FAJILA

Alcid Flores testified that at about 4:15 p.m. on May 4, 1999, he saw
Baron in a white sleeveless shirt and short pants driving
[ G.R. No. 213215, January 11, 2016 ]
his trisikadwith AAA in the passenger seat. They had passed by the
seawall. Later in the day, he joined the search for AAA. [6]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
Arsenio Valguna testified that at about 4:30 p.m. on May 4, 1999, he
VS. was outside the gate of the house of his employer Felix Gascon
(Gascon), where they were having a conversation. He saw
a trisikad parked some three (3) arms' length away with no one in it.
RUBEN BARON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. About 15 minutes later, he saw a person clad in a white sleeveless
shirt and short pants (whom he later identified in open court as
DECISION Baron) coming from the river. He appeared nervous and hurried
away, driving the same trisikad that was earlier parked. At about
LEONEN, J.: 8:00 p.m., he heard persons crying near the river. The following day,
he revealed to Gascon what he saw the previous day. Upon Gascon's
The saddest thing about court decisions is that they cannot prevent prodding, he reported the matter to the police. Subsequently, he
moral depravity when it has already happened. We can only do identified Baron in a police line-up as the person he saw on May 4,
justice by imposing the proper penalty upon the finding of guilt 1999.[7]
beyond reasonable doubt.
Barangay Captain Segundina Morales testified that sometime
We affirm with modification the conviction of accused-appellant between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. of May 4, 1999, Romeo Inocencio and
Ruben Baron for the crime of rape with homicide. Due to the sheer Baron sought her permission to enter the seawall as AAA, who
depravity of the offense, in that accused-appellant Ruben Baron earlier went there, was missing. There, Inocencio and Baron pointed
raped a seven-year-old child and drowned her to death, we increase to AAA's lifeless body. Alcid Flores, who was also present, told him
the award of damages to P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, that Baron ought to be imprisoned as it was he whom he saw
P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary accompanying AAA earlier in the day.[8]
damages.
Ma. Concepcion Tacorda, a 12-year-old acquaintance of AAA,
In an Information, accused-appellant Ruben Baron (Baron) was testified that at about 4:30 p.m. on May 4, 1999, AAA invited her to
charged with the rape and killing of a seven-year-old girl identified as play at the seawall. She refused, and AAA proceeded to the seawall
AAA: herself. She saw a medium-built man, clad in a white sleeveless shirt
and short pants, following AAA. [9]

That on the 4th day of May, 1999 in the City of Iloilo, Philippines and Gennivive Belarma, AAA's seven-year-old cousin, narrated that on
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, May 4, 1999, she and AAA were playing with another girl, Candy,
through force, threat and intimidation did then and there wilfully, when AAA was picked up by Baron. She knew Baron as he was the
unlawfully and criminally have carnal knowledge with AAA against husband of her mother's younger sister. AAA never returned to play
her will and having succeeded in raping the seven (7) years (sic) old with them. That evening, her mother told her that AAA had died. [10]
girl kill the latter by drowning her at the river.
Dr. Tito Doromal, Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1] Police, Iloilo City Police Office, prepared AAA's autopsy report and
death certificate. He testified on his medico-legal findings. On AAA's
Eight (8) witnesses testified for the prosecution: AAA's mother, drowning, he noted that the presence of water in her lungs showed
Alcid Flores, Arsenio Valguna, Barangay Captain Segundina Morales, that she was still alive when she was submerged. [11]
Ma. Concepcion Tacorda,[2] Gennivive Belarma, Dr. Tito D. Doromal,
and rebuttal witness Romeo Inocencio. [3] Romeo Inocencio, the common-law partner of AAA's mother, was
presented as a rebuttal witness after Baron pointed to him as the
AAA's mother testified that at about 12:30 p.m. on May 4, 1999, AAA culprit. He testified that at about 2:00 p.m. on May 4, 1999, he was
sought her permission to play at the day care center, which was a playing tong-its at the day care center near their house when Baron
short distance from their house. At about 1:30 p.m., Baron arrived and AAA arrived, all wet. Baron then asked AAA's mother if he could
with AAA, both of them wet from head to toe. They informed her bring AAA along for a joy ride, to which she acceded. He added that
that they bathed at the seawall. They then asked her permission to from 3:00 to 5:30 p.m., he was at the parking area beside the Molo
go for a "joy-ride"[4] in Baron's trisikad. They returned at about 4:00 Supermarket.[12]
p.m. At about 5:30 p.m., she noticed that her daughter was missing.
She then went to the Molo Supermarket to look for her common- Three (3) witnesses testified for the defense: Baron, Trinidad
law partner so that he may assist her. After a certain Perla Tacorda Palacios, and Flordeliza Baron, Baron's wife.
informed them that AAA might have returned to the seawall, AAA's
mother sought Baron's assistance in searching for AAA. Baron Baron resorted to a denial. He testified that at about 2:00 p.m. on
initially refused, but with her prodding, reluctantly relented. With May 4, 1999, AAA joined him for a joy ride aboard his trisikad. At
the permission of the landowner Felix Gascon and Barangay Captain about 2:30 p.m., he turned over AAA to her mother in the presence
Segundina Morales, they entered the seawall, where they found the of Gingging Tacorda, Langging Tacorda, Soledad Palacios, and
lifeless body of AAA.[5] Romeo Inocencio. At about 6:30 p.m., AAA's mother approached

1
him in the vicinity of Molo Supermarket, asking about AAA's
whereabouts. He reminded her that he had returned AAA to her. SO ORDERED.[21]
Romeo Inocencio asked him to go to the seawall, where they found
AAA's lifeless body. He claimed to have learned of being implicated On May 5, 2014, Baron filed before the Court of Appeals his Notice of
in AAA's rape and killing only after he was apprehended. [13] Appeal.[22] The Court of Appeals then forwarded its records to this
court.
Trinidad Palacios testified that at about 4:30 p.m. on May 4, 1999,
she rode the trisikad driven by Baron from the Molo Supermarket to In the Resolution[23] dated September 8, 2014, this court noted the
their house. She added that Baron stayed at the day care center for records forwarded by the Court of Appeals and informed the parties
about 45 minutes, eating arroz caldo. At about 6:00 p.m., she that they may file their supplemental briefs.
returned to the Molo Supermarket and she saw
Baron's trisikad parked across the road. Baron then met AAA's On January 22, 2015, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a
mother, who asked about AAA's whereabouts. He reminded her Gestation[24] on behalf of the People of the Philippines informing the
that he had turned over AAA to her. He then joined in the search for court that it will no longer file a supplemental brief.
AAA.[14]
On February 20, 2015, Baron filed a Manifestation [25] noting that he
Flordeliza Baron testified on the same circumstances of Baron's will no longer file a supplemental brief and that he is, instead,
having sought permission from AAA's mother for AAA to go to the adopting the Appellant's Brief he filed before the Court of Appeals.
seawall, and, much later, to join him on a joy ride, as well as of the
search for AAA. On cross-examination, she said that between 5:00 For resolution is the sole issue of whether accused-appellant Ruben
and 6:00 p.m., she never saw Baron. [15] Baron's guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

In its Decision[16] dated May 10, 2004, the Regional Trial Court, Accused-appellant is of the position that the prosecution has not
Branch 23, Iloilo City found Baron guilty beyond reasonable doubt of established his involvement with certainty. He bewails the
rape with homicide and sentenced him to death. The dispositive prosecution's reliance on supposedly tenuous circumstantial
portion of this Decision reads: evidence.

The requirements for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction

WHEREFORE, in light of the facts obtaining and the jurisprudence are settled. Rule 133, Section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence
aforecited, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Ruben provides:
Baron GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE WITH
HOMICIDE hereby sentencing the said accused to the supreme
penalty of DEATH via lethal injection, further condemning the said Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. —
accused to indemnify the heirs of the victim civil indemnity of Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
PI00,000.00, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00,
temperate damages in the amount of P25,000.00 and the actual (a) There is more than one circumstances;
damages of P8,000.00.[17]
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
Let the entire records of this case be elevated to the Honorable
Supreme Court, Manila for automatic review. (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[26]
SO ORDERED. [18]

Moreover, "factual findings of the trial court and its evaluation of

Pursuant to this court's Decision in People v. Mateo,[19] which settled the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are entitled to
on the Court of Appeals as an intermediate level of appeal in great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, unless the trial
criminal cases imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua or higher, court is shown to have overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied
the case was referred for review to the Court of Appeals. any fact or circumstance of weight and substance." [27]

In its Decision[20] dated April 23, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed A careful examination of the records shows that there is nothing
with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court. The that warrants a reversal of the Decisions of the Regional Trial Court
dispositive portion of this Decision reads: and of the Court of Appeals.

As pointed out by the Court of Appeals, a multiplicity of

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the RTC, circumstances, which were attested to by credible witnesses and
Branch 23, Cebu City in Criminal Case No. 00-51525 dated May 10, duly established from the evidence, points to no other conclusion
2004 is hereby AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant than that accused-appellant was responsible for the rape and killing
Ruben Baron is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the of the seven-year-old child, AAA:
special complex crime of rape with homicide and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. Seven-year-old Gennivive Belarma was playing with AAA when
Accused-appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of AAA the amounts of (1)
Baron picked up AAA and brought her to the river/seawall.
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, Alcid Flores saw accused-appellant clad in a white sleeveless shirt
P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, P25,000.00 as temperate (2) and short pants with AAA walking towards the seawall at about
damages and P8,000.00 as actual damages. 4:15 p.m. on May 4, 1999.
(3) Twelve-year-old Ma. Concepcion Tacorda saw a man clad in a

2
 white sleeveless shirt and short pants right behind AAA as she 2. P100,000.00 as moral damages which the victim is
was going towards the seawall. Her description of what the man assumed to have suffered and thus needs no proof; and
was wearing matched Flores' and Valguna's description of what
Baron was wearing. 3. P100,000.00 as exemplary damages to set an example for
Arsenio Valguna saw accused-appellant, clad in a white the public good.
(4) sleeveless shirt and short pants, nervously and hurriedly leaving
the seawall and, thereafter, boarding his trisikad.
These amounts shall be the minimum indemnity and damages where
Accused-appellant's conduct when he was asked by AAA's
death is the penalty warranted by the facts but is not imposable under
mother to join the search, in which he expressed much
(5) present law.[31] (Emphasis supplied)
reluctance despite his having been the last known companion of
AAA.
Thus, for the sheer heinousness and depravity of accused-
AAA's body, which bore injuries at the vaginal area, was
appellant's acts of raping and drowning a seven-year-old girl to
discovered at the seawall. The seawall is the same place several
death and in accordance with People v. Gambao, we exercise our
witnesses identified as where AAA and accused- appellant went
(6) judicial prerogative and increase the award of damages to
in the afternoon of May 4, 1999. This is also the same from where
PI00,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and
accused-appellant nervously and hurriedly left in the same
P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
afternoon.
The lacerations sustained by AAA on her vagina, which, per Dr.
No amount of remorse can change the fact that a seven-year-old girl
(7) Doromal, could very well have been caused by the insertion of an
is dead. There is no penalty commensurate with the indignity and
erect penis.
the suffering that this child endured in the fading moments of her
The medico-legal findings pointing to asphyxiation by drowning
brief life. Nor is there any pecuniary equivalent to the loss of
(8) as the cause of AAA's death, along with other injuries on her
potential and the lifelong grief of her family.
thorax, abdomen, and extremities.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC
No. 00186 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-
Testimonies regarding these details were given by disinterested
appellant Ruben Baron is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
witnesses whom Baron himself had not managed to discredit for
the special complex crime of rape with homicide and sentenced to
having any ill-motive against him. Two (2) of the prosecution
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
witnesses are even children of tender age.
Accused-appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of AAA the amounts of
P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages,
As against these details and testimonies, all that accused-appellant
P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P8,000.00 as actual
had offered in defense were denial and alibi—defenses that
damages.
jurisprudence has long considered weak and unreliable. It is hardly a
relief to accused-appellant that two (2) witnesses have testified in
Furthermore, all monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at
his defense. Even their testimonies failed to definitively establish
the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of the finality of this
that accused-appellant neither raped nor killed AAA. Defense
judgment until fully paid.
witness Flordeliza Baron even admitted that during the critical time
between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. of May 4, 1999, when the rape and
SO ORDERED.
killing most likely took place, she was never really aware of accused-
appellant's whereabouts.[28]

There is, thus, no error in the Regional Trial Court's and the Court of
Appeals' conclusion that accused-appellant Ruben Baron is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide of the
seven-year-old child, AAA. His conviction must be affirmed.

However, we do not merely affirm his conviction as it stands.

It was error for the Regional Trial Court to award temperate

damages alongside actual damages. Thus, we delete the award of
temperate damages.

In People v. Gambao,[29] we took occasion to require an increase in

the minimum award of damages where the death penalty would
have been imposed, were it not for a law [30] preventing it:

We take this opportunity to increase the amounts of indemnity and

damages, where, as in this case, the penalty for the crime
committed is death which, however, cannot be imposed because of
the provisions of R.A. No. 9346:

1. P100,000.00 as civil indemnity;