Case Digest (G.R. No. 108180)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Eduardo Dela Cruz y Laoang, G.R. No. 108180, February 08, 1994, Supreme Court First Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The accused-appellant, Eduardo dela Cruz y Laoang, was charged in Branch 37, Regional Trial Court, Lingayen, Pangasinan (Criminal Case No. L-4227) with rape with homicide of ten-year-old Merly Caburnay y Lozada in an information dated April 25, 1990. He pleaded not guilty at arraignment. After trial, the trial court, by decision promulgated July 16, 1992, convicted him of the offense and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered P50,000 indemnity to the heirs.The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence: testimony of Cesar Soliven that he saw a man later identified as the accused following the victim at about 2:30 a.m.; discovery of the victim’s naked, raped body in a ricefield about 100 meters from the highway; Mayor Domingo Madrid’s pursuit and overtaking of a suspicious man (the accused) who had torn, dirty pants with dried palay stalks and bloodstains and scratches on his neck and arms; an autopsy by Dr. Wilma Flores-Peralta establishing rape and fatal injuries after a struggle; and an NBI biological report (Exh. F) showing human blood on the accused’s clothing, and the accused’s wounds. The accused denied the crime, claimed he attended fiesta activities, drank alcohol, slept near the highway, and later was arrested; he insisted the rice stalks and blood were not his, asserting alibi and denial.
At trial the accused objected to the weight of circumstantial evidence, challenged Soliven’s credibility and the failure to present the victim’s companions, and argued Exh. F was hearsay because the NBI witness did not testify. The trial court found the cumulative circumstantial indicia sufficient and rejected the alibi. The accu...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Exhibit F (the NBI biological report) inadmissible hearsay and properly excluded or sufficient to be considered?
- Was the circumstantial evidence (including Soliven’s identification and the physical indicia) sufficient to sustain conviction beyond reasonable doubt for rape with homicide?
- Did the accused prove alibi such that it raised reasonable...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)