EN BANC

[G.R. No. 177742. December 17, 2008.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . JOSELITO A.

LOPIT , accused-appellant.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO , J : p

Before us on automatic review is the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)

dated June 30, 2006 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01896 which a rmed, with modi cations,
the decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga, Branch 25, in
Criminal Case No. 85-2003, nding herein accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Quali ed Rape committed against his own daughter and
sentencing him to suffer the extreme penalty of death. CSDAIa

Consistent with People v. Cabalquinto, 3 the Court withholds the real name of the
rape victim. Instead, ctitious initials of AAA are used to represent her. Also, the
personal circumstances of the victim or any other information tending to establish or
compromise her identity, as well as those of her immediate family or household
members, is not disclosed in this decision. 4 In this regard, the mother is referred to as
BBB.
In three (3) separate Informations 5 dated September 15, 2003, accused-
appellant was charged with three (3) counts of rape committed against his own 14-
year old daughter AAA on September 5, 7, and 9, 2003. Except for the dates of the
commission of the crime, the Informations were identically worded, thus:
CRIM. CASE NO. 85-2003
The undersigned accuses [accused-appellant], a detention prisoner at the
PNP of Tabuk, of the crime of RAPE, de ned and penalized under Republic Act
Numbered 8353, committed as follows:
That on or about September 5, 2003 at San Julian, Tabuk, Kalinga, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, through force, threat
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge of her daughter [AAA], who is a minor, fourteen (14) years of
age, against her will.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
On November 4, 2003, accused-appellant, duly assisted by Atty. Marcelino K.
Wacas of the Public Attorney's O ce (PAO), entered a plea of "not guilty" in Criminal
Case Nos. 85-2003, 86-2003 and 87-2003. 7
On November 10, 2003, the PAO lawyer verbally moved to be relieved as counsel
for accused-appellant and with the latter's concurrence, the motion was granted. In his
stead, Atty. Daniel Dapeg of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Legal Aid Pilot Project
was appointed as accused-appellant's counsel de oficio. 8
During the pre-trial conference held on November 12, 2003, accused-appellant,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 assisted by counsel, manifested his desire to plea-bargain. In open court, he expressed
willingness to plead guilty in Criminal Case No. 85-2003, on the condition that the
Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 86-2003 and 87-2003 be withdrawn. Victim AAA,
assisted by her mother BBB and the provincial prosecutor, expressed her conformity
thereto. 9
Thus, accused-appellant entered a new plea of "guilty" to the crime of rape in
Criminal Case No. 85-2003. 1 0 This was done with the assistance of counsel de o cio
and after the trial court conducted searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
comprehension of the consequences of the accused-appellant's plea. HASTCa

Thereafter, the trial court commenced with the reception of evidence to prove
accused-appellant's guilt and degree of culpability.
The prosecution presented the victim AAA and her mother BBB as witnesses,
while accused-appellant testified on his own defense.
After trial, the court a quo rendered its Decision on November 28, 2003 imposing
upon the accused-appellant the supreme penalty of death thus:
Accordingly, judgment is hereby rendered nding the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape attendant the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship, victim [AAA] being 15
years old and daughter of [accused-appellant] and hereby sentences the said
accused the supreme penalty of death and to indemnify minor victim
P75,000.00, by way of civil indemnity, moral damages in the amount of
P100,000.00 and P50,000.00 by way of exemplary damages, plus cost. TEHIaD

Transmit the record of the case to the O ce of the Clerk of Court,

Supreme Court of the Philippines for review.
SO ORDERED. 1 1
The records of these cases were forwarded to this Court for automatic review, in
view of the death penalty imposed.
In our Resolution 1 2 of August 10, 2004, We accepted the appeal and directed the
Chief, Judicial Records O ce, to send notices to the parties to le their respective
briefs and to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, to con rm the detention of the
accused at the National Penitentiary. Accused-appellant led his Appellant's Brief 1 3 on
April 11, 2005, while the People, through the O ce of the Solicitor General (OSG), led
its Appellee's Brief 1 4 on May 31, 2005. AHacIS

Conformably with this Court's decision in People v. Mateo, 1 5 accused-

appellant's appeal by way of automatic review was transferred to the CA where it was
docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01896.
The prosecution, through the testimonies of the victim (AAA) and witness (BBB),
the victim's mother, established the following facts:
[AAA], then fourteen (14) years old having been born on October 2, 1988,
is the daughter of the [accused-appellant] and BBB, a barangay midwife; they
were married on May 10, 1986. On September 5, 2003 at around 2:00 in the
afternoon, [AAA], a third year high school student at Tabuk National High School
was in their house together with her mentally retarded sister CCC. At that time,
their mother [BBB] was in San Julian Elementary School. Suddenly [AAA]'s
father [accused-appellant], a farmer, arrived drunk and forced the victim to have
sexual intercourse with him. She struggled but her efforts were in vain since
[accused-appellant] was strong. [Accused-appellant] removed his pants and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 pinned the victim on the bed, pulled down her pants and inserted his penis into
her vagina. [AAA] cried. After doing the bestial act, [accused-appellant] left but
not before threatening [AAA] that he would kill her, her mother and siblings if she
reported the matter. As further testified by the victim, she had been sleeping with
her father on the cement oor of their un nished house for some time and that
her father started staying with them only in 2002 since he had been staying in
Laguna as a soldier in the Philippine Army. TCaSAH

Terri ed and disgusted by what happened to her, the victim left home on
September 10, 2003. She stayed in the house of Rita Carbonel in San Francisco,
Tabuk, Kalinga. On September 11, 2003, [BBB] came looking for her and it was
only then that the victim revealed the sexual assaults committed by her father.
Without delay, [BBB] accompanied her daughter to the police headquarters
where the victim's statement was taken.
[BBB] testi ed that she and [accused-appellant] were married on May 10,
1986 at Calanasan, Cagayan. Although she did not present any document to
prove such assertion nor did she expressly and categorically state that
[accused-appellant] was the victim's father, the victim repeatedly referred to
[accused-appellant] as her father all throughout her testimony. Their relationship
was never refuted by the [accused-appellant] who in fact admitted in open court
that [AAA] was one of his daughters. aITECA

On the other hand, accused-appellant testi ed on his own version of the events
which transpired on September 5, 2003:
For his part, [accused-appellant] testi ed that on September 5, 2003, he
came home drunk and fell asleep naked on the cemented oor; that he was
awakened when someone placed a mat and a blanket for him. He thought that
his daughter was his wife, so he had sex with her. [Accused-appellant]
manifested remorse and declared that he pleaded guilty as he had no money to
ght his case also to secure a reduction of the penalty that will be imposed on
him.
On June 30, 2006, the CA promulgated the herein challenged decision a rming
in most part the decision of the trial court with modi cation only in the amount of the
award of moral and exemplary damages. Pertinently, the CA decision reads in part:
With respect to the civil aspect of the crimes, We sustain the award of
civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 since rape was committed in its
quali ed form. However, the trial court's award of P100,000.00 as moral
damages and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages must be modi ed. In line with
existing jurisprudence, the award of moral damages should be in the amount of
P75,000.00, without need of further proof. Likewise, exemplary damages is
reduced to P25,000.00 in line with existing jurisprudence. IcDHaT

A nal note: Notwithstanding current moves for the abolition of the death
penalty, no legislation or rules have yet been promulgated relative thereto as of
the time of the writing of his Decision, hence We are constrained to a rm the
penalty imposed by the court a quo which We nd to be conformable to the
facts and existing law.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed Decision is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is reduced to
P75,000.00 and exemplary damages to P25,000.00 or a total of P175,000.00.
Let the record of this case be elevated to the Honorable Supreme Court for
review pursuant to Rule 124, Section 13 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 SO ORDERED.

On April 23, 2007, the CA forwarded the records of the case to this Court for
automatic review. 1 6
In the Resolution 1 7 dated June 26, 2007, We required the parties to
simultaneously submit their respective supplemental briefs. However, the parties led
separate manifestations stating that they were waiving the ling of supplemental briefs
and instead opted to stand by their respective briefs filed with the CA. aTADCE

In his Brief, accused-appellant alleged that the trial court gravely erred in
imposing on him the supreme penalty of death.
Before delving into the main issue of the case, it is necessary to determine
whether the trial court has satis ed the requirement as mandated by Rule 116 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides:
SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. —
When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the
precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence on his
behalf. aCTHDA

Explicitly, when the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall
conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise
degree of his culpability. The accused may also present evidence on his behalf. Under
the foregoing Rule, three things are enjoined upon the trial court when a plea of guilty to
a capital offense is entered: (1) the court must conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness of the plea and the accused's full comprehension of the consequences
thereof; (2) the court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the
guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and (3) the court must
ask the accused if he desires to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so
if he desires. 1 8
We explained the rationale of the rule in People v. Albert, 1 9 thus:
The rationale behind the rule is that courts must proceed with more care
where the possible punishment is in its severest form — death — for the reason
that the execution of such a sentence is irrevocable and experience has shown
that innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty. The primordial purpose then
is to avoid improvident pleas of guilt on the part of an accused when grave
crimes are involved since he might be admitting his guilt before the court and
thus forfeit his life and liberty without having fully understood the meaning,
signi cance and consequences of his plea. Moreover, the requirement of taking
further evidence would aid the Supreme Court on appellate review in
determining the propriety or impropriety of the plea.
aATCDI

It is not enough to inquire as to the voluntariness of the plea; the court must
explain fully to the accused that once convicted, he could be meted the death penalty;
that death is a single and indivisible penalty and will be imposed regardless of any
mitigating circumstance that may have attended the commission of the felony. Thus,
the importance of the court's obligation cannot be overemphasized, for one cannot
dispel the possibility that the accused may have been led to believe that due to his
voluntary plea of guilty, he may be imposed a lesser penalty, 2 0 which was precisely
what happened here.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The trial court proffered the following questions to accused-appellant to
determine the voluntariness and full comprehension of his change of plea from "not
guilty" to "guilty", thus: 2 1
COURT

Q Mr. Lopit y Abulao you have been arraigned yesterday with the Information
for Rape in Criminal Case No. 85-2003, did you confer with your newly
designated counsel de oficio regarding your plea?

WITNESS
A Yes, Your Honor.

Q After having been confer (sic) with him that you entered a plea of guilty for
the Information of Rape you voluntary done (sic) of your own perception?
CcEHaI

A Yes, Your Honor.

Q Will you tell us the reason why you have pleaded guilty to the offense?

A I have no money to fight my case, Your Honor.

Q Is that the reason why you have admitted or because you are repenting for
the intention you have committed?
A That is the only reason, Your Honor.

Q Are you telling us that you did not rape your daughter?
A No, Your Honor.
Q If you did not rape your daughter, why did you plead guilty?

A Atty. Wagas told me to admit one case in order to reduce the penalty, Your
Honor. IcaHTA

Q In fact there are three (3) Criminal Cases for Rape allotted against you
involving your daughter, is that correct?

A Yes, Your Honor.

Q Did you believe that beneficial to you to admit one?
A Yes, Your Honor.

Q And that is the reason you pleaded guilty?

A Yes, Your Honor.

Q Is it not therefore the lack of money that to ght a case and prompted you
to plea of guilty?CSDAIa

A Yes, both Your Honor.

Q So it is the reason?

A Yes Your Honor. 2 2

Clearly, Section 3, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure was not
satisfactorily complied with. The trial court should have taken the necessary measures
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 to see to it that accused-appellant really and freely comprehended the meaning, full
signi cance and consequences of his plea but it did not. It failed to explain to accused-
appellant that the penalty imposable for the crime attended by the qualifying
circumstance of minority and liation, as alleged in the Information against him, is
death, whether or not he pleads guilty and regardless of the presence of other
mitigating circumstances. Accused-appellant's justi cation that he had no money to
defend his case and his belief that the penalty would be reduced if he pleaded guilty
were not su cient reasons for the trial court to allow a change of plea from not guilty
to one of guilty. It was the duty of the judge to see to it that the accused did not labor
under this mistaken impression. DcHSEa

Still, the trial court's shortcomings will not necessarily result in accused-
appellant's acquittal. The evidence for the prosecution, independently of accused-
appellant's plea of guilty, adequately established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt as
charged in the Informations. The testimony of the victim AAA is worthy of belief and
enough to convict accused-appellant. She testi ed in a candid, straightforward and
categorical manner. She narrated in open court that on September 5, 2003, she was
ravished by her own father. She recalled thus:
My mother went to San Juan Elementary School at 2: o'clock he was
forcing me but I refused. He was strong and I kicked him and he put my pants
down and then he took advantage of me. 2 3
AAA recounted how accused-appellant was able to insert his private organ into
hers in the midst of her tears and in full view of her mentally challenged sister who was
unfortunately oblivious of their father's dastardly act. 2 4 After satisfying his bestial
instinct, accused-appellant left his daughter AAA with a threat: "No agipulong ka,
patayen kayo amin". (If you will report, I will kill you all). 2 5
Thus, accused-appellant's plea of guilty effectively corroborated and
substantiated victim AAA's allegation that accused-appellant indeed raped her.
In his Brief, accused-appellant does not question his conviction for raping his
own daughter. He only assails the imposition of the death penalty by the CA. Accused-
appellant contends that while the Information alleged the qualifying circumstances of
both his relationship to the victim and the latter's minority, the prosecution failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt these qualifying circumstances. The People through
the OSG, while maintaining that accused-appellant's guilt has been proven beyond
reasonable doubt, agrees that accused-appellant should only be convicted of simple
rape, as the qualifying circumstances of the victim's minority and her liation with
accused-appellant were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. HCITcA

We agree.
Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA 7659 and further
amended by RA 8353, provides:
Art. 266-A. Rape. When and how committed. — Rape is committed —
1.) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under
any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

Art. 266-B. Penalties. — Rape under paragraph 1 of the next

preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

xxx xxx xxx

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity
or a nity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent
of the victim; aHcACI

In the prosecution of criminal cases, especially those involving the extreme

penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to
constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established. Qualifying
circumstances or special qualifying circumstances must be proved with equal certainty
and clearness as the crime itself; otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in
its quali ed form. As a qualifying circumstance of the crime of rape, the concurrence of
the victim's minority and her relationship to the accused-appellant must be both alleged
and proven beyond reasonable doubt. 2 6
Here, the Information alleged the concurrence of the victim's minority and her
relationship to accused-appellant. However, except for the bare testimony of the victim
and her mother as to the former's age as well as their liation to the accused-appellant,
no birth certi cate or baptismal certi cate or school record and marriage contract
exist on record to prove beyond reasonable doubt the victim's age or her minority at the
time of the commission of the offense. In People v. Tabanggay, 2 7 we held:
Jurisprudence dictates that when the law speci es certain circumstances
that will qualify an offense and thus attach to it a greater degree of penalty,
such circumstances must be both alleged and proven in order to justify the
imposition of the graver penalty. Recent rulings of the Court relative to the rape
of minors invariably state that in order to justify the imposition of death, there
must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused.
A duly certi ed certi cate of live birth accurately showing the complainant's
age, or some other o cial document or record such as a school record, has
been recognized as competent evidence. CDAEHS

In the instant case, we nd insu cient the bare testimony of private

complainants and their mother as to their ages as well as their kinship to the
appellant. . . . [We] cannot agree with the solicitor general that appellant's
admission of his relationship with his victims would su ce. Elementary is the
doctrine that the prosecution bears the burden of proving all the elements of a
crime, including the qualifying circumstances. In sum, the death penalty cannot
be imposed.
There is no showing that the victim's birth certi cate and accused-appellant's
marriage contract were lost or destroyed or were unavailable without the prosecution's
fault. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
alleged special qualifying circumstance of minority attended the commission of the
crime of rape. Hence, accused-appellant should be convicted only of simple rape.
Simple rape is punishable by a single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. Article
63 of the Revised Penal Code provides that in "all cases in which the law prescribes a
single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating
or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed".
Accordingly, the imposed indemnity and moral damages should be reduced to
(P50,000.00) pursuant to our ruling in People v. Gonzales, 2 8 that upon a nding of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 fact of rape, the award of civil indemnity ex delicto is mandatory. If the death penalty is
imposed, the indemnity should be P75,000.00; otherwise, the victim is entitled to
P50,000.00. An additional P50,000.00 should be awarded as moral damages. Moral
damages are automatically granted in rape cases without need of further proof other
than the commission of the crime, because it is assumed that a rape victim has actually
suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.
Finally, the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 is in order.
Exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases as part of civil liability if the
crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Relationship as an
alternative circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code is considered
aggravating in the crime of rape. In this case, victim AAA was raped by her own father.
Accused-appellant admitted the allegation of such relationship in his direct testimony.
Hence, complainant is entitled to the award of exemplary damages in the amount of
P25,000.00 in order to deter fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual
behavior from preying upon their young daughters. 2 9
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated June 30, 2006 of the CA is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that accused-appellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
SIMPLE RAPE and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay
the victim AAA, indemnity ex delicto of P50,000.00, moral damages of P50,000.00 and
exemplary damages of P25,000.00. No pronouncement as to costs. EDcICT

SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-
Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes and Brion, JJ.,
concur.
Corona, J., is on official leave.

Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos with Associate Justice Amelita
G. Tolentino and Associate Justice Santiago Javier Ranada concurring; rollo, pp. 3-14.
2. Penned by Judge Milnar T. Lammawin; CA rollo, pp. 10-19.

3. G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419.

4. People v. Guillermo, G.R. No. 173787, April 23, 2007, 521 SCRA 597, 599.
5. Supra note 2 at 11-12.
6. CA rollo, p. 5.
7. RTC Record, p. 18.

8. Id. at 21.
9. TSN, dated November 12, 2003, pp. 3-8.
10. RTC Record, p. 25. HAIDcE

11. CA Record, p. 19.

12. Id. at 23.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 13. Id. at 38-49.
14. Id. at 66-77.
15. G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640, 657-658.

16. Rollo, p. 1.
17. Id. at 17.
18. People v. Murillo, G.R. No. 134583, July 14, 2004, 434 SCRA 342, 349.
19. People v. Albert, G.R. No. 114001, December 11, 1995, 251 SCRA 136, 145-146.
20. People v. Ibañez, G.R. Nos. 133923-24, July 30, 2003, 407 SCRA 406, 415-416.
21. TSN, dated November 13, 2003, pp. 4-5.
22. TSN, dated November 13, 2003, pp. 4-5.
23. TSN, dated November 12, 2003, p. 14.
24. Id. at 15.
25. Id. at 16.
26. People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 142577, December 27, 2002, 394 SCRA 452, 469.
27. G.R. No. 130504, June 29, 2000, 334 SCRA 575, 600-601.
28. G.R. No. 140676, July 31, 2002, 385 SCRA 573, 587-588.
29. People v. Viajedor, G.R. No. 148138, April 11, 2003, 401 SCRA 312, 331. aTEAHc

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com