Title
People vs. Rondero
Case
G.R. No. 125687
Decision Date
Dec 9, 1999
A nine-year-old girl was found dead with signs of sexual assault; circumstantial evidence, including matching hair strands and the accused’s suspicious behavior, led to his conviction for rape with homicide, resulting in a death sentence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152833)

Core Facts of the Crime and Scene

On the night of March 25–early morning of March 26, 1994, nine-year-old Mylene Doria went missing after a barrio fiesta. A neighborhood search located her lifeless body on a cemented pavement near the Pugaro Elementary School canteen. The body displayed extensive head injuries, multiple contusions, abrasions, hymenal and labial lacerations, and avulsed incisors; one slipper lay beside the body, the other behind it. Approximately half an hour before the body was discovered, Maximo Doria encountered the accused roughly one meter from the Doria house at an artesian well, washing his bloodied hands with an ice pick clenched in his mouth.

Forensic and Physical Evidence

Autopsy (Dr. Cornel) revealed massive intracranial hemorrhage, fractured right occipital bone, multiple external contusions and lacerations, avulsed upper incisors, and fresh hymenal and labial lacerations; the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to massive traumatic intracranial hemorrhage. Hair strands were found in the victim’s right hand and at the scene; microscopic comparative examination by the NBI chemist showed the hair strands on the victim’s right hand had similar microscopic characteristics to hair taken from the accused, while hair from the scene matched the victim’s hair characteristics. A pair of rubber slippers recovered at the scene was identified by Maximo as the accused’s by a distinguishing painted red leaf on the left slipper. The accused’s undershirt and short pants bore bloodstains; the wife admitted washing them before police collected them from the clothesline.

Police Investigation, Arrest and Forensic Procedures

After discovery of the body, police conducted a spot investigation, found blood spattered at the artesian well, and later, based on Maximo’s account, arrested the accused at the Pugaro area. Hair specimens were later taken from both the accused and the victim and sent to the NBI for comparative microscopic analysis; the NBI initially requested pulled (root-to-tip) specimens. The accused executed a written waiver of detention and a written waiver of the constitutional right to counsel during custodial investigation (Section 12, Article III), and hair samples were taken and submitted for examination. The accused’s garments were taken from the clothesline by police without presentation of a search warrant, according to testimony by the accused’s wife.

Charging, Plea and Trial-Court Disposition

The accused was charged by information with the special complex crime of rape with homicide (pleaded not guilty). The trial court initially convicted him of murder and sentenced him to death (October 13, 1995). Upon motion for reconsideration, the trial court modified its judgment (November 10, 1995) to convict for homicide and imposed reclusion perpetua under Section 10 of R.A. No. 7610 (penalty for homicide where victim under 12). The accused appealed.

Defense Evidence and Alibi Claims

The accused did not testify. Defense witnesses—his wife Christine and his father Leonardo—testified that the accused had been involved in a marital quarrel the prior evening, was struck repeatedly by his father and left bleeding; they placed the accused at home and asleep shortly after the altercation and asserted that the blood on his clothing sprang from that encounter. The defense also contested identification and aspects of the prosecution’s physical evidence, and challenged the legality of arrest, detention, and evidentiary gathering.

Assignments of Error on Appeal

The accussed raised three principal assignments: (1) that conviction (as gravely amended to homicide and sentence to life) was based only on circumstantial evidence insufficient to meet proof beyond reasonable doubt; (2) grave error in convicting him of homicide; and (3) conviction despite illegal arrest and illegal detention (and associated evidentiary violations).

Standard for Circumstantial Evidence and its Application to the Case

The Court applied the statutory and jurisprudential standard for circumstantial evidence (Rule 133, Section 4): (a) more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which inferences are drawn must be proven; and (c) the combination of all circumstances must produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The test requires that the proved series of circumstances be consistent with each other, consistent with the accused’s guilt, and inconsistent with any reasonable theory of innocence. The Court found multiple interlocking circumstances: (i) Maximo’s contemporaneous identification of the accused washing bloodied hands with an ice pick in his mouth; (ii) slippers identified as the accused’s recovered at the scene; (iii) hair found on the victim matching the accused’s hair characteristics microscopically; and (iv) bloodstained garments worn by the accused the night in question (though later ruled inadmissible). The Court considered Maximo’s flashlight-assisted identification credible, rejected speculative attacks on darkness and motive, and found the defense alibi testimony improbable and internally inconsistent.

Admissibility of Hair Samples, Garments and Evidence Obtained without Counsel

The Court analyzed constitutional protections under the 1987 Constitution (Art. III, Secs. 12 and 17) against compelled testimonial evidence and the requirement that waivers of rights during custodial interrogation be in writing and in presence of counsel. The Court held that what is proscribed is testimonial compulsion; physical, non-communicative evidence emanating from the accused’s body (e.g., hair, blood, fingernails) may be admissible even if obtained during custodial investigation, provided the evidence is not the product of compelled testimonial communication. Accordingly, hair samples taken and subjected to microscopic comparison were admissible and were used against the accused. In contrast, the bloodstained undershirt and short pants taken from the clothesline without a search warrant were inadmissible as fruit of an unlawful seizure; that illegality was not rebutted by the prosecution. The Court nevertheless found that the remaining admissible evidence sufficed for conviction.

Warrantless Arrest and Subsequent Waiver by Arraignment and Appeal

The Court acknowledged that the arrest may have lacked lawful grounds in that the arresting officers had no personal knowledge sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest at the time; it was premised on Maximo’s suspicion. Nevertheless, the Court applied the principle that irregularities in arrest and detention are deemed waived when the accused voluntarily submits to trial court jurisdiction, pleads (guilty or not guilty) and participates in the proceedings rather than seeking dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Furthermore, by appealing, the accused waived certain protections (including potential double jeopardy claims) insofar as appellate review of the whole case is concerned.

Rape Element, Absence of Spermatozoa and Legal Conclusion on Comple

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms