G.R. No. 135516 ; September 20, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NEIL DUMAGUING, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Neil Dumaguing, was charged with the qualified rape of his ten-year-old daughter, Kelyn Dumaguing, on May 7, 1995, in Concepcion, Tarlac. The information alleged that he used force and intimidation. The victim testified that after lunch, her father sent her brothers away, dragged her at knifepoint to a bedroom, and sexually assaulted her, causing her to bleed and scream. Her uncle, hearing the screams, forcibly entered the house and took her to the hospital. Medical examination confirmed fresh lacerations and active bleeding consistent with rape. The victim’s birth certificate established her minority and her filiation to the accused.
During trial, the accused initially pleaded not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty. The prosecution presented the testimonies of the victim and her mother, the birth certificate, and the medico-legal report. The defense presented no evidence. The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty of qualified rape and imposed the death penalty, ordering him to pay moral damages. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty without appreciating the alleged mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and drunkenness, and whether the judgment complied with procedural requirements.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty but modified the civil indemnity. The legal logic is that under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 , the death penalty is mandated for rape when the victim is under eighteen and the offender is a parent. The Court found the qualifying circumstance of relationship and the victim’s age were conclusively proven by the victim’s testimony and birth certificate. The accused’s plea of guilty and the corroborative medical evidence established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Regarding the alleged mitigating circumstances, the Court ruled that voluntary surrender and drunkenness were not proven by evidence and, even if considered, would not affect the penalty. Death is a single indivisible penalty, and the presence of mitigating circumstances does not lower it under the law. The Court also admonished the trial court for its judgment’s lack of a clear statement of facts and law, as required by the Rules of Court, but found this procedural lapse did not prejudice the accused’s substantial rights. The civil indemnity was increased to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (₱75,000.00) in line with prevailing jurisprudence.