
law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse.
Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed.
Rape is committed
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
 c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
Article 266-B. Penalties.
Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxx
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
2. CA did not err in holding that the deceaseds sister is a credible witness despite minor inconsistencies.
The Court conceded the difficulty of proving the commission of rape when only the victim is left to testify on the
circumstances of its commission. It complicates when the crime is rape with homicide. Because in such case
there may usually be no living witnesses, the Rules of Court allows circumstantial evidence to establish the
commission of the crime as well as the identity of the culprit. In contrast to direct evidence, circumstantial
evidence indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the fact finder must draw an inference or reason from
circumstantial evidence.
The Court agrees with CA that there was overwhelming circumstantial evidence presented to point that appellant
is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing the crime of rape with homicide. As we have stated before,
circumstantial evidence may be resorted to establish the complicity of the perpetrators crime when these are
credible and sufficient, and could lead to the inescapable conclusion that the appellant committed the complex
crime of rape with homicide. The Prosecution presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused, and no other, had raped and killed [AAA]. The following are the circumstantial
evidence, to wit:
a. [BBB] went to the mountain farm to look for [AAA] and in the process saw the accused from 10
armsstretches away covering the victims body with tree branches;
b. The accused was then holding a bolo and clad only in his bloodied briefs while covering the headless
body of the victim with tree branches;
c. The victims head was found 5 meters away from her body;
d. The victims body was exposed, with her undergarments missing;
e. After medical examination, the victims vagina tested positive for the presence of spermatozoa;
f. [AAA] also suffered 3 hack wounds, one of which was found to have been inflicted before the victim
expired;
g. The accused threw the bolo he used in cutting tree branches, which, when recovered, was determined to
be the bolo brought by [AAA] from her house; and He left the victims body and ran down the
mountainous terrain.
These circumstances form a solid unbroken chain of events which ties appellant to the crime beyond reasonable
doubt.
In People v. Dion, the court held that inconsistencies in the victims testimony do not impair her credibility,
especially if the inconsistencies refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission of
rape. The trial courts assessment of the witnesses credibility is given great weight and is even conclusive and
binding.
The courts a quo have sufficiently addressed the question on the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of BBB
and appellant does not present to this Court any scintilla of evidence to prove that the testimony of the witness
was not credible, the Court must uphold the identical assessment of the RTC as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
In any event, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses did not detract from
BBBs credibility as a witness.
However, in line with current jurisprudence, we modify the awards for civil indemnity and exemplary damages.
Civil indemnity shall be increased to P100,000.00.22, moral damages increased to P75,000.00.23, and exemplary
damages decreased to P30,000.00. 24. Monetary awards for damages have interest at the legal rate of 6% per
annum from date of finality of this Decision until fully paid.

Appeal denied, judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes:
Direct evidence - proves a fact in issue directly without any reasoning or inferences being drawn on the part of the
fact-finder.