G.R. No. L-63409 May 30, 1986
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. HENRY PARBA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Henry Parba, was charged with attempted rape with homicide. The prosecution evidence established that on the night of March 24, 1981, in Iligan City, the accused and another man, Bonifacio Tolo, were seen with the victim, Alejandra Dalidig, who was known to be insane, at a secluded hut. An eyewitness saw Tolo have sexual intercourse with the victim, after which Parba entered the hut. The witness heard the victim shouting and being boxed by Parba. Later that night, Parba was seen carrying a knife. The victim’s body, with multiple stab wounds, was discovered the next morning. Parba, after interrogation, confessed to killing the victim because she refused to have sex with him. Initially pleading not guilty, Parba later moved to change his plea to guilty after the prosecution had already presented five witnesses. The trial court accepted the change of plea and, based on the evidence presented, found him guilty and imposed the death penalty.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty upon the accused, considering his plea of guilty and the circumstance of his minority at the time of the commission of the crime.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that the trial court did not err in accepting the change of plea from not guilty to guilty. The plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, with the accused fully aware of its consequences. Crucially, the conviction was based not solely on the plea but on the sufficient evidence already presented by the prosecution, which independently established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, the trial court erred in disregarding the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority. It was undisputed that Parba was seventeen years old at the time of the offense. Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, a person over fifteen but under eighteen years of age is entitled to a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed by law. The prescribed penalty for attempted rape with homicide was death. Applying Article 68, the penalty is lowered by one degree. Consequently, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, not death. The Court distinguished this case from People vs. Ramos, which dealt with ordinary mitigating circumstances not affecting the indivisible penalty of death, whereas Article 68 provides a privileged mitigation that mandates a reduction in the penalty degree itself. Thus, the penalty was reduced from death to reclusion perpetua.