G.R. No. 118312 -13. July 28, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALFONSO PINEDA y ESMINO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Alfonso Pineda y Esmino is the common-law spouse of private complainant Milagros V. Pineda’s mother and is also Milagros’s natural father. At the time of the incidents, Milagros was a thirteen-year-old student. While her mother worked abroad, she lived with appellant and her younger brother. On July 12, 1994, between 11:00 PM and 12:00 midnight, appellant arrived home drunk, touched Milagros’s private parts, went on top of her, pointed a knife at her neck, undressed and kissed her, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her. He threatened to kill her and her brother if she reported it. On September 2, 1994, at around 2:00 AM, appellant again poked a knife at her, undressed her, forcibly lowered her underwear, and had sexual intercourse with her. Milagros reported the rapes to her guidance counselor and her maternal grandmother, which led to barangay and police reports. A medical examination revealed positive hymenal lacerations. Two criminal complaints for rape were filed. During arraignment, appellant, initially pleading not guilty, later changed his plea to guilty for both counts despite his counsel’s admonitions. The trial court conducted a searching inquiry, accepted the pleas, and allowed the prosecution to present evidence, which included the testimony of Milagros, her guidance counselor, and the examining physician, along with documentary evidence. The defense presented no evidence but argued that the plea of guilty should be a mitigating circumstance. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant of two counts of qualified rape and imposed two death penalties, plus indemnity.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating appellant’s voluntary plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance to mitigate his criminal liability and impose a penalty lesser than death.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalties. The plea of guilty cannot be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance because the penalty prescribed for qualified rape is death, a single indivisible penalty. Under the Revised Penal Code, mitigating circumstances can only affect the penalty when it is divisible. Furthermore, the relationship of father and daughter qualified the rapes under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659 , making the death penalty applicable. However, at the time of the commission of the crimes in 1994, R.A. No. 7659 (the death penalty law) was not yet in effect; it took effect only on December 31, 1993, but the crimes were committed in July and September 1994, so the law was applicable. Nevertheless, due to the prohibition against the imposition of the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution prior to its re-imposition by R.A. No. 7659 , and following prevailing jurisprudence, the penalty for each count of qualified rape is reclusion perpetua. The Court also increased the indemnity to P50,000.00 for each count of rape. The decision of the trial court was modified accordingly.