G.R. No. 147629 - JAKA Investments Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

On December 4, 1996, the body of 11‐year‑old Francis Bart Fulache was found dead at Bulacao Bridge, Cebu City.
Prior to his death, Francis Bart, along with his 10‑year‑old brother Felbart, had accompanied 30‑year‑old Ralph Velez Diaz—known as "Jimboy" and a friend from a local gaming place—when they went to Pier 3. Francis Bart then left with the group to Pier 4, while Felbart returned home.
The Fulache parents, alarmed by the unusual disappearance of their son, initiated a search when he did not return the following day.

A report was received by SPO2 Ramon Villar during noontime on the following day that a boy, estimated between ten to twelve years of age, was found dead in a state of nudity, with signs of physical abuse.
The body, found concealed by a large stone placed over the victim’s face, was taken for a post-mortem examination at Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes.
The autopsy conducted by Dr. Jesus P. Cerna revealed extensive intracranial hemorrhage with a traumatic skull fracture, multiple contusions, lacerations (including a comminuted depressed fracture on the head), and notably, multiple lacerations in the rectum.
Dr. Cerna speculated that the lacerations in the rectal area could have been caused by a blunt instrument, specifically a male organ in full erection, which could result in instantaneous death upon severe trauma.

A mix‑up occurred when a couple named Degamo claimed the body believing it to be their missing son, Joseph Johnson Degamo. When it was later found that their son was safe, the body was returned to the funeral home.
Bartolome Fulache, the father, positively identified the corpse as his missing son Francis Bart after hearing a broadcast that an unclaimed cadaver was at the funeral home.

On December 9, 1996, at a wake, an unidentified individual behaving suspiciously recited poems for the deceased and sang the theme song from "The Lion King" with emphasis on the term "surrender."
The Fulache family reported the unusual behavior of this “uninvited guest” to the authorities, leading police to investigate and subsequently summon the individual voluntarily.
The suspect was later identified as Ralph Velez Diaz. During questioning, in the presence of a lawyer (Atty. Abellanosa) and members of the media (who later attested to the proper advisement of constitutional rights in Cebuano), Diaz made an extra-judicial confession detailing his sexual perversity and the method by which he committed the crime.
Despite his detailed confession, the trial court declared it inadmissible on the ground that Atty. Abellanosa was not an independent counsel as required by the Constitution.

On December 10, 1996, a reenactment of the crime was conducted at the scene, involving Ralph Velez Diaz, Felbart Fulache (playing the role of the victim), several police officers, and media personnel.
A photocopy of a newspaper article reporting the reenactment was presented in court; however, due to its unauthenticated status, it was deemed inadmissible, even though the trial court took judicial notice of the incident.

In his defense, accused-appellant Ralph Velez Diaz sought to invoke insanity. He presented the testimony of Dr. Wilson Tibayan of the National Center for Mental Health.
Dr. Tibayan initially categorized Diaz as insane but later diagnosed him with pedophilia—a condition distinct from legal insanity—stating that, despite his disorder, Diaz could distinguish right from wrong.
Dr. Tibayan also testified that Diaz claimed his actions were driven by a desire for revenge, being a victim of sexual abuse in his own childhood, and that his disorder had a very low prognosis, rendering him dangerous to society.

On April 11, 1997, the Regional Trial Court (RTC-Br. 15, Cebu City) found Ralph Velez Diaz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder in relation to sexual abuse (sodomy) of a child attended by treachery.
The conviction was substantiated by various circumstantial evidences, including:

Testimony of 10‑year‑old Felbart Fulache who saw his brother with the accused shortly before the crime.
Physical evidence of sexual abuse, particularly the injuries in the victim's rectal area.
The reenactment that provided details known only to the perpetrator.
The extra-judicial confession, despite its exclusion on technical grounds, which nonetheless contributed to the overall evidence portfolio.

The trial court imposed the death penalty on Diaz and awarded civil indemnity and damages:

On automatic review, the accused-appellant contended that if found guilty, his crime would amount to homicide and not murder, arguing that qualifying circumstances like treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation were absent.
The reviewing court (G.R. No. 130210, December 08, 1999) disagreed, affirming that the facts established treachery—given the inherent vulnerability of a child—and abuse of superior strength, irrespective of the absence of explicit evidence of evident premeditation.
The appellate court further noted procedural errors, such as the improper characterization of the crime in the information (which failed to allege sexual abuse), and consequently, while acknowledging the presence of such evidence, held that it could not support an additional conviction for sexual assault.
The penalty was accordingly modified from death to reclusion perpetua, and the damages awards were adjusted (with moral damages reduced to ₱100,000.00 and exemplary damages to ₱25,000.00).

Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant for murder, given that the information charged him with "murder in relation to RA 7610" and did not explicitly allege sexual abuse (sodomy) despite the physical evidence presented.

Whether the presence of treachery, as demonstrated by the defendant’s method of killing a defenseless child, and abuse of superior strength, justified qualifying the crime as murder—even in the absence of evident premeditation.

Whether the exclusion of the extra-judicial confession (due to the lack of independent counsel representation) and the unauthenticated newspaper photograph materially affected the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence against the accused.

Whether the defense of insanity, as raised by the accused with expert testimony that ultimately diagnosed him with pedophilia rather than legal insanity, could be accepted to exempt or diminish his criminal liability.

Whether imposing the death penalty was proper under the circumstances, especially in light of the fact that the specific information did not charge the accused with sexual abuse, and considering the adjustments warranted in light of the evidence and legal description of the offense.