Anda di halaman 1dari 2



Facts: The accused was seen by Rogelio Rayco with hs niece Lenlen Rayco walking
together towards Sitio Kota. On December 16,200 the body of Lenlen Rayco was on the
seashore of Sitio Kota. Rogelio Rayco proceeded to the immediately to the site and saw the
body lifeless, naked and bruised. The Appellant was charged of the crime of rape with
homicide defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended
by Republic Act No. 7659. The swelling of the labia majora and hymenal lacerations
positively indicate that the victim was raped. .The accused was arraigned and entered a not
guilty plea. The appellant argues that his confession, and admissions made therein, should
be deemed inadmissible in evidence, under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. He also
argues he was not apprised by his constitutional rights. He also argues that that the
evidence against him is insufficient to warrant his conviction of rape with homicide.

Does the extrajudicial confession executed by the appellant is admissible?
Was the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt with the crime of rape and homicide?
The decision of the lower court was affirmed with modification. The appellant found guilty
with the crime of statutory rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
He is also ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Lenlen Rayco, P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
1.) The appellant failed to present independent evidence that he was coerced for his
confession on the crime. The confession was strictly compiled under Art. III, Sec. 12, par. 1,
is deemed admissible in evidence against appellant. It follows that the admission of
culpability made therein is admissible. It is therefore not "fruit of the poisonous tree" since
the tree itself is not poisonous.
2.) With the Medical Legal Report and the testimony Rogelio Rayco shows that the
appellant guilt of rape passes the test of moral certainty and therefore must be sustained.

The record shows that the appellant does not admit in killing the victim. There was a lack of
evidence in slaying the victim, and there was no estimated time of death. The appellant only
admitted to the boxing of the victim when she shouted and the cause of death of Lenlen
was cardio-respiratory attack due to asphyxiation and physical injuries. There was no
physical, scientific or DNA evidence that will pinpoint to the appellant as the Person who
killed the victim and also homicide would have determined as committed by the appelant if
there are fingerprints available. Thus, appellant cannot be convicted of rape with homicide
considering the insufficiency of evidence which thereby created a reasonable doubt as to
his guilt for the said special complex crime. The appellant should be instead liable only with
the crime of statutory rape because the victim was 11 years old. The trial court should have
awarded damages to the heirs of the victim.