G.R. No. 120630 , June 28, 2001
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Marcelo Palermo y Carias, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Marcelo Palermo was charged with the rape of his 14-year-old daughter, Merly Palermo, on April 2, 1994, in Mogpog, Marinduque. The Information alleged the use of force, violence, and intimidation, and cited aggravating circumstances of recidivism (due to a prior final conviction for rape), abuse of confidence and moral ascendancy, and nighttime. During the trial, Merly testified that on the night in question, her father ordered her to sleep on a mat, removed her shorts and panty, and when she resisted by boxing him and crying, he boxed her in the belly, causing her to lose consciousness. She regained consciousness at dawn with vaginal pain and a bloodied panty. She was later hospitalized for an incomplete abortion. Merly also testified about a prior rape in March 1994 and about ten subsequent sexual assaults, which she did not immediately report due to threats from her father. When the defense presented its evidence, Marcelo, upon direct examination, categorically admitted to raping his daughter, stating he committed the crime while drunk. He confirmed his confession was voluntary and understood it could lead to the death penalty. The trial court convicted him and imposed the death penalty, considering the aggravating circumstances of recidivism and abuse of confidence, with no mitigating circumstances.

ISSUE

The primary issue raised by the appellant is whether his judicial confession of guilt, made during the presentation of the defense evidence, constitutes a mitigating circumstance that could reduce the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that the appellant’s judicial confession, made after the prosecution had rested its case, does not qualify as a mitigating circumstance analogous to a plea of guilty. A plea of guilty, to be mitigating, must be made prior to the presentation of prosecution evidence. Since the confession was made only during the defense’s turn to present evidence, it cannot be considered mitigating. However, the Court found that the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. For recidivism to aggravate the penalty in rape cases under Republic Act No. 7659 , the prior conviction must be for a crime under the same title (Title Eight) of the Revised Penal Code. The appellant’s prior conviction was also for rape, which falls under Title Eight (Crimes Against Persons). Therefore, recidivism was properly appreciated. Nonetheless, the Court ruled that the death penalty cannot be imposed because the Information failed to allege the victim’s exact age (14 years) with specificity, such as stating the date of birth, which is necessary for the imposition of the death penalty under the law. The presence of the qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship must be alleged with certainty in the Information. Consequently, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Court also awarded moral damages to the victim.