EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
139906
March 5, 2003
-versus-
ANTHONY MANGUERA
Y ALINGASTRE,
Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
VITUG, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Anthony Manguera was sentenced
to suffer the extreme penalty of death by the Regional Trial Court,
Branch
6, of Tanauan, Batangas, for raping and killing Lorna Reanzares.
The conviction of Manguera rested largely on the declaration made by
the
victim shortly before she died.
Anthony Manguera was
charged with the crime of rape with homicide before the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 6, of Tanauan, Batangas, in an information that read:
"That on or about the
25th day of February 1996, at about 6:30 o'clock in the evening, at
Barangay
San Miguel, Municipality of Santo Tomas, Province of Batangas,
Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully
and feloniously have carnal knowledge of one Lorna Reanzares y Javier
against
her will and consent and by reason or on the occasion of the said rape,
accused, armed with a bladed instrument, with intent to kill,
willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously stabbed the said Lorna Reanzares y Javier
with
the said instrument, thereby inflicting upon the latter stab wounds on
the different parts of her body which directly caused her death."[1]
When arraigned, Anthony
Manguera entered a plea of not guilty.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The prosecution presented
its evidence, hereunder narrated, following Manguera's plea of
innocence.cralaw:red
On 25 February 1996,
just after sunset, a neighbor of Lorna Reanzares, while walking on her
way home in Barangay San Miguel, Sto. Tomas, Batangas, thought that she
heard Lorna screaming, "Inay, Inay," from a nearby coconut plantation.
Worried, the neighbor, Josephine Managa, proceeded to the Reanzares
residence
to inquire if Lorna was already home. When Romeo Reanzares,
Lorna's
older brother, informed her that Lorna had not as yet arrived,
Josephine
told him of what she had heard from the nearby plantation. Romeo,
accompanied by Josephine, along with his mother, his sister, and his
wife
rushed to the place where Lorna's voice was said to have been
heard.
Upon reaching the site, Romeo asked Josephine to point to the exact
location
where she had heard the cries. Suddenly, Romeo heard Lorna call, "Kuya,
kuya, tulungan mo ako."[2]
He ran towards the spot where the voice was emanating from and found
Lorna
lying naked, her panties and shorts pulled down to her left
ankle.
Romeo inquired from his sister what had happened. Lorna replied "Kuya,
ginahasa ako."[3]
When asked who was responsible for it, Lorna replied "Si Nognog, si
Nognog."[4]
"Nognog who," Romeo pressed on, and Lorna answered, "Anthony
Manguera."
Moments later, Lorna, visibly weak, told her brother "Kuya, parang
hindi
ko na kaya. May saksak ako sa likod."[5]
Romeo turned her sister's back and saw that it was bloodied with stab
wounds.
He covered her with her torn clothes and brought her to a vehicle
brought
by their father who meanwhile followed them to the plantation.
When
queried whether Anthony Manguera was with her on her way home, she
answered,
"No, he was waiting for me ("inaabangan") and raped me and stabbed me."[6]
Lorna died on the way to the Municipal Health Office in Sto. Tomas,
Batangas.
The post mortem report disclosed:
"FINDINGS: HEAD - contusion
hematoma, 2 x 1.5 cm., chinchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
NECK - linear superficial
lacerated wound, anterior aspect extending from left to right.cralaw:red
BACK - multiple
stab wounds #10, sizes ranging from .5 cm. to 2 cm., 4 to 8 cm. deep
PELVIC EXAM'N: IE -
admits 2 fingers with ease
Hymen - with multiple
lacerations at 1, 3, 6 and 10 o'clock position.cralaw:red
Note - vaginal
swab obtained, specimen sent to PCCL.cralaw:red
"CAUSE OF DEATH -
Cardio-pulmonary arrest secondary to multiple stab wounds."[7]
After an investigation
at the police headquarters in Sto. Tomas, Batangas, police officers,
accompanied
by Romeo Reanzares, apprehended Anthony Manguera that same evening at
his
residence in Barangay San Miguel, Sto. Tomas, Batangas. Manguera
was only fifteen (15) years old at the time.cralaw:red
In his defense, Manguera
interposed denial and alibi. He claimed that at around six
o'clock
on the late afternoon of 25 February 1996 until about eight o'clock
that
evening, he was at their house in Barangay San Miguel, attending to his
father's guests that included a number of barangay officials and
policemen.
Among them was Brgy. Capt. Fabio Leycano of San Bartolome, Sto. Tomas,
Batangas, who testified that at approximately five o'clock that
afternoon,
he was with Manguera who served the group "pulutan".
Diosdado
Ilagan, a barangay tanod of San Miguel, stated that on the late
afternoon
and early evening of 25 February 1996, he was at the house of the
Mangueras.
He learned about the crime only the following morning, and that he knew
of another suspect in the crime, a certain Orlando Millar, a.k.a.
"Nognog,"
who was arrested but later released by the police. Ilagan claimed
that Millar used to go to his store and at one time Millar happened to
mention that he was courting Lorna Reanzares. At a little past
five
o'clock on the afternoon of 25 February 1996, he saw Millar in Barangay
San Miguel. Tomas Manguera, an uncle of Anthony Manguera,
testified
that he arrived at the house of the accused at about half past six
o'clock
in the afternoon. At eight o'clock that evening, policemen
arrived
at the house and invited his nephew Anthony Manguera for questioning at
the police station.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dismissing the defense
of denial and of alibi, the court a quo found Anthony Manguera guilty
beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide and imposed upon
him
the death penalty. Manguera was also ordered to indemnify the
heirs
of Lorna Reanzares P100,000.00 by way of moral damages and P39,613.35
for
funeral expenses. The trial court, relying heavily on the dying
declaration
of Lorna, narrated by his brother Romeo, said -
"There can be no dispute
that from the testimony of Dr. Gloria Andaya, Lorna Reanzares was
bumped
on her head causing hematoma and was raped. She died later from
the
multiple stab wounds she sustained in the early evening of 25 February
1996.cralaw:red
"The author of the rape
and the multiple stab wounds sustained by Lorna Reanzares was
identified
by her to be a person nicknamed Nognog. Nognog, according to her,
was Anthony Manguera, the son of Tonio from the East with a
tricycle.
The accused, Anthony Manguera, admits that he was called Nognog since
his
childhood.cralaw:red
"Under Article 335 (1)
of the Revised Penal Code, having carnal knowledge of a woman by the
use
of force and intimidation constitutes the crime of rape.cralaw:red
"Lorna's revelation
to her brother, Romeo Reanzares, as to the identity of her sexual
attacker
and assailant is admissible in evidence as a dying declaration.
Section
31, Rule 30, of the Revised Rules of Court provides that the
declaration
of a dying person, made under a consciousness of an impending death,
may
be received in a criminal case wherein his death is the subject of
inquiry,
as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such
death.
Very early decisions of the Supreme Court on the evidentiary weight and
admissibility of dying declarations propound:
"‘The reasons for the
admissibility of dying declarations as an exception to the hearsay rule
are (a) necessity and (b) trustworthiness. Necessity, because the
declarant's death renders impossible his taking the witness stand; and
it often happens that there is no other equally satisfactory proof of
the
crime. Hence, it is allowed to prevent a failure of
justice.
And trustworthiness for in the language of Lord Baron Eyre, the
declaration
is `made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death and
every
hope of this world is gone; when every motive to falsehood is silenced,
and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak
the
truth. A situation so solemn and awful is considered by the law
as
creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by an oath
administered
in court' (U.S. vs. Gil, 13 Phil 549).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"'A man at the point
of death who is convinced that he is going to die is not in a condition
to invent a story to prejudice the accused (People vs. Alfaro, 83 Phil
85).cralaw:red
"'The statements made
by an individual who is seriously wounded, at a moment when he was
dying,
being convinced that there was no hope of recovery, constitute per se
at
least a grave conclusive and decisive indication of the culpability of
the persons designated by the dying man, inasmuch as it must be assumed
that he, being in so precarious a condition, spoke truthfully, and that
he was not induced by a desire to tell a lie and to injure an innocent
person (U.S. vs. Castellon, et al., 12 Phil 160).'
"Lorna sustained a head
blow as if hit by a hard object and multiple stab wounds at her
back.
Her statement to her brother, Romeo: `Kuya parang hindi ko na
kaya.
May saksak ako sa likod' cannot be given any other meaning than that
she
was conscious that her death was imminent. Her meaning was clear
to Romeo who told her to hold on `lakasan mo ang loob mo,' and she
asked
for water. She was declared dead upon her arrival at the
hospital.
She made the revelation identifying her attacker and assailant when,
upon
her cries of `Kuya, tulungan mo ako,' Romeo came upon her lying naked
with
blood on the grass underneath her. She added that the accused had
lain in wait for her (inabangan) and raped her and stabbed her.
Lorna
was a sixteen-year old, fourth year high school student. Clearly,
all the conditions for the admissibility of her dying declaration are
present:
"'Conditions on which
the admissibility of dying declarations depend:
(a) That death be imminent
and that declarant be conscious of that fact;
(b) That the preliminary
facts which bring the declaration within its scope be made to appear;
(c) That the declaration
relate to the facts or circumstances pertaining to the fatal injury or
death;
(d) That the declarant
would have been competent to testify had he survived (31 C.J.S.,
987-988)."[8]
In this appeal, Anthony
Manguera assails the dying declaration of the victim identifying him to
be the author of the dastardly crime and blames the trial court for
ignoring
the defense of alibi.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court, quite unfortunately
for appellant, sees no sufficient justification for a reversal of the
factual
findings and judgment of conviction made by the trial court. Nor
can it be faulted for accepting the ante mortem declaration of Lorna
Reanzares
testified to by Romeo Reanzares. On direct-examination, the
latter
testified:
"Q What
was her position, except seeing her naked?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"A
She was lying down on top of banana leaves, sir.cralaw:red
"Q: After seeing
her in that position, what step did you and/or your group do?
"A: I asked
her who did this to her.cralaw:red
"Q: What was her
answer?
"A: She
answered, `Si Nognog, si Nognog,' sir.cralaw:red
"Q: What else
happened after she answered `si Nognog'?
"A: I asked
her who this Nognog because I don't know his real name, sir.cralaw:red
"Q: What was the
answer, if any?
"A: She
told me Anthony Manguera alias Nognog, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q: She told you
that Anthony Manguera alias Nognog, what else did you ask your sister?
"A: I asked
her if he is the son of Antonio with tricycle from the east, sir.cralaw:red
"Q: What was the
answer?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"A: She
answered, yes, he is the one.cralaw:red
"Q: And do you
know personally this Antonio from the east?
"A: I know
the father, sir.cralaw:red
"COURT:
"Q How about
the accused here, do you know him personally?
"A: I only
know him by face but I don't know the full name, your Honor.cralaw:red
"Q: How many times
have you seen him before this incident, I am referring to the accused?
"A: Maybe
3 to 4 times, your Honor.cralaw:red
"Q: Is he a neighbor
or a resident of your place?
"A: He is
a resident of the place but far from our house, your Honor.cralaw:red
"FISCAL:
"Q When
you said east, what are you referring to when you said Antonio from the
east?
"A: When
I asked her Antonio from the east with tricycle and she said yes, I
already
knew who they were, sir. (pp. 8-10, TSN, 14 October 1996;
(Emphasis
supplied)"[9]
On cross-examination,
Romeo Reanzares was likewise straightforward; more importantly, he
remained
consistent in his testimony.cralaw:red
"COURT:
"Q What
were the questions you asked your sister before covering her up?
"A
I asked her who did that [to] you, your Honor.cralaw:red
"Q And she
answered, what did she say?
"A
She said, `Nognog, Nognog,' your Honor.cralaw:red
"Q What
else did you ask your sister?
"A
I asked her who is this Nognog, your Honor.cralaw:red
"Q Was she
able to answer you?
"A
She told me Anthony, your Honor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Q Anymore
questions and answers before you covered your sister?
"A
I asked her if he is the son of Antonio from the east with tricycle and
she answered `yes,' your Honor.cralaw:red
"COURT:
You better get the vernacular. `Anak ni Tonio na taga Silangan na
may tricycle.'
"Q And all
the while you were never covering her?
"A
I told her to be strong and I dressed her up and I will bring her to
the
hospital.cralaw:red
"ATTY. TAGATAC:
"Q You said
you asked your sister if Nognog is the son of Tonio, owner of a
tricycle,
did you state that in your sworn statement when you were investigated
by
the police officers?
"A
When my statement was being taken by the police, if you will notice
that
investigator is poor in Tagalog, probably he is a Visayan or
Ilocano.
He is not fluent in Tagalog.cralaw:red
"COURT:
"Q Did you
state that about what you testified earlier that this Nognog is the son
of Tonio the owner of the tricycle from the Silangan, did you give that
statement to the investigator?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"A
I told that at the headquarters but it was not incorporated in the
statement,
your Honor.cralaw:red
"ATTY. TAGATAC:
"Q Did you
read your sworn statement that was taken from you at the police station
before you signed?
"A
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
"Q And did
you not inform the investigator why they did not include it in your
statement
that Nognog is the son of Tonio the owner of a tricycle?
"A
I told the investigator, but he told me that it is stated in the last
part
of that statement that if I have to add or delete something from that
it
will be done in the court."[10]
The Court shares the
view of the Office of the Solicitor General which has observed that -
"Contrary to appellant's
pretension, there is no ‘riveting inconsistency' between Josephine
Managa
and Romeo Reanzares' testimonies (p.29, Brief for the Appellant).
True, just as Josephine Managa testified, it was Romeo Reanzares who
uttered
the words ‘the son of Antonio' (‘..with tricycle from the
east').
But it is obvious from Romeo Reanzares' testimony that this utterance
came
in the form of a clarificatory question after Lorna Reanzares (and not
Romeo Reanzares) already identified `Nognog' as `Anthony
Manguera.'
x x x.cralaw:red
"Admittedly, Josephine
Managa did not hear Lorna Reanzares utter the words ‘Anthony Manguera',
but this does not mean that Lorna did not say them. Romeo
Reanzares
said that Lorna did and there is no reason to disbelieve him. It
bears stressing that, while Josephine Managa stood about four (4) steps
away from where Romeo and Lorna were, Romeo was squatting on the
ground,
hugging and talking to his dying sister (pp. 21-22, TSN, 7 November
1996
and pp. 18 and 21, TSN, 3 March 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x x x
x x x x x x
"There is likewise no
merit to appellant's claim that Romeo Reanzares' failure to declare in
his sworn statement that he asked Lorna Reanzares whether `Nognog' was
the `anak ni Tonio na taga Silangan na may tricycle' (supra) is a
material
omission which discredits his testimony.cralaw:red
"x x x said sworn statement
was taken x x x less than twenty-four (24) hours after Romeo Reanzares'
shocking discovery of his dying sister's body. He could not be
expected
to be complete and precise in his statements to the police. Sworn
statements/affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to open
court declarations because the former are often executed when an
affiant's
mental faculties are not in such state as to afford him a fair
opportunity
of narrating in full the incident which has transpired (People vs.
Sanchez,
302 SCRA 21)."[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The ante mortem statement
of Lorna Reanzares, testified to by her brother Romeo Reanzares, is not
only admissible in evidence as being an exception to the hearsay rule
but
also a weighty and telling piece of evidence. A dying declaration
is admissible when (a) it concerns the cause and the surrounding
circumstances
of the declarant's death; (b) it is made when death appears to be
imminent,
and the declarant is under a consciousness of impending death; (c) the
declarant would have been competent to testify had he or she survived;
and (d) the dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject
of inquiry involves the declarant's death.[12]
Statements uttered by a victim on the verge of death identifying the
assailant,
given under the conditions heretofore mentioned, are entitled to the
highest
degree of credence and respect. A person aware of an impending
death
has been known to be genuinely truthful in his words and extremely
scrupulous
in his accusations.[13]
Thus, pronouncements of guilt, not infrequently, have been allowed to
rest
solely on such dying declarations of deceased victims.[14]
The defense of alibi
has been correctly rejected by the court below. Countless cases
have
taught that for the defense of alibi to prosper, clear and convincing
evidence
must establish, among other things, that it would have been impossible
for the accused to have been at the crime scene at the time the crime
is
committed.[15]
It would indeed be fragile an alibi for an accused to demonstrate such
impossibility where the two places are located within the same barangay.cralaw:red
It was error, nevertheless,
on the part of the trial court to mete the death penalty even while
Section
11 of Republic Act No. 7659 prescribes that penalty when by reason, or
on the occasion, of the rape the crime of homicide is committed.cralaw:red
Article 47 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Section 22, Republic Act No. 7659, reads:
"Art. 47. In what cases
the death penalty shall not be imposed; Automatic review of death
penalty
cases. - The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it
must
be imposed under existing laws, except when the guilty person is below
eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the crime
or
is more than seventy years of age or when upon appeal or automatic
review
of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not
obtained
for the imposition of the death penalty, in which cases the penalty
shall
be reclusion perpetua." (Emphasis supplied)
The first part of the
provision is consistent with Article 68 of the same Code which treats
minority
as a privileged mitigating circumstance and reduces the imposable
penalty
by one degree if the accused is over fifteen (15) and under eighteen
(18)
years of age, and by two degrees, if under fifteen (15) but over nine
(9)
years of age, and the accused acted with discernment.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anthony Manguera was
only fifteen (15) years old at the time of the commission of the crime
as so evidenced by his Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit 5).
Thus,
pursuant to the provisions of Article 47, as amended, and consonantly
with
Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty that can only be
imposed
on appellant for the crime of rape with homicide is reclusion perpetua.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The award of moral and
actual damages by the lower court should be modified. Under
prevailing
jurisprudence,[16]
the victim's heirs are entitled to the civil indemnity of P100,000.00
and
moral damages of P50,000.00. Only P15,000.00 funeral expenses was
duly receipted and proved; understandably, the actual damages suffered
must have been more than the amount proven; in situations of this
nature,
the Court allows an award of temperate damages of P25,000.00.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the decision
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, of Tanauan, Batangas, finding
accused-appellant
ANTHONY MANGUERA Y ALINGASTRE guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime
of rape with homicide is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that (a) the
death
penalty imposed by the trial court is commuted to reclusion perpetua
and
(b) the judgment on the civil liability is modified by ordering
appellant
to pay the amounts of P100,000.00 civil indemnity, P50,000.00 moral
damages,
and P25,000.00 temperate damages to the heirs of the deceased.
Costs
de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo,
Puno, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago and
Corona, JJ., on leave.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
TSN, 04 November 1996, p. 7.
[3]
Exhibit "H", Sworn Statement of Romeo Reanzares, dated 26 February
1996,
Record, p. 12.
[4]
TSN, 7 November 1996, p. 24.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
TSN, 14 October 1996, pp. 11-12.
[6]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Exhibit A, Records, p. 4.
[8]
Rollo, pp. 47-50.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Rollo, pp. 215-216.
[10]
TSN, 07 November 1996, pp. 24-25.
[11]
Rollo, pp. 217-222.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Section 31, Rule 130, Rules of Court; People vs. Salazar, 221 SCRA 170.
[13]
People vs. Marollano, 276 SCRA 84; People vs. Manlapaz, 55 SCRA 598.
[14]
People vs. Sagario, 14 SCRA 468.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
People vs. Arillas, 333 SCRA 765.
[16]
People vs. Payot, 308 SCRA 43, G.R. No. 119352; People vs. Robles, Jr.,
305 SCRA 273, G.R. No. 1243000; People vs. Seranilla, 348 SCRA 227,
G.R.
No. 113022-24. |