Case Digest (G.R. No. 181119)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 181119)
Facts:
Arnel Alicando y Briones, G.R. No. 181119, July 31, 2013, Supreme Court First Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner (Arnel Alicando y Briones) sought review of the Court of Appeals decision affirming with modifications his conviction for rape with homicide of a four‑year‑old girl (AAA); the respondent is the People of the Philippines.On June 12, 1994, AAA disappeared from her home and was found dead the next day. An autopsy by Dr. Tito Doromal showed sexual violation and injuries (asphyxia by strangulation, fractured 2nd cervical vertebra, hemorrhage from lacerated vaginal and rectal openings) consistent with forcible assault. Neighbour Luisa Rebada testified that on the afternoon before AAA’s body was found she saw the petitioner naked on top of the child, choking her. The police, during investigation, recovered from the petitioner’s house items including AAA’s slippers and some stained cloths; the petitioner allegedly admitted raping and killing the child during police questioning.
The petitioner was charged with rape with homicide (Criminal Case No. 43663) and, at his first trial in RTC Branch 38, pleaded guilty; the RTC convicted and imposed death. On automatic appeal the Supreme Court remanded because the proceedings were tainted by procedural infirmities (invalid arraignment and admission of inadmissible evidence) in People v. Alicando, 321 Phil. 656 (1995). After remand he was arraigned anew, pleaded not guilty, and the case was re‑raffled to RTC Branch 23. At the second trial the prosecution presented witnesses including Luisa Rebada and the medico‑legal officer; defense counsel largely refused to cross‑examine, asserting prior findings, and later the petitioner submitted the case without presenting defense evidence. The RTC again convicted (May 2, 1997) and imposed death.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑CEB‑CR‑HC No. 00571 (Dec. 14, 2007; penned by Diamante, J.) affirmed the conviction, found the testimony of Luisa Rebada credible and corroborated by the autopsy, but—invoking R.A. No. 9346 and this Court’s decision in People v. Bon—modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua and adjusted damages (increasing civil indemnity and moral damages, adding exemplary damages). The petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, asserting: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) conviction based on evidence derived from an uncounselled confession (fruits of the poisonous tree), and (3) insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, are the questions raised by the petitioner reviewable as questions of law?
- Did the conviction rest on evidence obtained from the petitioner’s uncounselled confession such that the conviction should be set aside?
- Was the petitioner deprived of due process by ineffective assistance of counsel at the second trial?
- Was the evidence insufficient to prove the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)