GR 167503; (August, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167503; August 20, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. LUISITO BAUN y MERCADO, appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Luisito Baun was charged with four counts of qualified rape committed against his daughter, AAA, in July, August, and September 2001. The Informations alleged the qualifying circumstance of moral ascendancy due to the father-daughter relationship. Upon arraignment, appellant initially pleaded not guilty but later withdrew this plea and was re-arraigned, entering a plea of guilty to all four charges. The Regional Trial Court conducted a searching inquiry to ensure the plea was voluntary and intelligent. Notwithstanding the guilty plea, the trial court proceeded to receive evidence from the prosecution, which included AAA’s testimony, birth certificate proving her minority and filiation, and a medical certificate indicating old, healed hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual intercourse. The RTC convicted appellant and imposed the death penalty for each count.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly imposed the death penalty based on the appellant’s plea of guilty and the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that a plea of guilty to a capital offense does not automatically result in conviction; the prosecution must still prove the crime and the qualifying circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the prosecution successfully established all elements of rape through AAA’s credible testimony and documentary evidence. The qualifying circumstance of relationship (father-daughter) was duly proven by AAA’s birth certificate. However, the death penalty could not be imposed. The Informations alleged “moral ascendancy” as the qualifying circumstance, but under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, the specific qualifying circumstance for rape when the victim is under eighteen is “relationship,” with the offender being the parent. The use of the term “moral ascendancy” in the Informations was a technical inaccuracy. While this did not vitiate the charges, the penalty must be based on the law in effect. Furthermore, Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibited the death penalty, had taken effect. Consequently, the proper penalty was reclusion perpetua for each count without eligibility for parole. The awards of civil indemnity and moral damages were also affirmed and increased to conform with prevailing jurisprudence.