G.R. No. 130665 April 21, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO BALIAO EMPANTE @ “PETER,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Pedro Empante was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of three counts of rape committed against his daughter, Elvie Empante, who was below eighteen years of age at the time of the incidents. The rapes occurred on separate occasions in November 1994, December 24, 1996, and January 18, 1997. In each instance, Empante employed intimidation by threatening Elvie with a hunting knife to overcome her resistance. The victim’s fear was compounded by her father’s known violent disposition towards her mother. The crimes were revealed after the third incident, leading to a medical examination that confirmed sexual abuse. The trial court sentenced Empante to death for each count and ordered him to pay indemnity and moral damages.
Empante admitted his guilt but appealed, contending the trial court erred in not appreciating two mitigating circumstances: voluntary confession of guilt and intoxication. He claimed he was intoxicated during the commission of the crimes and that his plea of guilty during arraignment and his testimonial admissions in court constituted a voluntary confession deserving of mitigating weight.

ISSUE

Whether the mitigating circumstances of voluntary confession of guilt and intoxication are present to warrant a reduction of the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the civil liabilities. It rejected both claimed mitigating circumstances. On voluntary confession, the Court ruled that a plea of guilty during arraignment is mitigating only if made prior to the presentation of prosecution evidence. Here, Empante initially pleaded not guilty and only changed his plea after the prosecution had rested, thereby forfeiting any mitigating benefit. His subsequent testimonial admissions in court do not qualify as a voluntary confession under the Revised Penal Code.
Regarding intoxication, the Court held it is mitigating only if it is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the crime, and it must diminish the exercise of willpower. Empante failed to prove these elements. His claim of being a habitual drinker negates the circumstance. Moreover, the detailed and deliberate manner of the crimes—using a knife, making threats, and exploiting the absence of the victim’s mother—demonstrates a clear design that was not impaired by alcohol. Consequently, no mitigating circumstance attended the commission of the crimes. The qualifying circumstance of the victim being under eighteen and the offender being her parent was duly proven, warranting the imposition of the death penalty. The Court increased the civil indemnity to P75,000.00 for each count while maintaining the P50,000.00 moral damages award.