EN BANC
[G.R. No. 135862.
May 2, 2002]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAFAEL
PRINCIPE y MOLINA, accused-appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PER
CURIAM:
This case is here for
review pursuant to Rule 122, Sec. 3, par. (d), and Sec. 10 of the Revised Rules
of Criminal Procedure in view of the decision,[1] dated September 18,
1998, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch. 27, Cabanatuan City, imposing on
accused-appellant Rafael Principe y Molina the penalty of death for the
rape-slaying of a 6-year old child, Arlene Ipurong, in Cabanatuan City on
August 9, 1998.
The information against
accused-appellant alleged:
“That on or about the 9th day of August, 1998, in the City of
Cabanatuan, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and by means of force and
intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of one ARLENE IPURONG y GONZALES, who was then 6 years of age
and by reason of (or) on the occasion thereof, said ARLENE IPURONG y GONZALES
was killed.”[2]
Upon arraignment, during
which the information was read, interpreted, and explained to accused-appellant
and the consequences of a plea of guilt explained to him, accused-appellant, assisted
by counsel, pleaded guilty[3] to the charge, whereupon the trial court ordered the
prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of accused-appellant and the
precise degree of his culpability.
Accordingly, the prosecution presented five witnesses, namely: Lerma
Morales,[4] Frederick Agrigado,[5] Miguel Bernabe,[6] Alfredo Apan,[7] and Danilo Ipurong.[8] Their testimonies
established the following facts:
Accused-appellant, an
elementary graduate and then 19 years old, had a drinking spree with eight
friends at the birthday party of Freddie Saragpon, held in the latter’s house
on Perigola Street, Valdefuente, Cabanatuan City on August 9, 1998, starting
9:00 a.m. At about 4:00 p.m.,
accused-appellant went to buy some “pulutan” at the Best-Line Eatery
located along the national highway.
Accused-appellant had only maroon shorts on and was wearing
slippers. As it was raining, he brought
an umbrella with him.
On the way, he passed by
the victim, 6-year old Arlene Ipurong, who asked if she could share his umbrella. Arlene was his niece, her paternal
grandmother being the sister of accused-appellant’s mother. Accused-appellant carried Arlene on his back
and went to Best-Line Eatery to buy the “puIutan.”[9] They were seen by
witness Alfredo Apan as they passed by the church between 3:00 to 4:00
p.m. Apan was in the church attending
an activity of the Singles for Christ.[10]
At the restaurant,
accused-appellant was served by witness Lerma Morales. Lerma noticed the child with him, whom
accused-appellant introduced as his niece.
After getting the “pulutan,” accused-appellant took the hand of
Arlene, and the two went in the direction of an abandoned house, approximately
10 meters from the restaurant.[11]
Accused-appellant took
Arlene to the abandoned house, which was owned by a certain Jet Magno. There, accused-appellant ordered Arlene to
undress. Although Arlene complied, she
told him that she was going to tell somebody about it. This angered accused-appellant, who picked
up a big rock and hit the child with it three times on the forehead. When Arlene fell unconscious,
accused-appellant pulled down his shorts to his knees and raped her. Accused-appellant then brought her to the
toilet and dumped her into the bowl.[12]
At about 5:30 p.m.,
accused-appellant went back to Saragpon’s house. He was still without any shirt on. He was wet from the rain and was no longer wearing his slippers.
As accused-appellant was gone for about one and a half hours, some of his
drinking buddies got tired of waiting for him and already fell asleep. After giving the “pulutan” to his
friends, accused-appellant left.[13]
In the meantime, at about
5:00 p.m. of the same day, Arlene’s father, Danilo Ipurong, a tricycle driver,
arrived home from work and, realizing that her daughter was not in their house,
started searching for her. He came upon
a group playing "tong-its” but Arlene was not there.[14] Danilo continued his search, now joined by several
people, including Alfredo Apan. Then
Apan saw accused-appellant and asked him, “Hindi ba ikaw ang may dala-dala
noong bata sa balikat mo nang pagitan ng 3-4 ng hapon na iyon?” (“Wasn’t it
you who was carrying the child sometime between 3 and 4 o’clock in the
afternoon?”) Accused-appellant denied he was with the child, saying “Si kuya
naman, hindi ko dinala ang bata.” (“No, I didn’t bring the child with me.”)
Apan began to suspect that accused-appellant had something to do with the
disappearance of Arlene. He informed
the Chief of the Bantay Bayan, Miguel Bernabe, of his suspicions.[15] For this reason, Bernabe invited accused-appellant
for questioning, but the latter denied having anything to do with the
disappearance of the child.[16]
At around 8:00 p.m.,
Alfredo Apan and Danilo Ipurong found the body of Arlene in the toilet bowl in
the abandoned house. Danilo was shocked
and he screamed.[17]
On August 10, 1998, the
body of Arlene was taken to the City Health Office of Cabanatuan City. Upon the request of PO2 Romeo Lopez, the
investigating officer, Dr. Jun B. Concepcion, the medico-legal officer, conducted
an autopsy. His findings are as
follows:
"HT: 100 cm. in length.
(+) Abrasions, multiple, with hematoma and lacerated wounds, (2) linear on the midfrontal area. Abrasions measuring to 6-5 cms. in diameter extending down to (L) pen-orbital area. This involving the subconjunctival area, laterally.
(+) Skull fractures, multiple, depressed, frontal area.
(+) Hematomas, both upper arm, medially.
GENITALIA:
(+) Abrasions, opening of the vagina, 3 O’CLOCK, with bleeding.
(+) Abrasions, 12-o’clock, fresh, vaginal canal
(+) Vaginal discharges, creamy-white in character flowing out of the vagina. Extracted 0.5 ml for sperm analysis then submitted to PNP-CRIME LAB, CAPITOL COMPOUND, NE. on same day and place in a disposable syringe with marking of: X - I.
CAUSE OF DEATH:
INTRA-CRANIAL INJURIES, SEVERE, SECONDARY TO EXTRA-CRANIAL
INJURIES, SEVERE.”[18]
Dr. Concepcion issued a
death certificate indicating the cause of death as:
“Immediate cause: a. intracranial injuries severe
Antecedent cause: b. Extra
cranial injuries severe”[19]
Dr. Concepcion testified
that Arlene sustained severe fractures on the forehead, which could have been
caused by a hammer, a hollow block, or a hard piece of wood. Likewise, there
were hematomas on her upper arms which were possibly caused by a strong grip
from the assailant. In addition, Arlene
also sustained abrasions on the external opening of her genital organ and an
abrasion along the vaginal canal, which could have been caused by the
penetration of a penis or some other object.
There was fresh blood coming out of the abrasions. Dr. Concepcion found secretions in the
vagina, which could be vaginal secretions or semen from the assailant. From the vaginal bleeding, Dr. Concepcion
concluded that the rape of Arlene occurred before she died. The victim’s death was caused by the severe
injuries sustained on the head.[20]
An investigation was
conducted by the police in the evening of August 9, 1998. Several witnesses
pointed to accused-appellant as the person who was last seen with the victim
Arlene.
Accused-appellant was
subsequently taken into custody by the police, and an information was filed
against him on August 10, 1998.[21] On August 17, 1998, accused-appellant was
interrogated by the police, to whom, after reading his rights in Tagalog and in
the presence of accused-appellant’s father and of his counsel Atty. Cesar
Villar, he admitted hitting Arlene with a large rock until she was unconscious
and subsequently raping her.
Accused-appellant claimed that he was drunk at that time.[22]
On September 18, 1998, the
trial court rendered its decision, the dispositive part of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby finds, and so holds, the accused GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of Rape with Homicide, and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of DEATH.
The accused is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased offended party in the sum of P50,000.00, and the additional sum
of P21,307.00 representing funeral expenses.
SO ORDERED.”[23]
Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant’s sole assignment of error
is that-
“THE COURT A QUO MANIFESTLY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE HIS IMPROVIDENT PLEA OF GUILT.”
Accused-appellant
contends that the trial court failed to ascertain whether accused-appellant was
fully apprised of the legal consequences of his plea, considering that he
finished only up to the sixth grade of the elementary school.
Accused-appellant is
correct. When an accused enters a plea
of guilt to a capital offense, Section 3 of Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure provides that it is the duty of the trial court to observe the
following rules: (1) it must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness
and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea; (2) it must require the
prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the
precise degree of his culpability; and (3) it must asks the accused if he
desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.[24] This is because a plea of guilt must be based on a
free and informed judgment. Thus, the
inquiry must focus on the voluntariness of the plea and the full comprehension
of the consequences of the plea.[25]
In this case, the trial
court failed to comply fully with the requirement to conduct a searching
inquiry to determine whether accused-appellant’s plea was voluntary and done
with full comprehension of the consequences thereof. Before the hearing, the trial court asked accused-appellant:
“COURT:
Are you still willing to present evidence for your defense or you want the prosecution (to) present evidence and you still insist on admitting what you did to Arlene Ipurong y Gonzales?
R. PRINCIPE:
I will now admit the same, I will not present any other evidence, sir.
COURT:
Do you know that because you admit the guilt, you may be sentenced to death like Echegaray?
R. PRINCIPE:
Yes, sir.”[26]
Thus, in determining
whether accused-appellant was aware of the full consequences of his plea of
guilt, the trial court simply asked him whether he knew that he “may” be
sentenced to death, implying that it was possible that the death penalty might
not be imposed on him. But Art. 266-B
of the Revised Penal Code provides for the mandatory imposition of the death
penalty if the crime of rape is committed against a child below seven years
old. In fact, even if the victim is not
a child below seven years of age but homicide is committed by reason of or on
the occasion of the rape, the imposable penalty is death. Indeed, as noted in People vs. Nadera,[27] a mere warning
that the accused faces the supreme penalty of death is insufficient. More often than not, an accused pleads
guilty because he hopes for a lenient treatment or a lighter penalty. Thus, in the case at bar, when the trial
court again asked accused-appellant his final plea, accused-appellant answered:
“COURT:
Mr. Principe, for the last time, the court would like to ask you your final plea before the case is submitted for resolution.
ACCUSED PRINCIPE:
A As narrated. I have admitted my guilt, sir, in connection with this case. My only plea is, if possible, kindly give me the minimum penalty that the Court can impose.
COURT:
Q In other words, you admit your guilt because you did it. Only, what you want is leniency from the Court?
A Yes, sir.
Q I want to tell you that what you stated in open court are recorded and it is finally for the Supreme Court to give you leniency.
A Yes, sir.”[28]
Although
accused-appellant said he was admitting guilt “because [he] did it,” there is
doubt whether that was his only reason for pleading guilty because he also said
he “wanted leniency from the court.” This makes it doubtful whether his plea
was voluntary.
While accused-appellant’s
improvident plea should be disregarded, nevertheless his conviction cannot be
set aside as there is, in addition to his plea, other sufficient and credible
evidence on which the judgment of the trial court rests.[29] This evidence
consists of accused-appellant’s extrajudicial confession, his testimony in open
court, and the testimony of the other witnesses.
With respect to
accused-appellant’s extrajudicial confession, the Constitution,[30] R.A. No. 7438,[31] and caselaw[32] lay down four
fundamental requirements for the admissibility of extrajudicial confessions in
general, to wit: (a) the confession must be voluntary; (b) it must be made with
the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (c) the confession must be
express; and (d) it must be in writing.
In this case, after accused-appellant was read his rights in Tagalog, he
signified his intention to confess his participation in the rape and killing of
Arlene. He did this in the presence of
his father and with the assistance of Atty. Cesar Villar, who had been chosen
by his father for him. In his confession, he stated categorically that he took
Arlene to an abandoned house near Best-Line Eatery, where he struck her on the
head with a rock, raped her, and afterwards dumped her body into the toilet
bowl in order to hide it.
Accused-appellant’s confession was placed in writing and it was signed
by him, his counsel, and the administering officer.
Accused-appellant
acknowledged his extrajudicial confession in court. The court asked him if he executed the extrajudicial confession
voluntarily and in the presence of counsel, and he answered in the affirmative.
Accused-appellant testified with some
relatives present in the courtroom, including his grandmother. In addition, he was assisted by his counsel de
oficio, Atty. Victor Galang.
Finally, the testimonies
of witnesses for the prosecution confirm accused-appellant’s testimony that he
committed the crime. One of his
drinking companions, Frederick Agrigado, testified that accused-appellant left
them at about 4 p.m. to buy “pulutan” from the Best-Line Eatery. Another witness, Alfredo Apan, said he saw
accused-appellant with the victim Arlene on his back walking towards the
highway at about the same time. After the disappearance of the victim, Alfredo
Apan confronted accused-appellant, telling him that he was the last person seen
with the child. Accused-appellant’s
vehement denial aroused Apan’s suspicions as he was the one who saw
accused-appellant with Arlene. At the
restaurant, accused-appellant was served by Lerma Morales, who noticed that he
was with a 6-year old child, whom accused-appellant introduced as his
niece. After accused-appellant was
given his order, he took the child’s hand and led her to the abandoned
house. When he returned to his drinking
companions, they noted it was already about 5:30 p.m. and that he had been gone
for one and a half hours. Arlene’s body
was found missing at past 5 p.m. of that same day. All the above witnesses placed accused-appellant at the scene of
the crime at the time it took place.
The conviction of an
accused may be based on circumstantial evidence provided the following
requisites must concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts
from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of
all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.[33] Thus, while there
is no eyewitness account as to who raped and killed Arlene, the above
circumstances strongly point to no other person than accused-appellant as the
perpetrator of the crime. This
conclusion becomes all the more certain and inevitable when the circumstantial
evidence is considered together with accused-appellant’s extrajudicial
confession and his own testimony in open court.
The trial court correctly
imposed the penalty of death. Art.
266-B of the Revised Penal Code provides for the imposition of the death
penalty when, by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is
committed. In this case,
accused-appellant knocked Arlene unconscious to facilitate his dastardly
design. The severity of the blows
caused her death. Thus, the imposable
penalty is death.[34] The fact that Arlene was below seven years old at
the time of the rape cannot be taken into account against accused-appellant as,
although her age was alleged in the information, it was not proven during the
trial.
The trial court erred,
however, in fixing the civil indemnity at P50,000.00. In People vs. Robles, Jr.[35] and in subsequent
cases,[36] this Court ruled that where homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion of the rape, the civil indemnity shall be not less
than P100,000.00.
The trial court likewise
erred in granting the heirs of the deceased victim an additional amount of P21,307.00
representing funeral expenses. Under
Art. 2199 of the Civil Code, a party is entitled to compensation only for such
pecuniary loss suffered by him as proven.[37] The recovery thereof must be premised upon competent
proof and the best evidence obtainable, such as receipts, by the injured party
showing the actual expenses incurred in connection with the death, wake, or
burial of the victim. The list of expenses
incurred for the wake, funeral, and burial of the victim amounting to P21,307.00[38] submitted by
Arlene’s father is self-serving and not proved.[39] Thus, the trial
court’s award of P21,307.00 for funeral expenses cannot be affirmed.
However, the reason Arlene’s
father was unable to present the receipt for the funeral parlor was because the
latter’s representative refused to issue a receipt until he had fully paid the
entire amount, which he had not done at the time of the trial. Under Art. 2224 of the Civil Code, temperate
damages may be recovered if it is shown that such party suffered some pecuniary
loss but the amount cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with
certainty.[40] As there is no doubt the heirs of the victim
incurred funeral expenses, although the amount thereof has not been proven, it
is appropriate to award P15,000.00 by way of temperate damages to the
heirs of the victim.
In addition, the heirs
are entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 in accordance
with Art. 2219 of the Civil Code for the physical suffering, mental anguish,
serious anxiety, and moral shock caused by the manner by which Arlene was raped
and killed.[41]
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 27, Cabanatuan City is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that
accused-appellant is ordered to pay the heirs of the victim, Arlene Ipurong, P100,000.00
as civil indemnity, P15,000.00 as temperate damages, and P50,000.00
as moral damages.
Upon finality of this
decision, let the Records of this case be forthwith forwarded to the Office of
the President for the possible exercise of her pardoning power.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, and Corona, concur.
[1] Per Judge Feliciano
V. Buenaventura.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3] Id.,
p. 14.
[4] TSN (Lerma Morales),
Aug. 19, 1998, pp. 10-14.
[5] TSN (Frederick
Agrigado), Aug. 28, 1998, pp. 2-8.
[6] TSN (Miguel
Bernabe), Sept. 9, 1998, pp. 1-7.
[7] TSN (Alfredo Apan),
Sept. 10, 1998, pp. 2-8.
[8] TSN (Danilo
Ipurong), Sept. 10, 1998, pp. 1-11.
[9] TSN (Rafael
Principe), Aug. 19, 1998, pp. 5-8; Records (Exh. "A"), p. 46.
[10] TSN (Alfredo Apan),
Aug. 28, 1998, p. 3; Id., (Exh. "G"), p. 54.
[11] TSN (Lerma Morales),
Aug. 19, 1998, pp. 10-11.
[12] TSN (Rafael
Principe), Aug. 19, 1998, p. 6; Records (Exh. "A"), pp. 46-47.
[13] TSN (Frederick
Agrigado), Aug. 28, 1998, pp. 6-9; Id., (Exh. "E"), p.
53.
[14] TSN (Danilo
Ipurong), Sept. 10, 1998, pp. 4-6.
[15] TSN (Alfredo Apan),
Aug. 28, 1998, p. 5.
[16] TSN (Miguel
Bernabe), Sept. 9, 1998, p. 4.
[17] TSN (Alfredo Apan),
Aug. 28, 1998, pp. 5-6; TSN (Danilo Ipurong), Sept. 10, 1998, p. 2.
[18] TSN (Dr. Jun B.
Concepcion), Aug. 27, 1998, p. 3; Records (Exh. "C"), p. 50.
[19] Records (Exh.
"D"), p. 52.
[20] TSN (Dr. Jun B.
Concepcion), Aug. 27, 1998, pp. 3-7.
[21] Records, p. 43.
[22] TSN (Rafael
Principe), Aug. 18, 1998, pp. 2-4; Records (Exh. "A"), pp. 45-48.
[23] Records, p. 40;
Decision, p. 8.
[24] People vs.
Magat, 332 SCRA 517 (2000); People vs. Nadera, 324 SCRA 490 (2000);
People vs. Lakindanum, 304 SCRA 429 (1999).
[25] People vs.
Nadera, supra; People vs. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293 (1995).
[26] TSN (Rafael
Principe), Aug. 18, 1998, p. 4.
[27] Supra.
[28] TSN (Rafael
Principe), Sept. 10, 1998, pp. 10-11 (emphasis added).
[29] See People vs.
Nadera, supra.
[30] CONSTITUTION, Art.
III, § 12 (1).
[31] REP. ACT NO. 7438,
An Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial
Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining, and Investigating
Officers, and Providing Penalties for Violations thereof. It took effect on April 27, 1992.
[32] People vs.
Ordońo, 334 SCRA 673 (2000); People vs. Tan, 286 SCRA 207 (1998);
Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, 121 SCRA 538 (1983).
[33] People vs.
Olivia, 349 SCRA 435 (2001).
[34] Three (3) members of
the Court, although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions
expressed in People vs. Echegaray (267 SCRA 682 [1997]) that R.A. No.
7659, insofar as it prescribes the penalty of death, is unconstitutional, nevertheless
submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and that
the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.
[35] 305 SCRA 273 (1999).
[36] People vs.
Hermoso, 343 SCRA 567 (2000); People vs. Payot, 308 SCRA 43 (1999).
[37] People vs. Lopez,
312 SCRA 384 (1999).
[38] Exh. "H".
[39] People vs.
Ereńo, 326 SCRA 157 (2000); People vs. Nullan, 305 SCRA 679 (1999).
[40] People vs.
Lopez, supra.
[41] People vs.
Ronas, G.R. Nos. 128088 & 146639, Jan. 31, 2001; People vs.
Bahenting, 303 SCRA 558 (1999); People vs. Maguad, 287 SCRA 535 (1998).