THE
PEOPLE OF THE
Appellee,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J.,
- versus - Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
and
EDISON
MIRA, VELASCO,
JR., JJ.
Appellant,
Promulgated:
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
This
case serves to remind trial judges of their obligation to conduct a searching
inquiry when confronted with a plea of guilt to a capital offense. At the same time, it also reiterates that the
improvidence of the guilty plea will not prevent the conviction of the accused
if the evidence duly presented does establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Before us for automatic review is the
Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00452 dated 19 July 2006 which
affirmed with modification the Judgment[2] of
the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 687 finding appellant Edison Mira
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
Appellant
was charged with rape in an information, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about January 6, 1997, in the evening thereof, at
Barangay Interior, Municipality of San Jacinto, Province of Masbate,
Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his 11-year old
daughter [AAA],[3] against
her will and without her consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
On
arraignment, appellant entered a guilty plea to the offense charged. Thereafter, the trial court proceeded with
the reception of evidence for the prosecution which presented five witnesses, namely: AAA, the victim; Nema
Cabug (Cabug), the victim’s teacher; BBB,[5]
the victim’s sister; Dr. Rosario P.
Mores (Dr. Mores), Medical Officer, and Lodeña Barruga (Barruga), Municipal
Social Welfare and Development Officer.
Their testimonies established the following facts:
On
the night of
On
Unsurprisingly,
the defense did not present evidence to counter the charges against appellant,
considering his earlier plea of guilt.
On
[AAA] and her sister could not testify and narrate the said heinous
crime against their father if this is not true x x x and this Court is indeed
convince [sic] that the child would
not put up this [sic] testimonies if
it were not true. What makes these
bastardous act more appalling is the fact that this rape is being committed in
front and at the very eyes of her [sic]
other children. Indeed, the bestial act
committed by the father against his own flesh and blood deserves the highest
penalty which this Court could impose.
Now could the father [sic] commit
this grievous crime against his own daughter when it should be the former who
should protect and care for the latter is a question as perplexing and
enigmatic as todays’ time. Everyday, it
is judicial knowledge how common this type of canards are being committed by
the parents against their [helpless] children.
The very least that this Court could do is to minimize[,] if not to
eliminate this heinous crime is by way of showing an example by meting out the [s]upreme
penalty to the perpetrator of this crime so as to deter others from committing
this kind of mayhem, specially so when this Court is convinced beyond any doubt
as to the complicity of the accused.
Indeed, what a horrendous [world this would] be if the child could no
longer trust their parents because of their bestial deeds. When the two daughters, [AAA] and [BBB] were
asked whether or not they still love their father, the duo immediately without
an iota of hesitation, responded in the negative. When asked why, they answered that they don’t
love their father [any] longer because of the rape; the sexual molestation
committed by Edison. Truly, no daughter
in her right mind could continue to love their father if the latter
continuously commits this kind of malfeasance.[14]
Appellant
directly appealed his conviction to this Court.
In a Resolution[15]
dated
The
Court of Appeals rendered the assailed judgment affirming with modification the
trial court’s decision, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the decision of
the trial court finding Defendant-Appellant EDISON MIRA guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape is AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that the death sentence imposed by the trial
court is hereby REDUCED to Reclusion Perpetua. Additionally, Defendant-Appellant shall pay
the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages, and P20,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Costs against the
Defendant-Appellant.
SO ORDERED.[17]
Appellant
filed the instant appeal. In a
Resolution[18] dated
Appellant
contends that the trial court erred in not conducting a searching inquiry into
the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and in
failing to inform him if he desires to present evidence in his behalf.[20]
The
controversy centers on the legal consequences of an improvident plea of
guilt.
Section
3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 3. Plea 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 shall require the
prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree to culpability. The accused may present evidence in his
behalf.
Based on this rule,
there are three (3) conditions that the trial court must observe to obviate an
improvident plea of guilt by the accused: (1) it must conduct a searching
inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension by the accused 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 ask the accused whether he desires to
present evidence on his behalf, and allow him to do so if he so desires. [21]
In People v.
Gumimba, we had occasion to revisit the raison
d’etre for the rule:
There is no hard and fast rule as to how a judge may conduct a “searching inquiry,” or as to the number and character of questions he may ask the accused, or as to the earnestness with which he may conduct it, since each case must be measured according to its individual merit. However, the logic behind the rule is that courts must proceed with caution where the imposable penalty is 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. An improvident plea of guilty on the part of the accused when capital crimes are involved should be avoided since he might be admitting his guilt before the court and thus forfeit his life and liberty without having fully comprehended the meaning and import and consequences of his plea. Moreover, the requirement of taking further evidence would aid this Court on appellate review in determining the propriety or impropriety of the plea.[22]
This Court, time
and again, has reiterated the guidelines to be observed by the trial court in
the proper conduct of a searching inquiry:
(1) Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into the
custody of the law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a competent counsel
during the custodial and preliminary investigations; and (c) under what
conditions he was detained and interrogated during the investigations.
This is intended to rule out the possibility that the accused has been coerced
or placed under a state of duress either by actual threats of physical harm
coming from malevolent quarters or simply because of the judge’s intimidating
robes.
(2) Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he had
conferred with, and completely explained to, the accused the meaning and
consequences of a plea of guilty.
(3) Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused, such
as his age, socio-economic status, and educational background, which may serve
as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of
guilty.
(4) Inform the accused of the exact length of imprisonment or nature of
the penalty under the law and the certainty that he will serve such
sentence. For not infrequently, an accused pleads guilty in the hope of a
lenient treatment or upon bad advice or because of promises of the authorities
or parties of a lighter penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse.
It is the duty of the judge to ensure that the accused does not labor under
these mistaken impressions because a plea of guilty carries with it not only
the admission of authorship of the crime proper but also of the aggravating
circumstances attending it, that increase punishment.
(5) Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is charged and
to fully explain to him the elements of the crime which is the basis of his indictment.
Failure of the court to do so would constitute a violation of his fundamental
right to be informed of the precise nature of the accusation against him and a
denial of his right to due process.
(6) All questions posed to the accused should be in a language known and
understood by the latter.
(7) The trial judge must satisfy himself that the accused, in pleading guilty,
is truly guilty. The accused must be required to narrate the tragedy or
reenact the crime or furnish its missing details.[23]
The searching inquiry
conducted by the trial court falls short of these requirements. The inquiry consisted of two simple
questions. We quote in full:
CLERK OF COURT:
(The accused was
arraigned in an information read and translated in a language understandable to
him [sic]. When asked of his plea, [he] voluntarily
entered a plea of guilty.)
COURT:
[T]o accused
Q – Do you understand the meaning of plea of guilty for the crime charged against you for rape?
A – I admit the crime, Your
Honor.
Q – Do you know that when
you pleaded [sic] guilty you can be
meted out of the supreme penalty; death or life imprisonment?
A – Yes, Your Honor.[24]
The questions propounded by the trial
court judge to appellant were clearly inadequate. The appellant was not fully
apprised of the consequences of his guilt plea.
In fact, as argued by appellant, he was led to believe that the penalty
for his crime could still be reduced upon his plea of guilty, especially when
the trial court informed him that he could be meted the supreme penalty of
death or life imprisonment.[25] Moreover, the trial court judge failed to
inform appellant of his right to adduce evidence despite the guilty plea. Verily, appellant was deprived of the rights
guaranteed by the Constitution.
Notwithstanding
the incautiousness that attended appellant’s guilty plea, we are not inclined
to remand the case to the trial court as suggested by appellant. Convictions based on an improvident plea of
guilt are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the
trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence in finding the accused guilty, the judgment must be
sustained, because then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the
accused but also on evidence proving his commission of the offense charged.[26]
The
RTC and the Court of Appeals are unanimous in sustaining the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses. The trial court
made the following observations:
All
the [p]rosecution witnesses are one in pin-pointing Edison Mira as the one who
raped [AAA]. The testimonies of his two
(2) children, [BBB], an 8-year old, younger sister of [AAA] and [AAA] herself
categorically declared without hesistation regarding the [c]ertainty of the
rape committed by Edison Mira against [AAA].
This two (2) children [are] [very] credible and convincing and defense
were not able to destroy the testimonies.[27]
The Court ordinarily puts great
weight on the factual findings of the judge who conducted the
trial of the case and heard the testimonies of the witnesses themselves.
This is especially true in rape cases where the crime is
usually committed in the presence of no other person than the victim and the
accused. Compared to appellate magistrates who are merely faced with the cold
and inanimate pages of the transcript of records brought before them, the trial
judge comes face to face with the rape victim herself on the
witness stand. He personally observes her conduct and demeanor while
responding to the questions propounded by the prosecutor on direct examination
as well as those from the defense counsel on cross examination. Moreover,
it is also the trial judge who has the chance to pose clarificatory questions
to the victim. Thus, when the trial judge makes his findings as to the issue of credibility, such findings bear
great weight upon the appellate court. [28]
The appellate court even concurred
with the trial court and went on to cite the jurisprudential edicts, thus:
Evidently, [AAA’s]
testimony is straightforward. She
positively identified her father-ravisher and narrated what transpired with
simplicity and veracity. Such revelation of [AAA], a young innocent girl,
deserves full credit.
It is
settled in a catena of cases, that
testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit considering that
when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she in
effect says all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Reason and experience dictate that a child,
who barely understands sex and sexuality, would not impute to any man a crime
so serious as rape, concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of her
private parts, and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she was not,
in truth, a victim of rape. Truly, youth
and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity as in the case at
bench.[29]
We
find no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the courts below. Indeed, AAA remained steadfast in her claim
that she was raped by her father. In her
Affidavit dated
Q: Where were you last
January 6, 1997, in the evening?
A: I was at Barangay
Interior,
Q: During the
aforementioned time and place, were your brothers and sisters all in the house?
A: Yes sir, except Manoy Elmer who was ordered by my father to see a movie.
Q: What did you do after
eating your supper?
A: We went to sleep.
Q: Did your father aid
with [sic] you?
A: He did not [join] us.
Q: While you were
sleeping[,] do you remember any unusual incident?
A: Yes, sir, there was
an unusual incident.
Q: What was the incident?
A: While I was sleeping
beside [BBB][,] my father arrived smelling of gin and then removed his clothes.
Q: What did he do after
he has removed his clothes?
A: He removed my shorts
and laid on top of me.
Q: What else did he do
after he was on top of you?
A: He placed his manhood inside me and as I suffered paid I cried.
Q: When you cried[,] did
you wake your sister especially [BBB] who was sleeping beside you?
A: My sister was still
awake when my father raped me.
x x x x
Q: Do you recall the
number of times that your father had molested you?
A: Many times.
x x x x [31]
Later at the witness stand, on direct
examination, AAA reiterated:
Q: How many times that
your father mounted at [sic] you?
A: Many times.
Q: More than ten (10)
times, is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When your father was
molesting you[sic], was anybody
present?
A: Yes sir, my younger
brother and sister.
Court:
Proceed.
Pros. Rapsing:
Q: Did you remember when
was the last time your father mounted at [sic]
you and inserted his penis [in]to your organ, do you remember when was that?
A:
Q: How about the first
time, can you still remember when was the first time when your father raped
you?
A: I can no longer remember.
Q: What you only recall is
the last time[sic]?
A: Yes, sir.[32]
The
defense counsel tried to muddle the facts during the cross-examination but AAA
did not waver, thus:
Q: Madam witness, you
were staying at Barangay Interior,
A Yes, sir.
Q And your house is situated within the Barangay site of Interior?
A Yes, sir.
Q Of course, you have neighbors [sic] in your house, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q [In fact], you also have friends?
A Yes, sir.
Q How about to your friends, did you sleep at the house of your friends?
A No[,] sir.
Q You have also a relative in your locality, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q [In fact], during night time, you were sleeping in the house of your relatives?
A No, sir.
Q Do you have classmates in your school?
A Yes[,] sir.
Q Because you were classmates, so, you were friends, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q In fact, you have boy friends?
A No, sir
Q Eventhough you have no boy friends but [sic] you usually play with some boys?
A No, sir.[33]
x x x x
Q Madam Witness, previous to the incident on January 6, 1997, were you able to meet physical accident, example, you were slide [sic] or you were thrown out of balance?
A No, sir.
Q Did you ride a bicycle?
A I do not know how to ride a bicycle.
Q How about a carabao?
A We have no carabao.[34]
AAA
testified in a very clear, convincing and straightforward manner which leaves
us with nary a doubt that she was indeed raped by her father. Moreover, her testimony was corroborated on
all material points by her sister BBB who was herself an eyewitness to the
rape. BBB related:
Q: You are staying in the house of your father[,] Edison Mira, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q You are staying at the same time with [AAA], your sister, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q During nighttime, you are sleeping with [AAA], is that true?
A Yes, sir.
Q During nighttime, you
have you seen your father
A Yes, sir.
Q What was he doing with AAA, your sister?
A She is sleeping with AAA.
COURT:
The Court will allow the prosecution to ask leading questions considering that the witness is a minor.
PROS. RAPSING:
Q Do you want to tell us that Edison Mira was sleeping side by side with your father?
A Yes, sir.
Q When your father was sleeping beside your sister, [AAA], were you awake?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you seen your father mounting your sister[,] [AAA]?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was your sister[,] [AAA][,] doing whenever your father is mounting her?
A She was crying.
COURT TO WITNESS:
Q Was she naked?
A Both of them naked.
PROS. RAPSING:
Q And whenever your father is mounting your sister[,] [AAA] also crying[,] is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was your father doing on top of your sister when you saw him?
A He was telling my sister to keep quiet.
Q Was your father moving while on top of your sister?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was your father doing on top of your sister when you saw him?
A He was telling my sister to keep quiet.
Q Was your father moving while on top of your sister?
A Yes, sir.
Q His buttocks was moving?
A Yes, sir.
Q And while the buttocks of your father was moving, your sister was crying?
A Yes, sir.[35]
These testimonies, taken together
with the medical findings that AAA sustained abrasions on the vulva and that
her hymen was no longer intact, lead to no other conclusion that she had been
raped and that appellant, her father, was the perpetrator.
The prosecution has successfully
proven the elements of simple rape,
namely: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) the same
was committed by use of force or intimidation.[36] When the offended party is under 18 years of
age and the offender is an ascendant of the victim, rape is qualified and
becomes punishable by death as provided under Section 11 of Republic Act No.
7659.
In
incestuous rape, it is essential that the relationship and minority be
conjointly alleged in the information and duly
proved.[37] The
Information states that “accused by means of force and intimidation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with
his 11-year old daughter AAA, against her will and without her consent.”[38] The
filial relationship between appellant and AAA was sufficiently alleged in the
Information and established by the testimonies of AAA[39] and
BBB.[40] However,
during trial, the prosecution failed to submit any written evidence to prove
the age of the victim. No birth
certificate, baptismal record, or testimony relating to the age of AAA was
presented. Even if the complainant's
minority and filiation to the appellant were never refuted nor contested by the
defense, proof thereof is critical, considering the penalty of death imposed
for qualified rape.[41]
As
eloquently explained by the Court of Appeals:
To justify the imposition of death, proof of the victim’s age is
indubitable, and there must be sufficient and clear evidence proving her age,
even if not denied by the accused. As pronounced in People v. Umayam, (n)either her obvious minority nor the
absence of any contrary assertion from the defense, or even an admission by the
appellant can exempt the prosecution from the requirement of proving it. Thus, in the absence of [AAA’s]
Certificate of Live Birth, the prosecution should have presented before the trial
court her baptismal certificate or school record to prove her age at the time
of the commission of the crime. In the
case at bench, the prosecution failed.
Accordingly, the Defendant-Appellant may only be convicted of simple
rape, which is punishable by reclusion
perpetua.[42]
In the more recent case of People v. Biyoc,[43]
this Court did not appreciate minority as a qualifying circumstance in the
crime of rape for failure of the prosecution to adequately prove that the
victim was only 11 years old when she was raped. We observed:
From the accusatory portion of the information quoted . . . AAA was alleged to be 11 years old at the time of the alleged rape. The certificate of live birth or similar authentic documents were not presented. There is no showing that the prosecution claimed that the said documents had been lost, destroyed or were otherwise unavailable, hence, CCC’s testifying on AAA’s age does not suffice to prove that AAA was below the age of 12.
When either one of the qualifying circumstances of
relationship and minority is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the Information
and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. In the instant case, relationship may thus be considered as
an aggravating circumstance. However, it may not serve to raise the
penalty because in simple rape, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua
which is single and indivisible.[44]
Finally, we affirm the
award of indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00. The award of moral
damages in the amount of P50,000.00, without need of further proof, is
likewise proper.[45]
Relationship between appellant and the victim is an aggravating circumstance
which justifies the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00
to deter other fathers with perverse or aberrant sexual behavior from sexually
abusing their daughters.[46]
WHEREFORE,
the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00452, finding
appellant Edison Mira guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and
imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1]Rollo, pp. 4-20. Penned by Associate
Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in by Associate Justices Josefina
Guevara-Salonga and Aurora Santiago-Lagman.
[3]The
real name of the victim is withheld per R.A. No. 7610 and R.A. No. 9262. See People
v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693,
[4]CA rollo, p. 5.
[5]Supra
note 3. Name of sister withheld.
[21]People v. Espidol, G.R. No. 150033, 12
November 2004, 442 sCRA 360, 372, citing
People v. Bello, G.R. Nos. 130411–14,
13 October 1999, 316 SCRA 804, 811; People
v. Galvez, 428 Phil. 438, 444 (2002), citing People v. Aranzado, G.R. Nos. 132442-44, September 24, 2001.
[23]People v.
Pioquinto, G.R. No. 168326, 11 April
2007; People v. Murillo, G.R. No.
134583, 14 July 2004, 434 SCRA 342; People
v. Tonyacao, G.R. No. 134531-32, 7 July 2004, 433 SCRA 513; People v. Ernas, 455 Phil. 829, 839-840
(2003).
[37]People v. Orillosa, G.R. Nos. 148716-18,
[41]People v. Espinosa, G.R. No. 138742, June
15, 2004, 432 SCRA 86, 102 citing People
v. Gavino, 399 SCRA 285 (2003).
[44]People v. Hermocilla, G.R. No. 175830,