G.R. No. 126817 ; December 27, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GUILBERT ARCILLAS y PEREZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On August 18, 1993, Isabel Lanipa went to her farm in Zamboanga City. Her nephew, appellant Guilbert Arcillas, was present. While Isabel was washing clothes at a creek, appellant struck her on the head with a piece of wood, rendering her unconscious. Upon regaining consciousness, she found herself bloodied and later reported the assault to her husband. Medical examination at the Zamboanga Regional Hospital revealed the presence of sperm cells in her vagina. Isabel and her husband testified they had not engaged in sexual intercourse prior to the incident, as she was menstruating. Appellant was charged with the special complex crime of rape with frustrated homicide.
During trial, appellant admitted hitting his aunt with the wood, claiming he was angered by gossip about his father which she confirmed. He did not admit to, but also did not deny, the act of rape. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of rape with frustrated homicide, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages. Appellant appealed, arguing the evidence for rape was insufficient.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant of rape with frustrated homicide based on circumstantial evidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court modified the conviction. It upheld the finding of rape but ruled that the crime committed was rape with homicide under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 , not rape with frustrated homicide. The Court clarified that the special complex crime under the law requires the homicide to be consummated. Since Isabel survived, the killing was only attempted, not frustrated. A frustrated stage is inapplicable to the resultant homicide in this complex crime; the law only contemplates the consummated stage for the killing.
The conviction for rape was sustained based on circumstantial evidence, which met the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence established that: (1) sperm cells were found in Isabel’s vagina shortly after the attack; (2) she and her husband had not had recent sexual intercourse; (3) appellant was the only person present with her; and (4) he had the motive and opportunity to commit the crime. His failure to deny the rape allegation, coupled with his admission of the violent assault, strengthened the inference of guilt. However, as the homicide was not consummated, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua for the rape, considering the use of a deadly weapon and the victim’s unconscious state. The Court affirmed the award of moral damages and actual expenses.