G.R. No. 116749 -50 August 26, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CESAR PONAYO y ADIM, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Cesar Ponayo was charged with two counts of rape against his 15-year-old daughter, Teodelyn. The incidents occurred on July 25, 1992, and August 8, 1992, in Cabusao, Camarines Sur. Appellant initially pleaded not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty for both charges. Pursuant to the rules, the trial court required the prosecution to present evidence to establish his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The victim testified in detail about the assaults. On July 25, appellant, after being left alone with her, used violence, tied her up, and raped her. On August 8, he again raped her, this time threatening her with a kitchen knife. Teodelyn eventually reported the crimes to her aunt and the authorities.
The trial court found appellant guilty on both counts and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each crime, ordering him to pay P40,000.00 civil indemnity per count. Appellant appealed, not contesting the conviction based on his guilty plea, but questioning the penalty imposed. He argued for a reduction, citing the mitigating circumstance of his plea of guilt.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, considering the appellant’s plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification on the civil indemnity. The legal logic hinges on the application of Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code concerning indivisible penalties. For the first rape (Criminal Case No. L-1529), the prescribed penalty under the law at the time was reclusion perpetua, a single indivisible penalty. Under Article 63, a single indivisible penalty must be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Therefore, the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilt could not reduce the penalty from reclusion perpetua.
For the second rape (Criminal Case No. L-1530), where a deadly weapon (a kitchen knife) was employed, the law prescribed a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties: reclusion perpetua to death. When the law prescribes a range of two indivisible penalties and a mitigating circumstance is present, Article 63(3) mandates the application of the lesser penalty. Consequently, with the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilt, the correct penalty is the lesser one, reclusion perpetua. Thus, the trial court correctly imposed reclusion perpetua for both counts. The Court, however, increased the civil indemnity to P50,000.00 for each count, conforming to prevailing jurisprudence.