G.R. No. 129439 September 25, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELICIANO RAMOS y MAGPALE, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Feliciano Ramos was charged with the rape of his 14-year-old daughter, Elizabeth T. Ramos, alleged to have been committed in April 1995 in Barangay San Nicolas, Villasis, Pangasinan, through force and intimidation. The complaint was filed after Elizabeth suffered an abortion and was found to have been pregnant. During the trial, Elizabeth testified that one night in April 1995, while the family was sleeping, appellant transferred her siblings and then, lying beside her, used force to have sexual intercourse with her, threatening to kill her if she reported it. She stated this act was repeated multiple times. Appellant initially pleaded not guilty. During cross-examination, defense counsel highlighted inconsistencies between Elizabeth’s court testimony and her sworn statement from the preliminary investigation regarding the time of day of the rape, who accompanied her to the doctor, and the whereabouts of her siblings during the incident. The cross-examination was suspended when Elizabeth became uncontrollably emotional. Subsequently, appellant moved to change his plea to guilty. After the trial court explained the consequences, appellant was re-arraigned and pleaded guilty. He then presented evidence to prove the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender through the testimony of SPO4 Samuel Aban, who arrested him. The Regional Trial Court found appellant guilty and imposed the death penalty, along with damages.

ISSUE

The primary issue for review is the correctness of the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty, which involves an assessment of: (1) the credibility of the complainant’s testimony despite alleged inconsistencies; (2) the validity of appellant’s plea of guilty; and (3) the propriety of the penalty imposed.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty. The Court held:
1. The inconsistencies between Elizabeth’s sworn statement and her court testimony pertained only to minor details (time of day, companions to the doctor, siblings’ location) and did not affect the core elements of rape or the positive identification of appellant. The Court emphasized that testimonies in open court are superior to ex parte affidavits, which are often incomplete. Elizabeth’s candid and emotional narration in court, including her crying, bolstered her credibility. The Court also rejected appellant’s arguments that rape was impossible due to the presence of sleeping siblings or based on the doctor’s estimated conception date, noting that rape can occur despite nearby occupants and that the exact date of conception was not definitively established.
2. Regarding the plea of guilty, the Court found it was validly entered after the trial court duly explained the consequences of such a plea to a capital offense and translated the information into Ilocano, which appellant understood.
3. On the penalty, the Court found that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was not sufficiently proven. The testimony of SPO4 Aban indicated appellant was arrested pursuant to a warrant while feeding ducks; there was no showing appellant unconditionally surrendered himself to authorities or acknowledged his guilt. Therefore, no mitigating circumstance attended the commission of the crime.
4. However, the Court modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The Court ruled that a plea of guilty to a capital offense, even if accepted after a plea of not guilty and the prosecution has already presented evidence, is not a mitigating circumstance under Article 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code. The provision only applies when the plea of guilty is made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. Since appellant pleaded guilty only after the prosecution had already presented its evidence (the complainant’s testimony), the plea could not be considered mitigating. With no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, the penalty for rape committed by a father against his minor daughter under Article 335, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, is reclusion perpetua to death. Applying Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed. The award of damages was sustained.