GR 50632; (February, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-50632 February 24, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MARIANO ENTES, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Mariano Entes, was convicted of rape and sentenced to death by the trial court. The information alleged that on or about December 10, 1976, in Cuyo, Palawan, he had carnal knowledge of his daughter, Rosa Entes, by means of force, violence, threats, and intimidation. The prosecution established that the rape occurred in their small family home at midnight, with the accused using a bolo to threaten the victim and covering her mouth to prevent noise. Rosa, who was a minor, became pregnant as a result. The crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and relationship. During the trial, affidavits of desistance executed by Rosa and her aunt were presented, but these were made after the criminal action had been instituted.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the death penalty was correctly imposed, considering the presence of alleged affidavits of desistance and the proper characterization of the aggravating circumstance of the use of a deadly weapon.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The Court held that the affidavits of desistance, executed after the institution of the criminal case, did not constitute a valid pardon under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and could not justify dismissal or serve as a mitigating circumstance. They did not represent an admission of guilt indicative of a disposition to reform. Regarding the penalty, the Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the use of a deadly weapon, while proven, was not expressly alleged in the information as a qualifying circumstance under Article 335. Consequently, it could only be considered as an ordinary aggravating circumstance, not one that would elevate the penalty from reclusion perpetua to death. With the presence of ordinary aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua in its maximum period. Thus, the judgment was affirmed with the modification of the penalty.