EN BANC
[G.R. No. 131814. March 15, 2000]
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO ARIZAPA, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
RODOLFO ARIZAPA was charged with incestuous
rape and found guilty by the trial court. He was sentenced to death. He is now
before us on automatic review.
The Information alleged that in the evening
of 4 June 1995, in Barangay Malatap, Labo, Camarines Norte, the accused Rodolfo
Arizapa by means of force and intimidation willfully and feloniously had carnal
knowledge of Rosita Encinas, his stepdaughter, a 12-year old minor, against her
will.[1]
On 8 October 1997 the trial court found the
accused Rodolfo Arizapa guilty of rape as defined under Art. 335 of the Revised
Penal Code in relation to Sec. 11 of RA 7659, and sentenced him to the supreme
penalty of death. The lower court also ordered him to pay his victim, Rosita
Encinas, P50,000.00 for moral damages and P30,000.00 for
exemplary damages.
These are the facts on which the judgment is
based: At about midnight of 4 June 1995, 12-year old Rosita Encinas was
sleeping with her younger brothers, aged three (3) and seven (7), and a sister,
aged four (4), in their house in Barangay Malatap, Labo, Camarines Norte, when
her stepfather, accused Rodolfo Arizapa, entered their room. Rosita’s mother at
that time was in Manila. Rosita woke up when the accused whom she called
"Papa Rudy" went to her side. He was in shirt and shorts but wearing
no underwear. He told Rosita to lie down and warned her not to shout. Then he
removed her shorts and panty. Rosita could not put up any resistance as the
accused held her thighs. He was stronger. He warned her again not to shout or
else something would happen to her and her siblings. When Rosita was already lying
down the accused stood up, undressed himself, went on top of her, separated her
thighs and inserted his penis into her vagina. Rosita felt pain but did not
bleed because according to her he had already raped her in the past. The next
day Rosita reported the incident to her Tiya Santa and Tiya Puring,
as well as to the barangay captain. She also sought the assistance of her
teacher. She was finally accompanied by her aunt to the police station where
she executed a sworn statement charging her stepfather with the crime of rape.
Dr. Marcelito Abas of the Camarines Norte
Provincial Hospital in Daet conducted a medical examination of Rosita and found
hematoma with slight swelling on her genitalia as well as hymenal lacerations
at the 1 o’clock, 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock positions.[2]
When the turn of the accused came to testify
alone in his defense on 4 June 1995 he readily admitted having raped his
stepdaughter Rosita Encinas on 4 June 1995 as charged, thus -
Q: Now this Rosita Encinas, filed a complaint
against you, that according to her you sexually abused her on the evening of
June 4, 1995 at Bgy. Malatap, Labo, Camarines Norte, what can you say about
this?
A: I admit it sir x x x x
Q: Alright, questions from the Court. Do you
know the consequence of your admission to that statement - that you abused this
Rosita Encinas on June 4, 1995 in the evening at Malatap, Labo, Camarines
Norte?
A: No, sir.
Q: Were you not advised by your lawyer Atty.
Dizon? (Witness takes time to answer)
A: If I admit, your Honor, the penalty is
death.
Q: That is tantamount to saying that he is
not guilty.
Atty. Dizon: Your Honor, it would seem that, that is my
advice to him because the question form the Court - is "Were you advised
by your counsel before you admitted that offense?"
Actually I
presented him for the purpose of denying the charges in the information. If he
admits it, that is (of) his own volition, Your Honor.
Pros. Escaro: Yes. In fact, this case was tried, He
was arraigned. He pleaded not guilty to the offense, that’s why, we have a
trial, your Honor. He had all the time to think of his complicity in the crime.
And now, he testifies that he admitted the offense charged against him x x x x
Court: Are you admitting the offense charged against
you of your own volition?
A: Yes, sir.
Atty. Dizon: We have no more witness other than the
accused. And with the admission of the accused of the complaint against him, I
think, I have no more to say and considering that we have no more witnesses
other than the accused himself, we will now rest our case, Your Honor.[3]
In his Brief, the accused contends that the
trial court gravely erred in convicting him of rape as it failed to conduct
before accepting his plea of guilt a searching inquiry into the voluntariness
of his plea and his full comprehension of the consequences thereof as mandated
by Sec. 3, Rule 116, of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, which 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.
The rationale behind the rule is that courts
must proceed with caution where the possible punishment is in its severest
form, i.e., 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 comprehended the meaning, significance and consequences of
his plea.
The record indeed discloses the failure of
the lower court to fully comply with the requirements of Sec. 3, Rule 116, of
the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. It did not make a searching inquiry on
whether the accused’s admission of guilt was voluntarily made and whether he
understood the legal implications of such admission. It must, however, be noted
that the improvident plea of guilt by the accused was made after the prosecution
had already rested its case, i.e., after all the evidence for the
prosecution had been presented. And the evidence, as scrutinized by the Court,
adequately and convincingly demonstrated the guilt of the accused beyond any
shadow of doubt.
The testimonies of complaining witness
Rosita Encinas and Dr. Marcelito Abas who examined her physically, as well as
the victim’s aunt Flora Sena[4] were more than enough to convict the accused. The
court a quo was correct when it declared the testimony of Rosita Encinas
truthful and credible, her narration of the sexual assault on her by the
accused being direct and straightforward. Thus –
Q: How did Rodolfo Arizapa, the accused in
this case sexually abuse you?
A: I was asleep at that time when Rodolfo
Arizapa came near me and he told me not to shout.
Q: So after the accused, your stepfather told
you not to shout what happened next?
A: He came near me, sir.
Q: What did he do when he came near you?
A: He undressed me, sir.
Q: What dress was removed from you by the
accused?
A: My short and panty.
Q: After the accused removed your short and
panty what more did he do to you?
A: He went on top of me sir. xxx. He
inserted his sex organ into my sex organ, sir x x x x
Q: At the time when the accused in this case
Rodolfo Arizapa was removing your dress, more particularly your shorts and your
panty did you not make any resistance?
A: I was not able to make any resistance,
sir because at that time he was holding my thighs and he told me not to shout.
Q: What more did the accused tell you if any
aside from telling you not to shout?
A: He told me sir that if I shout, something
will happen to us.
Q: At the time that the accused was on top of
you and separating your legs, did you not put any resistance to the immoral
advances being made to you by your stepfather?
A: I also resisted sir but I could not fight
him because he’s strong x x x x
Q: How did the accused able to penetrate his
penis into your sexual organ?
A: I was lying down, then he (Rodolfo
Arizapa) stood up, undressed himslef and went on top of me and separated my
thighs and inserted his penis into my sexual organ. (The witness cried while
narrating the sexual ordeal she suffered from the bestial lust of her
stepfather xxx)[5]
Since the trial court extensively received evidence
in determining the guilt of the accused, the manner in which the plea of guilt
was made, whether improvidently or not, loses its significance for the simple
reason that the conviction of the accused was based on the evidence proving his
commission of the offense charged and not on his admission in open court; his
conviction may only be set aside when the improvident plea of guilt was the
sole basis for the condemnatory judgment.[6]
Consequently, the accused is meted the
supreme penalty of death pursuant to Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by RA 7659 and RA 8353, which provides that the death penalty shall be
imposed upon the perpetrator if the crime of rape is committed with any of the
following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: x x x x 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.
As regards the liability of the accused for
damages, we observe that while the trial court correctly awarded P50,000.00
for moral damages and P30,000.00 for exemplary damages, it failed to
grant civil indemnity pursuant to Art. 345 of the Penal Code. If rape is committed
or effectively qualified by any of the aggravating circumstances which
authorizes the imposition of the death penalty under the applicable amendatory
law,[7] the indemnity for the victim should be in the
increased amount of P75,000.00. With regard to moral damages, this Court has
ruled that moral damages may be granted to rape victims in such amount as this
Court may deem just without the necessity of pleading or proof of the basis
thereof.[8] In rape cases 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.[9] Thus, in the case at bar, the accused is liable to
the victim for the amount of P75,000.00 for civil indemnity in addition to
P50,000.00 for moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Four (4) members of this Court maintain
their position that RA 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the
death penalty. Nonetheless they submit to the ruling of the majority of this
Court; i.e., that the law is constitutional and the death penalty should
be imposed in this case.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Daet,
Camarines Norte, in crim. Case No. 96-009 finding the accused RODOLFO ARIZAPA
GUILTY of INCESTUOUS RAPE and imposing on him the DEATH penalty is AFFIRMED
with the modification that in addition to the award of P50,000.00 for moral
damages and P30,000.00 for exemplary damages earlier granted by the court a
quo, the accused is further ordered to pay his victim Rosita Encinas the
amount of P75,000.00 for civil indemnity.
Let the records of this case, upon finality
of this Decision, be forwarded to His Excellency, the President, for the
possible exercise of his pardoning power. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,(Chairman), Bellosillo,
Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and
De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Pardo, J., on leave.
[1] Records, p. 4.
[2] TSN, 14 January 1997, pp. 43-47.
[3] TSN, 16 September 1997, pp. 3-5.
[4] Flora Sena is the sister of Rosita’s mother. She stated that Rosita was born on 30 November 1982.
[5] TSN, 14 January 1997, pp. 10-17.
[6] People v. Derilo, G.R. No. 117818, 18 April 1997, 271 SCRA 633.
[7] RA 7659, as amended by RA 8353.
[8] People v. Prades, G.R. No. 127569, 30 July 1998, 293 SCRA 411.
[9] People v. Perez, G.R. No. 122764, 24 September 1998, 296 SCRA 17.