G.R. No. L-13780; January 28, 1961
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANTONIO YU, alias SOSTENES YONGCO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused, Antonio Yu, was charged with the complex crime of Rape with Murder for the death of a six-year-old girl, Delia Abule. The amended information alleged that on November 14, 1957, in Davao City, the accused, by means of violence and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of the victim. On the occasion of the rape, and to silence her shouting, he strangled her, resulting in her death. The information alleged the aggravating circumstances of craft and evident premeditation. Assisted by counsel de oficio, the accused pleaded guilty to the charge but reserved the right to prove the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. The Court of First Instance of Davao found him guilty and, applying Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, imposed the penalty of death for the complex crime, indemnified the heirs, and ordered payment of costs. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

The issues raised were: (1) whether the trial court had jurisdiction despite the complaint being signed only by the fiscal and not the victim’s parents; (2) whether the accused committed a complex crime or two separate offenses; and (3) whether the imposition of the death penalty was correct.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction. The crime charged was a complex crime, with one component (murder) being a public crime. Consequently, the provincial fiscal alone could validly sign the complaint, and the requirement for a private complainant’s signature for simple rape did not apply. On the nature of the crime, the Court held it was correctly complex. The amended information and the accused’s own testimony established that the acts of rape and murder were simultaneous and interconnected. The accused strangled the victim to silence her during the rape, showing a unity of criminal purpose. This constituted a complex crime under Article 48, distinct from cases where the killing was separate and subsequent to the rape. Regarding the penalty, the Court agreed that murder was the more serious component. The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal maximum to death. For a complex crime, this penalty is imposed in its maximum period—death. The Court rejected the claimed mitigating circumstance of lack of intent. The accused’s act of strangling a helpless six-year-old child while raping her inherently demonstrated an intent to kill, negating any lack of intent to commit a grave wrong. The plea of guilty was a mitigating circumstance, but the two aggravating circumstances (craft and evident premeditation) alleged in the information and admitted by the plea offset it. Thus, the imposition of the death penalty was legally mandated and affirmed.