369 Phil. 422
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
The undersigned accuses the above-named persons (sic) of the felony of Rape, under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act 7659, at the instance of Janeth Ebay Nuñez, whose affidavit is hereto attached to form part of this information, committed as follows:When arraigned on January 30, 1996, the accused entered a plea of not guilty.[1] Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
that on or about January 17, 1996, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, by means of force, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously had carnal knowledge of his daughter Janeth E. Nuñez, against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Davao City, Philippines, January 22, 1995.
(sgd)
LOLITO O. EVANGELIO
Prosecutor I
"Accordingly, finding the evidence of the prosecution more than sufficient to prove the guilt of accused, Demetrio Nuñez y Dubduban of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding his plea of guilty of the offense charged pursuant to Rep. Act 7659, Section 11, sub-par. 7 thereof, accused, Demetrio Nuñez y Dubduban, is sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death by lethal injection pursuant to Rep. Act 8176, amending Sec. 24 of Rep. Act 7659 as to the manner therein provided, subject to such method of carrying out his sentence as may be provided for under said Rep. Act or any regulation under such other means and procedure therein provided.In his Appellant's Brief, accused raised a lone assignment of error -
Moreover, pursuant to Art. 100 in relation to Art. 104 of the Revised Penal Code, governing civil indemnity accused is furthermore ordered to indemnify complainant, Janeth Nuñez, his daughter, the amount of P30,000.00, by way of moral damages for all the ignominy and sufferings she incurred out of accused demonic act of sexually abusing his own daughter.
Finally, in accordance with the automatic review of the Supreme Court of this judgment, it appearing accused was charged of a capital offense, considered heinous crime, the Branch Clerk of Court of this court, is ordered to at once after promulgation of this judgment to accused, elevate the entire records of this case with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, Manila, for review, evaluation and final appropriate action.
SO ORDERED."[10]
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ACCEPTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S IMPROVIDENT PLEA OF GUILTY TO A CAPITAL OFFENSE AND IN FAILING TO CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY TO FULLY DETERMINE WHETHER THE ACCUSED FULLY UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA.[11]The records reveal that in making the plea of guilt, the accused was proceeding under the mistaken assumption that a plea of guilt would mitigate his liability. Rather than correcting this misconception, the trial court contributed to the mistaken belief of the accused. The records will show the infirmity attending such plea -
Evidently, both the trial court and counsel for the accused led the accused to believe that his plea of guilt would be a mitigating circumstance in his favor. This was clearly misleading because (1) a plea of guilty may only be considered as mitigating when seasonably interjected, that is, before the prosecution presents its evidence;[13] and (2) the penalty of death is indivisible and is not affected by either aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Clearly, too, the accused was not categorically advised that his plea of guilt would not under any circumstance affect or reduce his sentence, making his re-arraignment flawed.[14]
"FISCAL EVANGELIO: For the Prosecution, we are ready. ATTY. TE: Respectfully appearing for the accused. COURT: How many more witnesses? FISCAL EVANGELIO: Two witnesses and we shall rest our case. ATTY. TE:
The accused is not yet around your honor. FISCAL EVANGELIO:
Considering the gravity of this case in case of conviction for death in view of the qualifying circumstance of the relationship as father and daughter. COURT: If he pleads guilty of the offense, . .
ATTY. TE: I have conferred with the accused and he is asking for time. COURT: There is no more time. ATTY. TE: The accused is willing to plead guilty. COURT: If he pleads guilty, it could be mitigating. It is still life imprisonment. And so, whether it is life imprisonment, we still have the prosecution to present its evidence. If he pleads guilty to mitigating circumstance, the penalty will depend on the evidence of the prosecution.ATTY. TE: For humanitarian reason, we may be allowed that accused could not be sentenced to death? COURT: The court cannot determine the sentence. If accused will plead guilty, the court will require the prosecution to present their evidence to determine the penalty. ATTY. TE: I have conferred with the accused, accused confided to this representation that he will enter or want to withdraw his earlier plea of not guilty and instead enter a plea of guilty after this representation explained to accused with regards with his re-arraignment.COURT: Re-arraigned the accused upon manifestation of counsel. (Accused pleaded guilty to the information). Q - I will ask you this question. In your plea of guilty, did you understand that you are pleading guilty to a capital offense? A - Yes. Q - Your counsel, Atty. Te explained to you the implication of your plea of guilty? A - Yes. Q - And I explain to you that when you plead guilty to a capital offense, it is either life or death penalty? A - Yes. Q - I am also explaining to you that consequences, you still continue your plea of guilty of the capital offense? A - Yes. Q - Did the court gets (sic) from you that your admission of your plea of guilty is your own will as stated by you, as explained by the court as well as your counsel? A - Yes. Q - Your plea of guilty is your own personal and voluntary plea without any existing force and intimidation from anybody? A - Yes, it is my own will. COURT: Since the plea of guilty of the accused as voluntarily entered with the assistance of his counsel de oficio as well as explanation given by this court to him, entering the plea of guilty of the accused, withdrawing his previous plea of not guilty, the court will require the prosecution to present their evidence as required by the court.ATTY. TE: May we moved (sic) that the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty of accused be accepted in favor of the accused. COURT: Make that of record."[12] (underscoring, Ours)
We are inclined to give much weight to her testimony since it is a reputable precept that testimonies of rape victims who are young or of tender age are credible. The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credit. Courts usually lend credence to the testimony of a young girl especially where the facts point to her having been a victim of sexual assault.[17] Indeed, "no woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial if she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished."[18] More telling, a daughter especially of tender age, would not accuse her own father of such a heinous crime as rape had she really not been aggrieved.[19]
"Q - Now, on January 17, 1996, where were you? A - At home. Q - Sometime in the evening of January 17, 1996, can you tell the court what happened? A - Yes. Q - Tell the court what happened. A - I was molested by my father. Q - Can you describe to the Hon. Court, how your father molested you? A - Yes, sir. Q - Please do so. A - On that night, January 17, 1996, my father told us to sleep at 10:00 p.m. Q - What happened next? A - I mean, it was about 7:00 to 8:00 p.m., that he told us to sleep. Q - What happened next? A - When I woke up at about 10:00 p.m., on the same night, I have no more short pants including my panty. Q - You said, you noticed that you are undress. What else did you notice to your body? A - He puddled my nipple. (sic)
Q - Are you referring to your father? A - Yes, sir. Q - What else did you noticed? A - He inserted his finger in my vagina. Q - What else did your father do? A - He sucked my nipple. Q - Aside from sucking your nipple, what else your father do? A - I already pushed him aside. Q - After pushing him, what happened next? A - He went back to where he was sleeping. Q - How about you, where did you go? A - I put on again my panty and short. Q - Did you sleep again? A - Yes, sir. Q - What happened when you sleep again? A - When I woke up again, he was already on top of me. Q - Who was actually on top of you? A - My father. Q - Why did you say that it was actually your father who is on top of you? A - Because there was no other person in the house, except my father. Q - When your father was on top of you, what did you feel in your body, if any? A - He inserted his penis to my vagina. Q - What made you say that he inserted his penis in your vagina? A - Because there was a hard thing that penetrate my vagina and I pushed him aside and there was a sticky thing on my thigh and vagina. Q - What is this sticky thing are you referring? A - It was a white sticky thing. Q - You said that the penis of your father was inserted in your vagina. What is the extent of the penis that inserted to your vagina? A - Only a short portion of his penis. Q - When you know it was your father, who was doing that act to you that evening, what did you do? A - I was afraid. I was not able to sleep. I sat on the side of the room and never again sleep. Q - When you mean on top of you, what did you do? A - I pushed him. Q - What was the reaction of your father when you pushed him? A - He again sleep. Q - Because of the incident, did you report the matter to the police authorities? A - The following morning, and I confided this to my classmate. Q - Who else did you confide with? A - My teacher. Q - Are you referring to Mrs. Heradona? A - Yes. Q - Now, because of the incident, do you recall if you have submitted for a medical examination? A - Yes. Q - Showing to you this medical certificate, is this the same medical certificate which was your medical certificate issued by Dr. Ledesma? A - Yes. Q - Were you interviewed by Dr. Ledesma in connection with this incident? A - Yes."[16]
Against these pieces of evidence, the accused had nothing to offer. He did not even testify in his own behalf and merely submitted his case on the basis of the prosecution's evidence. The studied silence of the accused on the evidence for the rape amounts to an admission of the sexual congress.[24]
"Q - As the attending physician in this case, do you confirm all the entries in this particular medical report Doctor? A - Yes, sir. Q - Inviting your attention to the genital examination entry in your report Dr. which you said among other things, that there was superficial laceration at 6:00 o'clock position, will you explain the meaning of that findings?A - When I examine the genitals of the patient, I saw that the hymen had laceration superficial, and healing laceration at 6:00 position, corresponding to the face of the watch. Meaning to say, if we compare the hymen to the face of the watch, the laceration is 6:00 o'clock.Q - As an examiner, what would have cause such laceration? A - As a general role, the hymen is laceration for the first time during the first sexual intercourse. (sic) Q - In your conclusion, you said that there was a healing genital laceration, what do you mean by that? A - Meaning to say, when I saw the patient, the laceration was already more than 24 hours. Q - You are referring to the laceration mentioned in your genital examination? A - Yes, sir."[23]
Applying the aforesaid law, the trial court imposed the penalty of death upon the accused, taking into account the minority of Janeth as she was only fourteen (14) years old at the time of the incident, as well as the relationship of father and daughter between the accused and the complainant.
- 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 degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent or victim.
- When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities.
- When rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.
- When the victim is a religious or a child below seven (7) years old.
- When the offender knows that he is afflicted with the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease.
- When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency.
- When by reason or on occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation.
"A reading of the Information for rape filed against appellant in the present case reveals that he is merely charged with the crime of simple rape which warrants the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua. This is so because the fact of the minority of the victim is not stated in the Information. What was alleged therein was only the relationship of the offender as the parent of the victim. Again, as we have emphasized in People v. Ramos, the elements of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur. As such, the charge of rape in the Information is not in its qualified form so as to fall under the special qualifying circumstances stated in Section 11 of R.A. 7659. x x x."Thus, there being no allegation of minority in the Information under which accused was arraigned and tried in the case at bench, he cannot be convicted of qualified rape.
(emphasis copied)