EN BANC
[G.R. No. 130203-04. February 15, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ABUNDIO MANGILA y PAREŅO, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
Death is the most severe penalty for crime.
It is imposed in incestuous rape, regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstance. In the case at bar, sixteen (16) year old MADRILYN D.
MANGILA accused her father, ABUNDIO MANGILA y PAREŅO, of two (2) counts of
RAPE, allegedly committed as follows:
Criminal Case No.
2356-M[1]"That on or about the 7th day of June, 1995, in
the Municipality of Teresa, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd
designs and by means of force and intimidation, did then and (t)here willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with a sixteen (16) year old
girl, Madrilyn D. Mangila, who is his own daughter against the latter's will
and consent.
"CONTRARY TO
LAW."
Criminal Case No.
2355-M[2]
"That on or
about the 9th day of June, 1995, in the Municipality of Teresa, Province
of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, with lewd designs and by means of force and intimidation,
did then and (t)here willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
intercourse with a sixteen (16) year old girl, Madrilyn D. Mangila, who is his
own daughter against the latter's will and consent.
"CONTRARY TO
LAW."
Upon his arraignment, accused, assisted by
counsel de officio, Atty. Marcosa U. dela Cuesta, admitted his
guilt, but put up the alternative circumstance of intoxication when he
committed the rape. The trial court entered a plea of 'not guilty' for
the accused and conducted a full-blown trial.[3]
The prosecution evidence consists of the
testimonies of the victim, Madrilyn Mangila, and her mother, Nenita
Mangila.
Accused and Nenita Mangila were married in
1977. Their union was blessed with five children and 16-year old Madrilyn is
their second child. Accused was a caretaker of two (2) houses in Villa Tonang
in Teresa, Rizal, near their residence.
At about 1:00 p.m. of June 7, 1995, accused
took Madrilyn to Villa Tonang to help him clean one of the houses he was
overseeing. While in the kitchen of the house, accused began to take off Madrilyn's
shorts. She begged her father to stop. Instead, he poked a knife at her neck
and ravished her. During the hour-long sexual assault, Madrilyn felt
excruciating pain. Helpless, she could only sit on the floor and cry as the
accused threatened to kill her should she reveal her defloration.[4] Fear of reprisal sealed her lips.
Madrilyn's nightmare was not about to stop.
Two (2) days later, accused told Nenita that he and Madrilyn would again clean
the house in Villa Tonang. Madrilyn hesitated to go. However, when accused got
mad, she was forced to go with him. As she was cleaning the house, accused
grabbed her and forced her into a room. He pushed her near the bed and took off
her skirt. She begged him to stop but again her pleas were drowned by his bestial
desires. He poked a knife at her neck and sexually abused her. Madrilyn could
only cry. They returned to their house at about 6:00 p.m.[5]
In the morning of June 16, 1995, on her way
to school, accused told Madrilyn that he would fetch her after class. Wary of
what accused would again do to her, Madrilyn spent the night with a friend. Her
elder sister, Lourdes, and her aunt searched for her. When they found her, she
confided to them that accused has violated her. Furious, Lourdes informed their
mother of the rape.[6]
Nenita Mangila recounted that in June 1995, a certain Badong
delivered to her a letter from Madrilyn informing her that accused had defiled
her. Before Nenita could finish reading the letter, the accused came and
snatched it from her. They had a heated argument, with the accused denying
Madrilyn's accusations. Later that evening, Madrilyn was found hiding in a
friend's house. Madrilyn confirmed to Nenita the veracity of what she had
written in her letter. Nenita confronted the accused who admitted his
transgression. The accused knelt before Nenita in supplication and begged for
her forgiveness. Nenita was unmoved.[7] She accompanied Madrilyn to the police station.
Madrilyn executed an affidavit[8] on June 24, 1995 narrating the rape incidents. She
also underwent a medical examination in Camp Crame. The medical report showed
that Madrilyn was in a non-virginal state.
The defense presented the accused as sole
witness.
During the direct-examination, the accused
admitted committing the rape on June 7, 1995, but alleged that he had three (3)
shots of gin shortly before he abused the victim. He imagined Madrilyn to be
his wife and forced her to have sex with him. Madrilyn begged him to stop but
he ignored her.[9]
In the afternoon of June 9, 1995, accused
again imbibed gin while Madrilyn was cleaning the house in Villa Tonang. Again,
he ravished her but denied using a knife in the process.[10] Accused declared he took gin to forget his marital
problems, particularly his wife's lack of affection for him. His wife refused
to make love with him and ignored him whenever he would try to talk to her. She
would likewise burn his clothes when they had an argument.[11]
On cross-examination, accused explained
that he admitted his guilt because he was sorry for what he did and was
hoping that his admission would mitigate his penalty, thus:[12]
"FISCAL
RAMIREZ:
Mr. Mangila,
during the rape incident of June 7, 1995, while you were raping your child, she
was continuously pleading with you to stop, is that correct?
"A Yes, sir.
"Q And she
started pleading while you were still removing her shorts, is that correct?
"A Yes, sir.
"Q And when
you were about to insert your organ she continued her pleading?
"A Yes, sir.
"Q But you
ignored her pleadings?
"A Yes, sir.
"Q On June 9,
1995 incident, your daughter likewise plead (sic) for you not to abuse her
again, is that correct?
"A Yes, sir.
"Q And you
likewise ignored her plea?
"A Yes, sir.
"Q Now,
during the arraignment, you manifested to this Honorable Court that you are
already admitting the crimes, is that correct?
"A Yes, sir.
"Q And you
voluntarily admitted your guilt because you were then sorry for what you did?
"A Yes,
sir.
"Q And you
were hoping that your admission of guilt will somehow be considered in your favor?
"A Yes, sir.
"xxx
xxx xxx."
After trial, the accused was sentenced to
suffer the supreme penalty of death on both counts of rape. He was further
ordered to pay the victim the total amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity.[13]
The case is now before us on automatic
review.
In his appeal, accused impugns his
conviction on the ground that the trial court failed to conduct a searching
inquiry on the voluntariness and full comprehension of his plea, in violation
of Section 33, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
We affirm the appealed decision with
modification.
Section 3, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure provides:
"Section 3. Pleas
of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence - When the
accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the
precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his
behalf." (emphasis supplied)
To breathe life into this rule, we made it
mandatory for trial courts to do the following:[14]
(1) conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of the accused's plea;
(2) require the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his
culpability; and
(3) inquire
whether or not the accused wishes to present evidence on his behalf and allow
him to do so if he so desires.
We explained the rationale of the rule in People
vs. Albert,[15] thus:
"The
rationale behind the rule is that courts must proceed with more care where the
possible punishment is in its severest form--death--for the reason that the
execution of such a sentence is irrevocable and experience has shown that
innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty. The primordial purpose then
is to avoid improvident pleas of guilt on the part of an accused when grave
crimes are involved since he might be admitting his guilt before the court and
thus forfeit his life and liberty without having fully understood the meaning,
significance and consequences of his plea. Moreover, the requirement of taking
further evidence would aid the Supreme Court on appellate review in determining
the propriety or impropriety of the plea." (emphasis supplied)
The records show that the trial court failed
to comply to the letter with these guidelines. It did not conduct a searching
inquiry on whether accused understood the legal consequences of his
admission of guilt. It is not shown that accused was informed of the effect of
the concurrence of the special qualifying circumstance of minority of the
victim and his parental relationship to her. After the accused
testified on how he raped his daughter, he was not apprised that his crime is
punishable by death.[16] The trial
court also failed to explain to him that as the penalty of death is
indivisible, it shall be imposed despite any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance attending its commission.[17] Apparently, the trial court entertained the
erroneous notion that the alleged intoxication of accused would lessen his
liability.
These lapses, however, will not exculpate
the accused. In People v. Derilo,[18] we held:
"As a rule,
this Court has set aside convictions based on pleas of guilty in capital
offenses because of improvidence thereof and when such plea is the sole basis
of the condemnatory judgment. However, where the trial court receives
evidence to determine precisely whether or not the accused erred in admitting
his guilt, the manner in which the plea of guilty is made (improvidently or
not) loses legal significance, for the simple reason that the conviction is
based on the evidence proving the commission by the accused of the offense
charged." (emphasis supplied)
We find that, independent of the accused's
admission of the crime in the case at bar, the prosecution has proved his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt by other evidence. The testimonies of the victim and
her mother would suffice to convict the accused. The victim unflinchingly
narrated the unfortunate fate she suffered in the hands of accused, thus:[19]
"FISCAL:
"Q: When you
and your father reached Villa Tonang, who were there at the house at that time?
"A: None,
sir.
"Q: What
happened when you and your father arrived at Villa Tonang?
"A: We went
to the kitchen, sir.
"Q: What
happened while you and your father are (sic) in the kitchen?
"A: He
undressed me, sir.
"x
x x x x x x x x
"Q: What did
you do when your father undressed you?
"A: I was
crying, sir.
"Q: What were
you wearing at that time?
"A: Short and
T-shirt, sir.
"Q: You
mentioned that your father tried to undress you. What part of your clothes did
he try to remove first?
"A: My short,
sir.
"Q: Was he
able to actually remove your short?
"A: Yes, sir.
"x
x x x x x x x x
"Q: After
removing your short, was there anything left on the lower portion of
your body?
"A: None,
sir.
"Q: After he
was able to remove your short, what did you do?
"A: He asked
me to turn my back, sir.
"Q: Were you
not complaining or saying anything when your father was removing your short?
"A: I was
pleading to him, sir.
"Q: Tell us
the exact words you used when you were pleading to your father?
"A: I said, 'tama
na po.'
"Q: How about
your father. What was his answer, if any, to your plea to him?
"A: None,
sir.
"Q: You said
that your father asked you to turn your back. Did you comply to (sic) his
order?
"A: No, sir.
He was the one who turned my back.
"Q: Was your
father holding anything at his hand at that time?
"A: Yes, sir.
"Q: What was
he holding?
"A: Knife,
sir.
"Q: What was
he doing with the knife at that time?
"A: He was
poking the knife at my neck, sir.
"Q: After
your father turned your back to him, what else did he do?
"A: Kinantot
po niya ako, sir.
"x
x x x x x x x x
"Q: What did
you feel when your father inserted his penis in your vagina?
"A: It hurts,
sir."
With respect to the rape committed on June
9, 1995, Madrilyn testified as follows:[20]
"Q: When was
the second time if any that your father committed the same sexual intercourse
with you?
"A: 9th of
June, 1995, sir.
"x
x x x x x x x x
"Q: What time
did you arrive at Villa Tonang on June 9,1995?
"A: 5:00
o'clock, sir.
"Q: After you
and your father arrived at Villa Tonang, what did he do with you?
"A: He first
clean(ed) (sic) and then he pulled me, sir.
"Q: Where did
he bring you?
"A: In the
room, sir.
"Q: After
bringing you in the room, what did he do with you?
"A: He pushed
me, sir.
"Q: Where did
you land?
"A: Near the
bed, sir.
"Q: After
that, what did he do?
"A: He again
had sexual intercourse with me, sir."
"x
x x x x x x x x
"Q: Was your
father holding any object at that time?
"A: Yes, sir.
"Q: What was
that?
"A: Knife
also, sir.
"x
x x x x x x x x
"Q: What were
you telling your father while he was having sexual intercourse with you?
"A: I was
begging him to stop, sir."
"Q: How long
did your father had (sic) sexual intercourse with you on June 9,1995?
"A: Only for
a short period of time, sir.
"Q: After
your father finished (sic) with you; what did you do?
"A: I sat
down, sir.
"Q: What else
did you do after that?
"A: I cried,
sir."
The trial court found her testimony worthy
of belief. We find no reason to reverse this finding. It correctly noted that
the victim, a 16-year old lass, would not narrate her scandalous ordeal and
subject herself to the rigors of a public trial, expose herself to ridicule and
submit herself to physical examination if her accusation is untrue. Generally,
no young woman would accuse her own father of so grave a crime as rape unless
she truly has been aggrieved.[21] Moreover, Madrilyn's demeanor during the trial, as
observed by the trial court, bolsters her credibility, thus:[22]
"x x x
Madrilyn Mangila testified in a straightforward manner, oftentimes staring
at her father, the accused in this case, menacingly as if she is still
harboring her anger notwithstanding the lapse of time the alleged rape was
committed upon her by the father. x x x "
Thus, the evidence on record clearly shows
that the accused is guilty of having carnal knowledge with his own daughter,
then below eighteen (18) years of age, hence, a minor. His crime is punishable
by death.
As to the civil indemnification awarded to
the victim, the trial court erred in ordering the accused to pay P50,000.00 for
each count of rape, or a total of P100,000.00. We have ruled that if rape is
committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the
death penalty is authorized by the applicable amendatory law,[23] the indemnity for the victim shall be in the
increased amount of not less than P75,000.00.[24]
Civil indemnity is different from the award
of moral damages.[25] Undoubtedly, rape victims suffer mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation and other emotional injuries that entitle them to moral
damages,[26] more so if, as in this case, the offender is the
father. Thus, in People vs. Prades, this Court also
resolved to grant moral damages to rape victims, in such amount as the Court
deems just, without the necessity for pleading or proof of the basis
thereof.[27] The conventional requirement of allegata et
probata in civil procedure is dispensed with in criminal
prosecutions for rape as no appropriate pleadings are filed wherein such
allegations can be made. In rape cases, proof of mental and physical suffering
provided under Article 2217 of the Civil Code can be dispensed with because it
is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily
results from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se the award of
moral damages.[28] Thus, in the case at bar, the accused is liable to
the victim for the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as
moral damages for each count of rape.
In sum, we find no reason to overturn
accused's conviction as his guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
His conviction and the penalty imposed on him, subject to the modification
discussed above, must be affirmed.
Four (4) members of this Court maintain
their position that Republic Act No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it
prescribes the death penalty. Nonetheless, they submit to the ruling of the
majority of the Court, i.e., that the law is constitutional and the
death penalty should be imposed in the case at bar.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Morong,
Rizal (Branch 79), in Criminal Case Nos. 2355-M and 2356-M, imposing the death
penalty on accused ABUNDIO MANGILA y PAREŅO is AFFIRMED, with the
modification that the accused is ordered to pay the victim the sum of P150,000.00
as civil indemnity and P100,000.00 as moral damages for the two (2) counts of
rape.
Let the records of this case be forwarded to
the Office of the President upon finality of this decision for possible
exercise of executive clemency in accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act
No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo,
Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De
Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 2.
[2] Ibid., p. 1.
[3] Original Records of Criminal Case No. 2355-M, p. 20.
[4] TSN, March 13, 1996, pp. 3-7.
[5] Ibid., pp. 7-10.
[6] TSN, March 13, 1996, pp. 10-11.
[7] TSN, June 26, 1996, pp. 2-5.
[8] Exhibit "A", Original Records, p. 5.
[9] TSN, November 27, 1996, pp. 4-6.
[10] Ibid., pp. 6-8.
[11] Ibid., pp. 4-5.
[12] Ibid., pp. 8-9.
[13] Decision, dated February 21, 1997, penned by Judge Alejandro A. Marquez, Regional Trial Court of Morong, Rizal, Branch 79; Rollo, pp. 45-49.
[14] People vs. Dayot, 187 SCRA 637 (1990); People vs. Camay, 152 SCRA 401 (1987).
[15] Penned by Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado (now retired); 251 SCRA 136, 145-146 (1995).
[16] Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, provides that the penalty of death shall be imposed when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim.
[17] Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
[18] 271 SCRA 633 (1997).
[19] TSN, March 13, 1996, pp. 4-10.
[20] TSN, March 13, 1996, pp. 4-10.
[21] People vs. Escala, 292 SCRA 48 (1998).
[22] Decision, dated February 21, 1997, p. 4.
[23] Article 335 as amended by R.A. 7659
and RA 8353 provides: "x x x The death penalty shall also be imposed if
the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:
"1. When the victim is
under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;
"2. When the victim is
under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement
or penal institution;
"3. When the rape is
committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other
relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity;
"4. When the victim is
a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is
personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the
commission of the crime;
"5. When the victim is
a child below seven (7) years old;
"6. When the offender
knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease
and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim;
"7. When committed by
any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units
thereof of the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or
penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to
facilitate the commission of the crime.
"8. When by reason or on
the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation
or disability;
"9. When the offender
knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of
the crime; and
"10. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime."
[24] People vs. Victor, 292 SCRA 186 (1998); People vs. Prades, 293 SCRA 411 (1998); People vs. Pagupat, 293 SCRA 513 (1998).
[25] People vs. Silvano, G.R. No. 127356, June 29,1999.
[26] Article 2217 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
[27] 293 SCRA 411 (1998).
[28] People vs. Perez, G.R. No. 122764, September 24, 1998.