You are on page 1of 3

People vs Vallejo (May 9, 2002) Rape-slaying of a 9-year old child, Daisy Diolola, in Rosario, Cavite on July 10, 1999.

Arraignment not guilty. July 9, 1999, mother of victim sent her to sister of accused to help her ith her lessons. !hey ere loo"ing for a #oo" hich accused could copy to came a dra ing or a poster that Daisy ould su#mit to her teacher. Aimee as not feeling ell #ecause of her menstrual period. Dead #ody of daughter tied to the root of an aroma tree #y the river after the compuerta found #y $reddie %uinto. Accused as fetched #y the #arangay officials and the mother pointed at accused as the pro#a#le suspect. Jessiemin &ataverde'sa Daisy playing ith the other children outside her house. Daisy even atched !( in her house. Jessmien testified that she sa accused #uying cigarettes at the store across her house. )is short as et and his shirt as also et #ut removed from #ody. )is face and hair ere not et. *+,1 Cuevas testified that upon receipt of report they responded to the call. -hen they arrived the #ody as already in the #arangay hall. !hey too" pictures. Charito +aras-.epes and Jessiemin sa that policemen go to accused/s house and recovered the #as"et#all shirt ith #loddstains. &ayor A#utan and Atty 0eyva testified that the accused told them the truth. Atty 0eyva 1ust corro#orated the statement of the &ayor. -hen accused as #rought #efore 2n3uest +rosecutor 2toc, accused had a hand ritten confession and admitted not only the "illing #ut also the rape. Atty. A#una, la yer from +A,, testified that 2toc and accused came to her and 2toc as"ed her to assist accused. Accused said that he voluntarily e4ecuted the document #ecause he as #othered #y his conscience. Aida &agsipoc, $orensic Chemist of 562- D5A testing n the specimens collected #y Dr. (ertido, 562 &edico-0egal ,fficer, and testified that the vaginal s a#s contained the D5A profiles of the accused and the victim. Defense7 )e as atching television. )e dre the assignment and gave to the victim/s aunt and ent home and didn/t go out of the house. !hen after the mother of Daisy loo"ed for her at his place, he ent to the pilapil and tal"ed to some friends and then ent home at 8 pm. )e admitted only #ecause he as maltreated #y the police. R!C7 Rape damanges. )ence appeal. Issues: a. 2nsufficiency and ea"ness of the circumstantial evidence. #. )earsay are the oral confessions. c. -ritten e4tra1udicial confession as o#tained through force. Held: Convicted ith Rape ith )omicide. ith )omicide ith death. 2ndemnify 100,000 as civil indemnity and 90,000 for moral

An accused can #e convicted even if no eye itness is availa#le, provided sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented #y the prosecution to prove #eyond reasona#le dou#t that the accused committed the crime.:1 2n rape ith homicide, the evidence against an accused is more often than not circumstantial. !his is #ecause the nature of the crime, here only the victim and the rapist ould have #een present at the time of its commission, ma"es the prosecution of the offense particularly difficult since the victim could no longer testify against the perpetrator. Resort to circumstantial evidence is inevita#le and to demand direct evidence proving the modality of the offense and the identity of the perpetrator is unreasona#le. :: ;nder Rule 1<<, section = of the Revised Rules on >vidence, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if7 ?@aA there is more than one circumstanceB ?@#A the facts from hich the inferences are derived are provenB and ?@cA the com#ination of all circumstances is such as to produce conviction #eyond reasona#le dou#t. 2ndeed, that the accused-appellant voluntarily #rought out the clothes sought #y the police #ecomes more convincing hen considered together ith his confessions. A consented arrantless search is an e4ception to the proscription in *ection : of Article 222 of the Constitution. As e have held, the consent of the o ner of the house to the search effectively removes any #adge of illegality.

D5A is an organic su#stance found in a personCs cells hich contains his or her genetic code. >4cept for identical t ins, each personCs D5A profile is distinct and uni3ue. -hen a crime is committed, material is collected from the scene of the crime or from the victimCs #ody for the suspectCs D5A. !his is the evidence sample. !he evidence sample is then matched ith the reference sample ta"en from the suspect and the victim.<0 !he purpose of D5A testing is to ascertain hether an association e4ists #et een the evidence sample and the reference sample.<1 !he samples collected are su#1ected to various chemical processes to esta#lish their profile. 2n assessing the pro#ative value of D5A evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among others things, the follo ing data7 ho the samples ere collected, ho they ere handled, the possi#ility of contamination of the samples, the procedure follo ed in analyDing the samples, hether the proper standards and procedures ere follo ed in conducting the tests, and the 3ualification of the analyst ho conducted the tests. 2n conclusion, e hold that the totality of the evidence points to no other conclusion than that accusedappellant is guilty of the crime charged. >vidence is eighed not counted. -hen facts or circumstances hich are proved are not only consistent ith the guilt of the accused #ut also inconsistent ith his innocence, such evidence, in its eight and pro#ative force, may surpass direct evidence in its effect upon the court.<

!he claim is untena#le. *ection 1: of Art. 222 of the Constitution provides in pertinent parts7 ?@1A Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to #e informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, prefera#ly of his o n choice. 2f the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must #e provided ith one. !hese rights cannot #e aived e4cept in riting and in the presence of counsel. ?@:A 5o torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means hich vitiate the free ill shall #e used against him. *ecret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohi#ited.

?@<A Any confession or admission o#tained in violation of this or *ection 1E shall #e inadmissi#le in evidence against him.? !here are t o "inds of involuntary or coerced confessions treated in this constitutional provision7 @1A coerced confessions, the product of third degree methods such as torture, force, violence, threat, and intimidation, hich are dealt ith in paragraph : of *ection 1:, and @:A uncounselled statements, given ithout the #enefit of &iranda arnings, hich are the su#1ect of paragraph 1 of the same section. !o #e an effective counsel, a la yer need not challenge all the 3uestions #eing propounded to his client. !he presence of a la yer is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything hich might incriminate him #ut, rather, it as adopted in our Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as ould lead the accused to admit something false. 2ndeed, counsel should not prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. n all of them, the e4tra1udicial confessions ere held admissi#le in evidence, #eing the spontaneous, free, and voluntary admissions of the guilt of the accused. -e note further that the testimony of &ayor A#utan as never o#1ected to #y the defense.

And in +eople vs. Andan, it as e4plained7 ?!hus, it has #een held that the constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through 3uestioning #y the authorities, #ut given in an ordinary manner here#y appellant orally admitted having committed the crime. -hat the Constitution #ars is the compulsory disclosure of incriminating facts or confessions. !he rights under *ection 1: are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion #y the state as ould lead the accused to admit something false, not prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth.? !hird7 !he admissi#ility of the e4tra1udicial confessions of accused-appellant is also attac"ed on the ground that these ere e4tracted from him #y means of torture, #eatings, and threats to his life. !he #are assertions of maltreatment #y the police authorities in e4tracting confessions from the accused are not sufficient. !he standing rule is that ? here the defendants did not present evidence of compulsion, or duress nor violence on their personB At all events, even if accused-appellant as truthful and his assailed confessions are inadmissi#le, the circumstantial evidence, as already sho n, is sufficient to esta#lish his guilt #eyond all reasona#le dou#t. !he prosecution itnesses presented a mosaic of circumstances sho ing accused-appellantCs guilt. !heir testimonies rule out the possi#ility that the crime as the handi or" of some other evil mind. !hese itnesses have not #een sho n to have #een motivated #y ill ill against accused-appellant. -e have held time and again that ali#i cannot prosper if it is esta#lished mainly #y the accused and his relatives, and not #y credi#le persons. 9E 2t is ell settled that ali#i is the ea"est of all defenses as it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. $or this reason, this Court loo"s ith caution upon the defense of ali#i, especially hen, as in this case, it is corro#orated only #y relatives or friends of the accused.