9/14/2016

G.R.No.150224

TodayisWednesday,September14,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.150224May19,2004
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,appellee,
vs.
JOELYATARalias"KAWIT",appellant.
DECISION
PERCURIAM:
OnautomaticreviewisaDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofBulanao,Tabuk,Kalinga,Branch25,sentencing
appellantJoelYataralias"Kawit"toDeathforthespecialcomplexcrimeofRapewithHomicide,andorderinghim
topaytheheirsofthevictim,KathylynD.Uba,civilindemnityintheamountofP75,000.00,moraldamagesinthe
amount of P200,000.00, exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00, actual damages in the amount of
P186,410.00,ortotaldamagesamountingtoP511,410.00,andcostsoflitigation.1
AppellantwaschargedwithRapewithHomicideunderthefollowingInformation:
ThatonorabouttheafternoonofJune30,1998atLiwanWest,Rizal,Kalinga,andwithinthejurisdictionof
thisHonorableCourt,theaccused,inordertohavecarnalknowledgeofacertainKATHYLYND.UBA,did
thenandtherewilfully,unlawfully,andfeloniously,andwithuseofabladedweaponstabthelatterinflicting
upon her fatal injuries resulting in the death of the victim, and on the occasion or by reason thereof,
accused,wilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniously,andbymeansofforceandviolencehadcarnalknowledgeof
saidKathlynD.Ubaagainstherwill.
CONTRARYTOLAW.2
Thefactsare:
OnJune30,1998,at8:30a.m.,JudilynPasaandherfirstcousin,seventeenyearoldKathylynUba,were
onthegroundfloorofthehouseoftheirgrandmother,IsabelDawang,inLiwanWest,Rizal,Kalinga.They
were talking about the letter sent by their aunt, Luz Yatar, to her husband, appellant Joel Yatar, through
Kathylynsfriend,CecilCasingan.Kathylynhandedthelettertoappellantearlierthatmorning.3
At 9:00 a.m. of the same day, Judilyn and her husband, together with Isabel Dawang, left for their farm in
Nagbitayansometwokilometersaway.BeforeJudilynandherhusbanddeparted,KathylyntoldJudilynthatshe
intended to go to Tuguegarao, but in the event she would not be able to leave, she would just stay home and
washherclothesorgotothehouseoftheiraunt,AnitaWania.Kathylynwasleftaloneinthehouse.4
Later,at10:00a.m.,AnitaWaniaandfifteenyearoldBeverlyDenengstoppedbythehouseofIsabel.Theysaw
appellantatthebackofthehouse.Theywentinsidethehousethroughthebackdoorofthekitchentohavea
drinkofwater.Anitaaskedappellantwhathewasdoingthere,andherepliedthathewasgettinglumbertobring
tothehouseofhismother.5
At12:30p.m.,whileJudilynwasonherwayhomefromNagbitayan,shesawappellantdescendtheladderfrom
the second floor of the house of Isabel Dawang and run towards the back of the house.6 She later noticed
appellant, who was wearing a white shirt with collar and black pants, pacing back and forth at the back of the
house.ShedidnotfindthisunusualasappellantandhiswifeusedtoliveinthehouseofIsabelDawang.7
At1:30p.m.,Judilynagainsawappellantwhenhecalledhernearherhouse.Thistime,hewaswearingablack
shirtwithoutcollarandbluepants.Appellanttoldherthathewouldnotbegettingthelumberhehadstacked,and
thatIsabelcoulduseit.Shenoticedthatappellantseyeswere"reddishandsharp."Appellantaskedherwhere
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/may2004/gr_150224_2004.html

1/8

9/14/2016

G.R.No.150224

her husband was as he had something important to tell him. Judilyns husband then arrived and appellant
immediatelyleftandwenttowardsthebackofthehouseofIsabel.8
Intheeveningofthesameday,IsabelDawangarrivedhomeandfoundthatthelightsinherhousewereoff.She
called out for her granddaughter, Kathylyn Uba. The door to the ground floor was open. She noticed that the
watercontainersheaskedKathylyntofillupearlierthatdaywasstillempty.Shewentuptheladdertothesecond
floorofthehousetoseeifKathylynwasupstairs.Shefoundthatthedoorwastiedwitharope,soshewentdown
togetaknife.Whileshegropedinthedark,shefeltalifelessbodythatwascoldandrigid.9
Isabel moved her hand throughout the entire body. She found out that it was the naked body of her
granddaughter, Kathylyn. She called for help. Judilyn and her husband arrived. Isabel was given a flashlight by
Judilyn.ShefocusedthebeamandsawKathylynsprawledonthefloornaked,withherintestinesprotrudingout
of her stomach. Meanwhile, neighbors had arrived to offer assistance. A daughter of Isabel, Cion, called the
police.10
At9:00thatevening,SP04MelchorFaniswareceivedareportthatadeadwomanwasfoundinIsabelDawangs
house.Togetherwithfellowpoliceofficers,FaniswawenttothehouseandfoundthenakedbodyofKathylynUba
withmultiplestabwounds.
Thepeopleinthevicinityinformedthepoliceofficersthatappellantwasseengoingdowntheladderofthehouse
ofIsabelDawangatapproximately12:30p.m.
Thepolicediscoveredthevictimspanties,brassiere,denimpants,bagandsandalsbesidehernakedcadaverat
thesceneofthecrime,andtheyfoundadirtywhiteshirtsplatteredwithbloodwithin50metersfromthehouseof
Isabel.
Whenquestionedbythepoliceauthorities,appellantdeniedanyknowledgeofKathylynssdeath,11however,he
wasplacedunderpolicecustody.
On July 3, 1998, appellant asked the police officers if he could relieve himself. Police Officer Cesar Abagan
accompanied him to the toilet around seven to ten meters away from the police station. They suddenly heard
someone shout in the Ilocano dialect, "Nagtaray!" (Hes running away!). Police Officer Orlando Manuel exited
through the gate of the Police Station and saw appellant running away. Appellant was approximately 70 meters
awayfromthestationwhenPoliceOfficerAbaganrecapturedhim.12HewaschargedwithRapewithHomicide.
WhenhewasarraignedonJuly21,1998,appellantpleaded"notguilty."
Aftertrial,appellantwasconvictedofthecrimeofRapewithHomicide,definedandpenalizedunderArticle266A
oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbyR.A.8353,otherwiseknownastheAntiRapeLawof1997,andwas
accordingly,sentencedtoDeath.
Hence, this automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. In his Brief,
appellantassignsthefollowingerrors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING MUCH WEIGHT TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY
THEPROSECUTIONNOTWITHSTANDINGTHEIRDOUBTFULNESS.
II
THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT OF THE
SERIOUSCRIMECHARGEDDUETOREASONABLEDOUBT.
Appellantscontentionsareunmeritorious.
Theissueregardingthecredibilityoftheprosecutionwitnessesshouldberesolvedagainstappellant.ThisCourt
willnotinterferewiththejudgmentofthetrialcourtindeterminingthecredibilityofwitnessesunlessthereappears
intherecordsomefactorcircumstanceofweightandinfluencewhichhasbeenoverlookedorthesignificanceof
which has been misinterpreted.13 Wellentrenched is the rule that the findings of the trial court on credibility of
witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal unless cogent reasons are presented necessitating a
reexamination if not the disturbance of the same the reason being that the former is in a better and unique
positionofhearingfirsthandthewitnessesandobservingtheirdeportment,conductandattitude.14 Absent any
showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight
whichwouldaffecttheresultofthecase,thetrialjudgesassessmentofcredibilitydeservestheappellatecourts
highest respect.15 Where there is nothing to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were actuated by
impropermotive,theirtestimoniesareentitledtofullfaithandcredit.16
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/may2004/gr_150224_2004.html

2/8

9/14/2016

G.R.No.150224

Theweightoftheprosecutionsevidencemustbeappreciatedinlightofthewellsettledrulewhichprovidesthat
an accused can be convicted even if no eyewitness is available, as long as sufficient circumstantial evidence is
presentedbytheprosecutiontoprovebeyonddoubtthattheaccusedcommittedthecrime.17
Referencetotherecordswillshowthatatotalofeleven(11)wounds,six(6)stabandfive(5)incised,werefound
onthevictimsabdomenandback,causingaportionofhersmallintestinestospilloutofherbody.18Rigormortis
ofthevicitmsbodywascompletewhenDr.Bartoloexaminedthevictimat9:00a.m.onJuly1,1998.Accordingto
him,thetimeofdeathmaybeapproximatedfrombetweennine(9)totwelve(12)hourspriortothecompletionof
rigormortis.19 In other words, the estimated time of death was sometime between 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on
June30,1998.Thiswaswithinthetimeframewithinwhichthelonepresenceofappellantlurkinginthehouseof
IsabelDawangwastestifiedtobywitnesses.
Itshouldalsobenotedthat,althoughthePostmortemReportbytheattendingphysician,Dr.PejEvanC.Bartolo,
indicates that no hymenal lacerations, contusions or hematoma were noted on the victim,20 Dr. Bartolo
discoveredthepresenceofsemeninthevaginalcanalofthevictim.Duringhistestimony,Dr.Bartolostatedthat
theintroductionofsemenintothevaginalcanalcouldonlybedonethroughsexualintercoursewiththevictim.21
Inaddition,itisapparentfromthepicturessubmittedbytheprosecutionthatthesexualviolationofthevictimwas
manifestedbyabruiseandsomeswellinginherrightforearmindicatingresistancetotheappellantsassaulton
hervirtue.22
Significantly, subsequent testing showed that the Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of the sperm specimen from the
vaginaofthevictimwasidenticalthesementobethatofappellantsgenetype.
DNAisamoleculethatencodesthegeneticinformationinalllivingorganisms.23ApersonsDNAisthesamein
eachcellanditdoesnotchangethroughoutapersonslifetimetheDNAinapersonsbloodisthesameasthe
DNA found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue, and vaginal
and rectal cells.24 Most importantly, because of polymorphisms in human genetic structure, no two individuals
havethesameDNA,withthenotableexceptionofidenticaltwins.25
DNA print or identification technology has been advanced as a uniquely effective means to link a suspect to a
crime, or to exonerate a wrongly accused suspect, where biological evidence has been left. For purposes of
criminal investigation, DNA identification is a fertile source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. It can
assistimmenselyineffectingamoreaccurateaccountofthecrimecommitted,efficientlyfacilitatingtheconviction
oftheguilty,securingtheacquittaloftheinnocent,andensuringtheproperadministrationofjusticeineverycase.
DNAevidencecollectedfromacrimescenecanlinkasuspecttoacrimeoreliminateonefromsuspicioninthe
sameprincipleasfingerprintsareused.26Incidentsinvolvingsexualassaultwouldleavebiologicalevidencesuch
ashair,skintissue,semen,blood,orsalivawhichcanbeleftonthevictimsbodyoratthecrimescene.Hairand
fiber from clothing, carpets, bedding, or furniture could also be transferred to the victims body during the
assault.27ForensicDNAevidenceishelpfulinprovingthattherewasphysicalcontactbetweenanassailantanda
victim.Ifproperlycollectedfromthevictim,crimesceneorassailant,DNAcanbecomparedwithknownsamples
toplacethesuspectatthesceneofthecrime.28
The U.P. National Science Research Institute (NSRI), which conducted the DNA tests in this case, used the
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification method by Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis. With PCR
testing,tinyamountsofaspecificDNAsequencecanbecopiedexponentiallywithinhours.Thus,gettingsufficient
DNA for analysis has become much easier since it became possible to reliably amplify small samples using the
PCRmethod.
InassessingtheprobativevalueofDNAevidence,courtsshouldconsider,interalia,thefollowingfactors:howthe
samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure
followedinanalyzingthesamples,whethertheproperstandardsandprocedureswerefollowedinconductingthe
tests,andthequalificationoftheanalystwhoconductedthetests.29
In the case at bar, Dr. Maria Corazon Abogado de Ungria was duly qualified by the prosecution as an expert
witness on DNA print or identification techniques.30 Based on Dr. de Ungrias testimony, it was determined that
thegenetypeandDNAprofileofappellantareidenticaltothatoftheextractssubjectofexamination.31Theblood
sampletakenfromtheappellantshowedthathewasofthefollowinggenetypes:vWA15/19,TH017/8,DHFRP2
9/10 and CSF1PO 10/11, which are identical with semen taken from the victims vaginal canal.32 Verily, a DNA
matchexistsbetweenthesemenfoundinthevictimandthebloodsamplegivenbytheappellantinopencourt
duringthecourseofthetrial.
Admittedly,wearejustbeginningtointegratetheseadvancesinscienceandtechnologyinthePhilippinecriminal
justice system, so we must be cautious as we traverse these relatively uncharted waters. Fortunately, we can
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/may2004/gr_150224_2004.html

3/8

9/14/2016

G.R.No.150224

benefit from the wealth of persuasive jurisprudence that has developed in other jurisdictions. Specifically, the
prevailingdoctrineintheU.S.hasproveninstructive.
InDaubertv.MerrellDow,33itwasruledthatpertinentevidencebasedonscientificallyvalidprinciplescouldbe
usedaslongasitwasrelevantandreliable.Judges,underDaubert,wereallowedgreaterdiscretionoverwhich
testimonytheywouldallowattrial,includingtheintroductionofnewkindsofscientifictechniques.DNAtypingis
onesuchnovelprocedure.
Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant when it relates directly to a fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existenceornonexistence.34ApplyingtheDauberttesttothecaseatbar,theDNAevidenceobtainedthrough
PCR testing and utilizing STR analysis, and which was appreciated by the court a quo is relevant and reliable
sinceitisreasonablybasedonscientificallyvalidprinciplesofhumangeneticsandmolecularbiology.
Independently of the physical evidence of appellants semen found in the victims vaginal canal, the trial court
appreciated the following circumstantial evidence as being sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt:(1)AppellantandhiswifewerelivinginthehouseofIsabelDawangtogetherwiththevictim,KathylynUba
(2)InJune1998,appellantswifeleftthehousebecauseoftheirfrequentquarrels(3)Appellantreceivedfrom
thevictim,KathylynUba,aletterfromhisestrangedwifeintheearlymorningonJune30,1998(4)Appellantwas
seen by Apolonia Wania and Beverly Denneng at 1:00 p.m. of June 30, 1998 near the kitchen of the house of
IsabelDawang,actingstrangelyandwearingadirtywhiteshirtwithcollar(5)JudilynPasasawappellantgoing
downtheladderofthehouseofIsabelat12:30p.m.,wearingadirtywhiteshirt,andagainat1:30p.m.,thistime
wearing a black shirt (6) Appellant hurriedly left when the husband of Judilyn Pasa was approaching (7)
SalmalinaTandagansawappellantinadirtywhiteshirtcomingdowntheladderofthehouseofIsabelontheday
KathylynUbawasfounddead(8)ThedoorleadingtothesecondfloorofthehouseofIsabelDawangwastied
byarope(9)Thevictim,KathylynUba,laynakedinapoolofbloodwithherintestinesprotrudingfromherbody
onthesecondfloorofthehouseofIsabelDawang,withherstainedpants,bra,underwearandshoesscattered
alongtheperiphery(10)Laboratoryexaminationrevealedsperminthevictimsvagina(Exhibit"H"and"J")(11)
Thestainedordirtywhiteshirtfoundinthecrimescenewasfoundtobepositivewithblood(12)DNAofslide,
Exhibit"J"and"H",comparedwiththeDNAprofileoftheappellantareidenticaland(13)Appellantescapedtwo
daysafterhewasdetainedbutwassubsequentlyapprehended,suchflightbeingindicativeofguilt.35
Circumstantial evidence, to be sufficient to warrant a conviction, must form an unbroken chain which leads to a
fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused, to the exclusion of others, is the perpetrator of the crime. To
determinewhetherthereissufficientcircumstantialevidence,threerequisitesmustconcur:(1)thereismorethan
one circumstance (2) facts on which the inferences are derived are proven and (3) the combination of all the
circumstancesissuchastoproduceaconvictionbeyondreasonabledoubt.36
InanattempttoexcludetheDNAevidence,theappellantcontendsthatthebloodsampletakenfromhimaswell
as the DNA tests were conducted in violation of his right to remain silent as well as his right against self
incriminationunderSecs.12and17ofArt.IIIoftheConstitution.
This contention is untenable. The kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial
compulsion.37Therightagainstselfincriminationissimplyagainstthelegalprocessofextractingfromthelipsof
the accused an admission of guilt. It does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an
incriminationbutaspartofobjectevidence.
WeruledinPeoplev.Rondero38 that although accusedappellant insisted that hair samples were forcibly taken
fromhimandsubmittedtotheNationalBureauofInvestigationforforensicexamination,thehairsamplesmaybe
admitted in evidence against him, for what is proscribed is the use of testimonial compulsion or any evidence
communicativeinnatureacquiredfromtheaccusedunderduress.
Hence,apersonmaybecompelledtosubmittofingerprinting,photographing,paraffin,bloodandDNA,asthere
is no testimonial compulsion involved. Under People v. Gallarde,39 where immediately after the incident, the
police authorities took pictures of the accused without the presence of counsel, we ruled that there was no
violation of the right against selfincrimination. The accused may be compelled to submit to a physical
examinationtodeterminehisinvolvementinanoffenseofwhichheisaccused.
It must also be noted that appellant in this case submitted himself for blood sampling which was conducted in
opencourtonMarch30,2000,inthepresenceofcounsel.
AppellantfurtherarguesthattheDNAtestsconductedbytheprosecutionagainsthimareunconstitutionalonthe
groundthatresorttheretoistantamounttotheapplicationofanexpostfactolaw.
Thisargumentisspecious.Noexpostfactolawisinvolvedinthecaseatbar.ThescienceofDNAtypinginvolves
theadmissibility,relevanceandreliabilityoftheevidenceobtainedundertheRulesofCourt.Whereasanexpost
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/may2004/gr_150224_2004.html

4/8

9/14/2016

G.R.No.150224

facto law refers primarily to a question of law, DNA profiling requires a factual determination of the probative
weightoftheevidencepresented.
Appellantstwindefenseofdenialandalibicannotbesustained.TheforensicDNAevidenceandbloodiedshirt,
notwithstanding the eyewitness accounts of his presence at Isabel Dawangs house during the time when the
crimewascommitted,undeniablylinkhimtotheJune30,1998incident.Appellantdidnotdemonstratewithclear
andconvincingevidenceanimpossibilitytobeintwoplacesatthesametime,especiallyinthiscasewherethe
twoplacesarelocatedinthesamebarangay.40Heliveswithinaonehundred(100)meterradiusfromthescene
ofthecrime,andrequiresamerefiveminutewalktoreachonehousefromtheother.Thisfactseverelyweakens
hisalibi.
As to the second assignment of error, appellant asserts that the court a quo committed reversible error in
convictinghimofthecrimecharged.Heallegesthatheshouldbeacquittedonreasonabledoubt.
Appellantsassertioncannotbesustained.
Generally,courtsshouldonlyconsiderandrelyupondulyestablishedevidenceandneveronmereconjecturesor
suppositions. The legal relevancy of evidence denotes "something more than a minimum of probative value,"
suggestingthatsuchevidentiaryrelevancemustcontaina"plusvalue."41Thismaybenecessarytoprecludethe
trial court from being satisfied by matters of slight value, capable of being exaggerated by prejudice and hasty
conclusions. Evidence without "plus value" may be logically relevant but not legally sufficient to convict. It is
incumbentuponthetrialcourttobalancetheprobativevalueofsuchevidenceagainstthelikelyharmthatwould
resultfromitsadmission.
The judgment in a criminal case can be upheld only when there is relevant evidence from which the court can
properlyfindorinferthattheaccusedisguiltybeyondreasonabledoubt.Proofbeyondreasonabledoubtrequires
moralcertaintyofguiltinordertosustainaconviction.Moralcertaintyisthatdegreeofcertaintythatconvinces
and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act
conscientiously upon it. It is certainty beyond reasonable doubt.42 This requires that the circumstances, taken
together,shouldbeofaconclusivenatureandtendencyleading,onthewhole,toasatisfactoryconclusionthat
theaccused,andnooneelse,committedtheoffensecharged.43Inviewofthetotalityofevidenceappreciated
thusfar,werulethatthepresentcasepassesthetestofmoralcertainty.
However,asamatterofprocedure,andforthepurposeofmeetingtherequirementofproofbeyondreasonable
doubt,motiveisessentialforconvictionwhenthereisdoubtastotheidentityoftheculprit.44
Pertinently,itmustbenotedthatJudilynPasa,firstcousinofthevictim,testifiedthatshelastsawthevictimalive
inthemorningofJune30,1998atthehouseofIsabelDawang.45Shewitnessedtheappellantrunningdownthe
stairsofIsabelshouseandproceedingtothebackofthesamehouse.46Shealsotestifiedthatafewdaysbefore
thevictimwasrapedandkilled,thelatterrevealedtoherthat"JoelYatarattemptedtorapeheraftershecame
from the school."47 The victim told Judilyn about the incident or attempt of the appellant to rape her five days
beforehernakedandviolatedbodywasfounddeadinhergrandmothershouseonJune25,1998.48Inaddition,
JudilynalsotestifiedthatwhenherauntieLuzDawangYatar,wifeofappellant,separatedfromherhusband,"this
JoelYatarthreatenedtokillourfamily."49AccordingtoJudilyn,whowaspersonallypresentduringanargument
betweenherauntandtheappellant,theexactwordsutteredbyappellanttohiswifeintheIlocanodialectwas,"If
you leave me, I will kill all your family and your relatives x x x."50 These statements were not contradicted by
appellant.
Thus, appellants motive to sexually assault and kill the victim was evident in the instant case. It is a rule in
criminal law that motive, being a state of mind, is established by the testimony of witnesses on the acts or
statementsoftheaccusedbeforeorimmediatelyafterthecommissionoftheoffense,deedsorwordsthatmay
expressitorfromwhichhismotiveorreasonforcommittingitmaybeinferred.51
Accordingly,weareconvincedthattheappellantisguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtofthespecialcomplexcrime
of rape with homicide. Appellant sexually assaulted Kathylyn Uba, and by reason or on the occasion thereof, in
ordertoconcealhislustfuldeed,permanentlysealedthevictimslipsbystabbingherrepeatedly,therebycausing
heruntimelydemise.
The following are the elements constitutive of rape with homicide: (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a
woman (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation and (3) by
reasonorontheoccasionofsuchcarnalknowledgebymeansofforce,threatorintimidation,appellantkilledthe
woman.52 However, in rape committed by close kin, such as the victims father, stepfather, uncle, or the
commonlaw spouse of her mother, it is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed.53 Moral
influenceorascendancytakestheplaceofviolenceandintimidation.54Thefactthatthevictimshymenisintact
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/may2004/gr_150224_2004.html

5/8

9/14/2016

G.R.No.150224

doesnotnegateafindingthatrapewascommittedasmereentrybythepenisintothelipsofthefemalegenital
organ, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, suffices for conviction of rape.55 The strength and
dilatability of the hymen are invariable it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse.
Absenceofhymenallacerationsdoesnotdisprovesexualabuseespeciallywhenthevictimisoftenderage.56
Inthecaseatbar,appellantisthehusbandofthevictimsaunt.HeissevenyearsolderthanthevictimKathylyn
Uba.Beforeheandhiswifeseparated,appellantlivedinthehouseofhismotherinlaw,togetherwiththevictim
andhiswife.Aftertheseparation,appellantmovedtothehouseofhisparents,approximatelyonehundred(100)
meters from his motherinlaws house. Being a relative by affinity within the third civil degree, he is deemed in
legalcontemplationtohavemoralascendancyoverthevictim.
Under Article 266B of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of death is imposed when by reason or on the
occasionoftherape,homicideiscommitted.Althoughthree(3)JusticesofthisCourtmaintaintheirpositionthat
R.A.7659isunconstitutionalinsofarasitprescribesthedeathpenalty,theyneverthelesssubmittotherulingof
themajoritythatthelawisnotunconstitutional,andthatthedeathpenaltycanbelawfullyimposedinthecaseat
bar.
Astodamages,civilindemnityexdelictoofP100,000.00,57 actual damages incurred by the family of the victim
that have been proved at the trial amounting to P93,190.00,58 and moral damages of P75,000.0059 should be
awardedinthelightofprevailinglawandjurisprudence.Exemplarydamagescannotbeawardedaspartofthe
civilliabilitysincethecrimewasnotcommittedwithoneormoreaggravatingcircumstances.60
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision of the RTC of Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga, Branch 25 in
CriminalCaseNo.3598,sentencingappellantJoelYataralias"Kawit"toDeathforthespecialcomplexcrimeof
RapewithHomicideisAFFIRMEDwiththeMODIFICATIONthathebeORDEREDtopaythefamilyofthevictim
Kathylyn Uba civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P100,000.00, P93,190.00 in actual damages and
P75,000.00inmoraldamages.TheawardofexemplarydamagesisDELETED.
UponthefinalityofthisDecisionandinaccordancewithArt.83oftheRevisedPenalCode,asamendedbySec.
25ofRep.ActNo.7659,lettherecordsofthiscasebeforthwithforwardedtothePresidentofthePhilippinesfor
thepossibleexerciseofthepardoningpower.
Costsdeoficio.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.*,Puno*,Vitug,Panganiban,Quisumbing,YnaresSantiago,SandovalGutierrez,Carpio,Austria
Martinez,Corona,CarpioMorales,Callejo,Sr.,Azcuna,andTinga,JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
*Onofficialleave.
1DecisionpennedbyJudgeMilnarT.Lammawinon27August2001.
2OriginalRecords,p.1.
3TSN,DirectExaminationofIsabelDawang,30September1998,pp.296306.
4Id.at317319.
5 TSN, Direct Examination of Beverly Deneng, 27 January 1999, pp. 531540, 568576. See also Exhibit

"W",JointAffidavitofAnitaWaniaandBeverlyDenengexecutedon3July1998,OriginalRecords,p.17.
6TSN,CrossExaminationofJudilynPasa,30September1998,p.377.
7Id.at275324.SeealsoTSN,supranote7at356358.
8Id.at314323,339344.
9Id.at267270.
10Id.at271273.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/may2004/gr_150224_2004.html

6/8

9/14/2016

G.R.No.150224

11TSN,DirectExaminationofSPO4MelchorFaniswa,9September1998,pp.920.SeealsoTSN,Cross

ExaminationofSPO4MelchorFaniswa,9September1998,pp.2138.
12 TSN, CrossExamination and ReDirect Examination of Police Officer Orlando Manuel, 9 September

1998,pp.7684.SeealsoTSN,DirectandCrossExaminationofSPO1FelixTuringan,9September1998,
pp.8896.
13Peoplev.Remudo,G.R.No.127905,30August2001,364SCRA71.
14Peoplev.Santos,G.R.No.137993,11April2002,380SCRA608,613.
15Id.
16Peoplev.Payot,G.R.No.119352,8June1999,308SCRA43,6263.
17Peoplev.Cabug,G.R.No.123149,27March2001,355SCRA391.
18SeeTSN,DirectExaminationofDr.PejEvanC.Bartolo,16September1998,pp.106157.
19TSN,DirectExaminationofDr.ReyEvanC.Bartolo,16September1998,pp.116118.
20SeeTSN,DirectExaminationofDr.PejEvanC.Bartolo,16September1998,pp.266304.
21Id.at266304.
22SeeExhibits"F1","G","H",OriginalRecords,pp.6A6C.
23PeterSudbery,HumanMolecularGenetics(2nded.2002)19992000PocketPart,p.51.
24K.M.Turman,"UnderstandingDNAEvidence:AGuideforVictimServiceProviders,"OVCBulletin(U.S.

DepartmentofJustice,April2001),p.1.
2584ALR4th313.
26Id.
27Id.
28Id.at12.
29Peoplev.Vallejo,G.R.No.144656,9May2002,382SCRA192,209.
30 Dr. de Ungria is Head of the Genetic Engineering Laboratory, University of the Philippines, Assistant

Supervisor of the DNA Analysis Laboratory, University of the Philippines, and Assistant Professor at the
AteneodeManilaUniversity.InDecember1999,Dr.deUngriawasa1999JoseRizalYoungAwardeefor
theProfessionalSectorforherparticipationintheidentificationofthebodyofavictimofthePacofire.She
commencedworkingasAssistantSupervisoroftheU.P.DNALaboratoryinFebruary1999afterreturning
fromSydney,Australia.PriortoFebruary1999,sheworkedasaDNAAnalyst.AnalumnaofthePhilippine
Science High School, Dr. de Ungria obtained a Bachelor of Science (Honours) degree in Biology at
MacquarieUniversity,andaDoctorofPhilosophydegreeinMolecularMicrobiologyattheUniversityofNew
South Wales, in Australia. She is a member of the Philippine Society of Microbiology and an associate
member of the National Research Council of the Philippines. See TSN, Direct Examination of Dr. Ma.
CorazonAbogadodeUngria,18February2000,pp.739743.
31TSN,18February2000,pp.789790.SeeExhibits"XX"and"YY1",OriginalRecords,p.144,149150.

SeealsoTSN,ContinuationofDirectExaminationofDr.deUngria,18April2000,p.842.
32TSN,18April2000,p.842.SeealsoExhibits"Z","ZZ"and"ZZ1",OriginalRecords,pp.152154.
33509U.S.579(1993)125L.Ed.2d469.
34RulesofCourt,Rule128,sec.4.
35Decision,pp.4648.SeeRollo,pp.300302.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/may2004/gr_150224_2004.html

7/8

9/14/2016

G.R.No.150224

36RulesofCourt,Rule133,sec.4.
37Alihv.Castro,G.R.No.69401,23June1987,151SCRA279.
38G.R.No.125687,9December1999,320SCRA383.
39G.R.No.133025,27February2000,325SCRA835.
40SeePeoplev.Manguera,G.R.No.139906,5March2003.
41IWigmoreonEvidence28,at409410.
42 R.J. Francisco, Evidence (3d Ed., 1996), p. 577, citing Shaw, C.J., Commonwealth v. Webster, Benis

Rep.OftheTrial,469Com.V.Costley,118Mass.1.
43WordsandPhrases,"MoralCertainty",citingCommonwealthv.Goodwin,80Mass.(14Gray)55,57.
44Peoplev.Verzo,G.R.No.L22517,26December1967,21SCRA1403.
45TSN,CrossExaminationofJudilynPasa,30September1998,pp.376380.
46Id.,p.324.
47Id.at332.SeeExhibits"Q,""Q1"and"Q2,"OriginalRecords,pp.1314.
48Id.at334.
49Id.at333.
50Id.at336338.
51Barrioquintov.Fernandez,82Phil.642,649(1949).
52Articles266Aand266B,RevisedPenalCode.
53Peoplev.Remudo,supra.
54Peoplev.Serrano,G.R.No.137480,28February2001,353SCRA161,172.
55Peoplev.Aonuevo,G.R.No.137843,12October2001,367SCRA249.
56Peoplev.Llanita,G.R.No.134101,5September2001,364SCRA519.
57 People v. Manguera, supra People v. Seranilla, G.R. Nos. 11302224, 15 December 2000, 348 SCRA

227Peoplev.Payot,G.R.No.119352,8June1999,308SCRA43.
58Arts.2199and2202,CivilCode,Art.2199,statesthat"[e]xceptasprovidedbylaworbystipulation,one

is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly
proved."Art.2202providesthat"[i]ncrimesandquasidelicts,thedefendantshallbeliableforalldamages
whicharethenaturalandprobableconsequencesoftheactoromissioncomplainedof.Itisnotnecessary
thatsuchdamageshavebeenforeseenorcouldhavereasonablybeenforeseenbythedefendant."
59Peoplev.Magallanes,G.R.No.136299,29August2003.
60Article2230,CivilCode.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/may2004/gr_150224_2004.html

8/8