THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238994. August 14, 2019.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. MARK ANTHONY ALEJO y MAKILING, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 14, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238994 (People of the Philippines vs. Mark Anthony Alejo y Makiling). — Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments presented in the appellant's and the appellee's briefs which the parties adopted instead of filing their respective supplementary appeal briefs, the Court resolves to DISMISS the appeal for appellant's failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the Decision 1 dated October 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07712, as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
First, for circumstantial evidence to suffice to convict an accused, the following requisites must concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 2
In the present case, the confluence of the following established facts and circumstances sustains the CA's affirmance of appellant's conviction: (a) appellant was a stay-in helper at the house where the crime was committed; (b) during the investigation, the short pants, t-shirt, and underwear worn by AAA at the time of the incident, together with the bed sheet and pillow cases, were missing and replaced by a different set of clothes as observed by AAA's cousin who saw her the night of April 22, 2011; (c) the missing clothes were found at the roof of a neighbor's house; (d) after medical examination, AAA's hymen was found to have a deep fresh laceration; and (e) AAA suffered multiple injuries with abrasions on her lower extremities, and the cause of her death was asphyxia by strangulation. 3
Not only does appellant's conviction rest on an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, but it also rests on his unbridled admission to the commission of the crime to the media.
In People vs. Ordoño and Medina, 4 both accused were adjudged guilty of the crime of rape with homicide attended with treachery. They claimed that constitutional infirmities attended the execution of their extrajudicial confessions specifically the lack of counsel to assist them during custodial investigation.
On appeal, the Court upheld the accused's conviction based on their taped interview with the news reporter where they voluntarily admitted to the rape-slay and even expressed remorse for having perpetrated the crime. The news reporter is not a law enforcement officer; hence, the accused's uncounseled confession to him did not violate their constitutional rights. 5
The same rule obtains here. Appellant's confession is admissible in evidence because it was voluntarily made to a news reporter and not to a police authority or to an investigating officer.
Moreover, while the specimen obtained from the crime scene failed to match appellant's DNA profile, settled is the rule that the presence of spermatozoa is not essential in finding that rape was committed. The important consideration is not the emission of semen but the penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ. 6 As mentioned above, the post-mortem examination of AAA's body revealed fresh hymenal lacerations at 3 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions which are consistent with the findings of rape.
In any case, a positive DNA match may strengthen the evidence for the prosecution, but an inconclusive DNA result may not be sufficient to exculpate appellant, especially when there is sufficient evidence proving his guilt. In this case, the result of the investigation showed that the crime scene was cleaned up and rearranged. As properly observed by the CA, while the DNA analysis of AAA's vaginal smear showed no profile of appellant, nevertheless, it is not conclusive considering that the specimen may have already been stained or contaminated, deterring a complete and good result for DNA profiling. 7
ACCORDINGLY, the findings and conclusions of law in the October 30, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07712 are AFFIRMED. Appellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of rape with homicide and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without the eligibility for parole and to pay the heirs of AAA * the amount of Php100,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php100,000.00 as moral damages, Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and Php162,740.36 as actual damages, plus legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* The true name of the victim has been replaced with fictitious initials in conformity with Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 (Subject: Protocols and Procedures in the Promulgation, Publication, and Posting on the Websites of Decisions, Final Resolutions, and Final Orders Using Fictitious Names/Personal Circumstances). The confidentiality of the identity of the victim is mandated by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act); R.A. No. 8505 (Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998); R.A. No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003); R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence against Women and Their Children Act of 2004); and R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006).
1.Rollo, pp. 2-18.
2. Rules of Court, Rule 133, Section 4.
3.Rollo, p. 13.
4. 390 Phil. 169 (2000).
5.Id. at 189.
6.People vs. Hipona, 627 Phil. 101, 109 (2010).
7.Rollo, p. 15.