ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1279 March 1, 2001 - ALICIA GONZALES-DECANO v. ORLANDO ANA F. SIAPNO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1282 March 1, 2001 - SOFRONIO DAYOT v. RODOLFO B. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 112092 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 123069 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SASPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126019 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO CALDONA

  • G.R. No. 131637 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELIO PERALTA

  • G.R. No. 133888 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO NARDO

  • G.R. No. 134330 March 1, 2001 - ENRIQUE M. BELO, ET AL. v. PHIL. NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135667-70 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESSIE VENTURA COLLADO

  • G.R. No. 138666 March 1, 2001 - ISABELO LORENZANA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 140511 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR AMION

  • G.R. No. 142313 March 1, 2001 - MANUEL CHU, SR., ET AL. v. BENELDA ESTATE DEV’T. CORP.

  • G.R. No. 142527 March 1, 2001 - ARSENIO ALVAREZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144678 March 1, 2001 - JAVIER E. ZACATE v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146710-15 & 146738 March 2, 2001 - JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113236 March 5, 2001 - FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113265 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 118680 March 5, 2001 - MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ PEDROSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123788 March 5, 2001 - DOMINADOR DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124686 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE ELLADO

  • G.R. No. 127158 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO HERIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132353 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO IBO

  • G.R. No. 126557 March 6, 2001 - RAMON ALBERT v. CELSO D. GANGAN

  • G.R. No. 138646 March 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOMER CABANSAY

  • G.R. No. 139518 March 6, 2001 - EVANGELINE L. PUZON v. STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT

  • G.R. Nos. 140249 & 140363 March 6, 2001 - DANILO S. YAP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140884 March 6, 2001 - GELACIO P. GEMENTIZA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143823 March 6, 2001 - JENNIFER ABRAHAM v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126168 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SAMUDIO

  • G.R. No. 129594 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNNIFER LAURENTE

  • G.R. No. 135945 March 7, 2001 - UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN HILL v. COMM. ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS

  • G.R. No. 136173 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ICALLA

  • G.R. Nos. 137481-83 & 138455 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO SALADINO

  • G.R. Nos. 139962-66 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO MANGOMPIT

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1297 March 7, 2001 - JOSEFINA BANGCO v. RODOLFO S. GATDULA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329 March 8, 2001 - HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO v. ROQUE R SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 122611 March 8, 2001 - NAPOLEON H. GONZALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125901 March 8, 2001 - EDGARDO A. TIJING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130378 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL MATARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134279 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY ROGER AUSTRIA

  • G.R. Nos. 135234-38 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO GUNTANG

  • G.R. No. 137649 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO VILLADARES

  • G.R. No. 138137 March 8, 2001 - PERLA S. ZULUETA v. ASIA BREWERY

  • G.R. No. 138774 March 8, 2001 - REGINA FRANCISCO, ET AL v. AIDA FRANCISCO-ALFONSO

  • G.R. No. 140479 March 8, 2001 - ROSENCOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. PATERNO INQUING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140713 March 8, 2001 - ROSA YAP PARAS, ET AL. v. ISMAEL O. BALDADO

  • G.R. No. 112115 March 9, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140619-24 March 9, 2001 - BENEDICTO E. KUIZON, ET AL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • G.R. No. 126099 March 12, 2001 - ROBERTO MITO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128372 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO DELA PEÑA

  • G.R. Nos. 130634-35 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO OYANIB

  • G.R. No. 131889 March 12, 2001 - VIRGINIA O. GOCHAN, ET AL. v. RICHARD G. YOUNG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136738 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN VALEZ

  • G.R. No. 137306 March 12, 2001 - VIRGINIA AVISADO, ET AL. v. AMOR RUMBAUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140011-16 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO MORATA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1464 March 13, 2001 - SALVADOR O. BOOC v. MALAYO B. BANTUAS

  • G.R. No. 103073 March 13, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131530 March 13, 2001 - Y REALTY CORP. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136594 March 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL CANIEZO

  • G.R. No. 139405 March 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO F. PACIFICADOR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530 March 14, 2001 - EDGARDO ALDAY, ET AL. v. ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 116001 & 123943 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO GO

  • G.R. No. 130209 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY LAVAPIE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130515 & 147090 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANSELMO BARING

  • G.R. Nos. 134451-52 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO FRETA

  • G.R. No. 137036 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO DE MESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138045 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETTA PATUNGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139300 March 14, 2001 - AMIGO MANUFACTURING v. CLUETT PEABODY CO.

  • G.R. No. 102985 March 15, 2001 - RUBEN BRAGA CURAZA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133480 March 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORANTE AGUILUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 135201-02 March 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 141616 March 15, 2001 - CITY OF QUEZON v. LEXBER INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. 116847 March 16, 2001 - MANUFACTURERS BUILDING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128083 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO M. HILARIO

  • G.R. No. 128922 March 16, 2001 - ELEUTERIA B. ALIABO, ET AL. v. ROGELIO L. CARAMPATAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129070 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELLIE CABAIS

  • G.R. No. 131544 March 16, 2001 - EPG CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL. v. GREGORIO R. VIGILAR

  • G.R. No. 135047 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO CACHOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137282 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALIPAR

  • G.R. Nos. 137753-56 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. NILO ARDON

  • A.M. No. 01-1463 March 20, 2001 - EVELYN ACUÑA v. RODOLFO A. ALCANTARA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1306 March 20, 2001 - ROBERT M. VISBAL v. RODOLFO C. RAMOS

  • A.M. No. P-97-1241 March 20, 2001 - DINNA CASTILLO v. ZENAIDA C. BUENCILLO

  • G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 108991 March 20, 2001 - WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130663 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ANGELES STA. TERESA

  • G.R. Nos. 136862-63 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 139413-15 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENDRICO GALAS

  • G.R. No. 140356 March 20, 2001 - DOLORES FAJARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140919 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUTCH BUCAO LEE

  • G.R. No. 142476 March 20, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 144074 March 20, 2001 - MEDINA INVESTIGATION & SECURITY CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127772 March 22, 2001 - ROBERTO P. ALMARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133815-17 March 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO LIAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134972 March 22, 2001 - ERNESTO CATUNGAL, ET AL. v. DORIS HAO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1469 March 26, 2001 - ROEL O. PARAS v. MYRNA F. LOFRANCO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1624 March 26, 2001 - REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE RELATIVE TO SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. 28

  • A.M. No. 99-731-RTJ March 26, 2001 - HILARIO DE GUZMAN v. DEODORO J. SISON

  • G.R. Nos. 102407-08 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO LUCERO

  • G.R. No. 121608 March 26, 2001 - FLEISCHER COMPANY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121902 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WALTER MELENCION

  • G.R. No. 125865 March 26, 2001 - JEFFREY LIANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129916 March 26, 2001 - MAGELLAN CAPITAL MNGT. CORP., ET AL. v. ROLANDO M. ZOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131638-39 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO MEDENILLA

  • G.R. No. 131653 March 26, 2001 - ROBERTO GONZALES v. NLRC, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 133475 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. 134903 March 26, 2001 - UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136790 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL GALVEZ

  • G.R. No. 137268 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIA CARMEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137590 March 26, 2001 - FLORENCE MALCAMPO-SIN v. PHILIPP T. SIN

  • G.R. No. 137739 March 26, 2001 - ROBERTO B. TAN v. PHIL. BANKING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137889 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 142950 March 26, 2001 - EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. ROSITA KU

  • G.R. Nos. 147066 & 147179 March 26, 2001 - AKBAYAN - Youth, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA March 27, 2001 - IN RE: DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1473 March 27, 2001 - GLORIA O. BENITEZ v. MEDEL P. ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 123149 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO CABUG

  • G.R. No. 131588 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLENN DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 137762-65 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO BARES

  • G.R. No. 137989 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SONNY MATIONG, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1357 March 28, 2001 - MONFORT HERMANOS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. ROLANDO V. RAMIREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1574 March 28, 2001 - GORGONIO S. NOVA v. SANCHO DAMES II

  • G.R. No. 100701 March 28, 2001 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101442 March 28, 2001 - JOSE ANGELES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 110012 March 28, 2001 - ANASTACIO VICTORIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112314 March 28, 2001 - VICENTE R. MADARANG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117964 March 28, 2001 - PLACIDO O. URBANES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122216 March 28, 2001 - ALJEM’S CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126751 March 28, 2001 - SAFIC ALCAN & CIE v. IMPERIAL VEGETABLE OIL CO.

  • G.R. No. 126959 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO SATURNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136965 March 28, 2001 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDINA ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 137660 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS L. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 137932 March 28, 2001 - CHIANG YIA MIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138474 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO BALANO

  • G.R. Nos. 139571-72 March 28, 2001 - ROGER N. ABARDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 140153 March 28, 2001 - ANTONIO DOCENA, ET AL. v. RICARDO P. LAPESURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141307 March 28, 2001 - PURTO J. NAVARRO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142007 March 28, 2001 - MANUEL C. FELIX v. ENERTECH SYSTEMS INDUSTRIES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143173 March 28, 2001 - PEDRO ONG, ET AL. v. SOCORRO PAREL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144169 March 28, 2001 - KHE HONG CHENG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131836 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELITA SINCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137564 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR DOMENDED

  • G.R. No. 137648 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 140311 March 30, 2001 - DENNIS T. GABIONZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  •  




     
     

    G.R. Nos. 139413-15   March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENDRICO GALAS

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. Nos. 139413-15. March 20, 2001.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ENDRICO GALAS, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    GONZAGA-REYES, J.:


    Endrico Galas was charged with three counts of rape upon the complaint of his 15-year old daughter Sharon under the following informations 1 :jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "CRIMINAL CASE NO. 0333

    That on or about the 5th day of February 1997 in the municipality of Sibunag, Province of Guimaras, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the father of one Sharon Galas his fifteen (15) year old daughter, by means of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did lie and have carnal knowledge of said Sharon Galas without her consent and against her will.

    CONTRARY TO LAW.

    CRIMINAL CASE NO. 0334

    That on or about the 28th day of February 1997, in the municipality of Sibunag, Province of Guimaras, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the father one Sharon Galas his fifteen (15) year old daughter, by means of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did lie and have carnal knowledge of said Sharon Galas without her consent and against her will.

    CONTRARY TO LAW.

    CRIMINAL CASE NO. 0335

    That on or about the month of July 1997, in the municipality of Sibunag, Province of Guimaras, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused being the father of one Sharon Galas his fifteen (15) year old daughter, by means of force and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did lie and have carnal knowledge of said Sharon Galas without her consent and against her will.

    CONTRARY TO LAW."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The accused pleaded not guilty when arraigned on April 28, 1998. At the hearing on May 7, 1999, Accused manifested through counsel his desire to change his plea of not guilty in the three cases to a plea of guilty only in Criminal Case No. 0334, which referred to the rape incident on February 28, 1997. His desire to change his plea was reiterated at the hearing on June 3, 1999. Re-arraigned on February 28, 1997, the accused, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of guilty in Criminal Case No. 0334.

    The prosecution presented the complainant as witness. Sharon recounted in detail the rape incident that occurred on February 5, 1997 and on February 28, 1997 in the house of her grandmother, where she was then living with her father 2 . She testified that her father again had intercourse with her in July 1997 in the same house, but she could not recall the time, and that the accused would have intercourse with her anytime he likes 3 . Her menstruation stopped in May 1997; the accused gave her Medicol and boiled malunggay and her menstruation occurred again on July 4, 1997 4 . She was brought to the social worker and later to the police station where her statement was taken. A medical examination conducted on August 7, 1997 at Guimaras Provincial Hospital by the rural health physician confirmed loss of virginity and healed hymenal lacerations.

    The accused was found guilty in Criminal Case No. 0334. Criminal Cases Nos. 0333 and 0335 5 were ordered dismissed thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against his daughter and is sentenced to suffer a penalty of DEATH.

    Accused is also directed to indemnify the complainant the amount of P100,000.00, broken as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    P70,000.00 — by way of indemnity;

    P30,000.00 — as moral and exemplary damages.

    Criminal Cases Nos. 0333 and 0335 are ordered DISMISSED.

    SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Criminal Case No. 0334 is before us on automatic review.

    The accused-appellant raises the following assignment of errors in his brief:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    "I


    THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED ON THE BASIS OF AN IMPROVIDENT PLEA OF GUILTY.

    II


    ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THERE WAS NO IMPROVIDENT PLEA OF GUILTY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY UPON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT." 6

    Accused-appellant claims that his plea of guilt was improvidently made as he was not fully appraised of the consequences of his change of plea of not guilty to guilty. The trial court failed to inform the accused that the imposable penalty is still death despite his change of plea. Accused-appellant further claims that the prosecution failed to prove the true age of the victim.

    The contention that the accused-appellant made an improvident plea of guilt is correct. The record of the proceedings upon his re-arraignment shows that when the accused entered a plea of guilty on the February 28, 1997 incident, he was informed that because of his plea "he will be punished by reclusion perpetua or death" .

    "COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Re-arraign the accused on the February 28, 1997 incident.

    INTERPRETER:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (Reading the Information before the accused in the local dialect which he understood)

    Q: Did you understand what has been read to you?

    ACCUSED:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    A: Yes, ma’am

    INTERPRETER:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q: Do you admit what is being charged or what has been read to you. What is your plea?

    ACCUSED:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    A: I am admitting the charges against me. I enter a plea of guilty on the 28 February 1997 incident.

    INTERPRETER (to court)

    Your Honor, the accused pleads guilty.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Atty. Calanza, have you informed your client of the effect and import of his plea?

    ATTY. CALANZA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, Your Honor. In fact the accused had been arraigned on three (3) informations where he entered a plea of not guilty. After pondering on the charges against him, the accused changed his mind and told me that he will enter a plea of guilty on the 28 February 1997 incident only. We are in fact thankful to the prosecutor and the complainant because they agreed to our bargaining. The delay on the trial, Your Honor, is because of our haggling with the prosecutor and the complainant to agree on our bargaining.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    But did you inform your client on the possible penalty which shall be meted to him?

    ATTY. CALANZA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, Your Honor. I told him that because of his intended plea of guilty he will be punished by reclusion perpetua or death.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Did he understand what reclusion perpetua is and what death is?

    ATTY. CALANZA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, Your Honor, I explained it to him exhaustively.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (to the accused in the local dialect)

    Q: Did you understand the information which was read to you?

    A: Yes, Your Honor.

    Q: Did you understand that the information tells you that the complaint was filed against you by Sharon Galas, your daughter?

    A: Yes, Your Honor.

    Q: Did you understand that the information which was read to you says that you have carnal knowledge with your daughter Sharon Galas without her consent and against her will?

    A: Yes, Your Honor.

    Q: Did you also understand that you have a carnal knowledge with your daughter by means of force and intimidation as read in the information?

    A: Yes, Your Honor.

    Q: Do you know that because of your plea of guilty you may be meted a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death?

    A: Yes, Your Honor.

    Q: Did your lawyer inform you about this?

    ACCUSED:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    A: Yes, Your Honor.

    COURT: (to accused)

    Despite that you entered a plea of guilty?

    ACCUSED:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, Your Honor.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Now, after having been informed of that effect and import of your plea of guilt wherein you be meted a penalty of reclusion or death, do you still insist on your plea of guilty?

    ACCUSED:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Yes, Your Honor, I admit. 7

    Nowhere in the proceedings was it explained to the accused that the penalty imposable is death even if he pleads guilty. We are inclined to agree with the accused-appellant that had he been so informed, he would not have changed his plea and voluntarily accept the imposition of a death penalty. This Court has held 8 that it is mandatory for the trial court to accomplish three things to avoid an improvident plea of guilt, namely: 1) conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the accused’s plea; 2) require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise decree of his culpability and 3) inquire whether or not the accused wishes to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. 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. Death is a single and indivisible penalty and will be imposed regardless of the presence of a mitigating circumstance. 9 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 guilt, he may be imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua and not death. 10

    Moreover, the record also does not show whether the accused was asked whether or not he wished to present evidence in his behalf and that if desired, he was allowed to do so. After the presentation of the witnesses for the prosecution, namely Sharon Galas, 11 Dr. Tomas Saiton, Jr. 12 and Dra. Cynthia Amatril 13 , the prosecution presented its documentary Exhibits 14 , and promulgation of judgment was forthwith set for June 22, 1999.

    Accordingly, we hold that the plea of guilt entered by accused-appellant on June 3, 1999 should be disregarded and set aside.

    The foregoing notwithstanding, it is believed that the evidence for the prosecution adequately established the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. This Court has held that the manner by which the plea of guilt was made, whether improvidently or not, loses its legal significance where the conviction is based on the evidence proving the commission of the accused of the offense charged 15 . Complainant Sharon recounted in clear detail the rape incident that occurred on February 28, 1997, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "PROSECUTOR NIELO: (to witness)

    Q: On the night of February 28, 1997, can you recall where were you?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: Where were you?

    A: There at our house.

    Q: While you were at your house was your father also there?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: In the evening, did your father tell you anything?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: What did he tell you?

    A: He told me to turn off the lamp and then he ordered me to take off my dress.

    Q: Where were you when your father told you to turn off the lamp?

    A: There inside our house.

    Q: Was that in the room where you were sleeping or in the sala?

    A: There inside our house because we were about to sleep.

    Q: When you were about to sleep and your father who were the other person in the night of February 18 in the room or the portion of the house where you were sleeping?

    A: In our room only the two (2) of us and in the other room my aunt and her husband.

    Q: So, there were only the two (2) of you in the night of February 28, 1997?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: What kind of lamp was that when your father told you to put off?

    A: A kerosene lamp.

    Q: And did you put off the lamp?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: You said he ordered you to undress. Did you undress?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: Did you not resist?

    A: No, sir.

    Q: Why did you not resist?

    A: Even if I will resist I could not overcome him because he is big and he had a bolo.

    Q: When you undressed yourself, what did your father do?

    A: He (took) off his clothes.

    Q: What else?

    A: He straddled on me.

    Q: When you said undressed, you removed your shirt. What kind of clothes you were wearing when your father ordered you to undress?

    A: T-shirt and short.

    Q: And did you remove your t-shirt?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: And did you remove your short?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: How about your panty? Were you having a panty?

    A: No, sir.

    Q: Was your father wearing trouser when you said he removed his shirt?

    A: No, he was wearing short.

    Q: What did your father do with his short? Did he remove his short?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: Was your father wearing a brief?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: What did he do with his brief? Did he remove his brief?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: After you undressed yourself as ordered by your father and when he was already naked or after he removed his shirt and brief, what did your father do?

    A: He straddled on me and kissed me and then inserted his penis into my vagina.

    Q: While kissing you, did he fondled your breast?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: What about your organ?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: Was he able to insert his penis inside your vagina?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: And after inserting his penis what did he do? Did he push and pull?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: And when he was making that motion, was his penis inside your vagina?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: Did you not push him?

    A: I pushed him but I cannot overcome him.

    Q: And then when your father inserted his penis inside your vagina were you on the bed?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: Now, after your father inserted his penis and have that push and pull motion, what did he do?

    A: Something warm came off from him and then there is blood in the blanket and he turned his back.

    Q: Did you say anything to him?

    A: Yes, sir.

    Q: What did you tell him?

    A: I asked him, "Tay, why are you doing this to me?"

    Q: And what did he say?

    A: None." 16

    Sharon’s testimony was corroborated by the rural health physician, Dr. Saiton, who testified on his findings in the medical certificate 17 that the victim had "hymenal laceration old healed at 12, 3, 6 and 9 o’clock position", and his assessment "physical virginity lost" .

    We affirm the trial court’s findings that the accused-appellant’s culpability was established by the evidence, particularly the clear and positive testimony of the child victim herself. Although there was admittedly no physical resistance, Sharon testified that the accused always had a bolo with him and although complainant pushed him she could not overcome the accused. The court correctly observed that this being a crime committed by a father against his daughter, the moral ascendancy and influence of the father substitutes for violence or intimidation 18 .

    Anent the imposable penalty, Section 11 of R. A. No. 7659 provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with the following attendant circumstance:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The information in Criminal Case No. 0334 alleged that the accused-appellant was the father of Sharon and that Sharon is fifteen (15) years old. Sharon testified that she was seventeen (17) years old on June 3, 1999 when she testified in court 19 and that the accused-appellant is her father. 20 The accused-appellant admitted that he was the father of Sharon when the information was read to him upon his arraignment 21 .

    However, no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove Sharon’s age at the time she was raped other than her statement in court while describing her personal circumstances, that she was seventeen (17) years old at the time she testified on June 3, 1999. Such casual testimony of the victim as to her age is not sufficient.

    To justify the imposition of death, proof of the victim’s age is indubitable. There must be sufficient and clear evidence proving her age, even if not denied by the accused. 22 A duly certified certificate of his birth accurately showing the complainant’s age or some other authentic documents such as a baptismal certificate or a school record, has been recognized as competent evidence 23 .

    While it may be true that the testimony of a person as to her age, although hearsay, is admissible as evidence of family tradition 24 , we cannot consider Sharon’s statement at the beginning of her testimony describing her personal circumstances as proof of age beyond reasonable doubt that we have considered indispensable in the criminal prosecution of cases involving the extreme penalty of death. No corroborative or supporting evidence was presented by the prosecution. Although a "certified transcription copy" of a certificate of live birth of Sharon Galas is found on page 10 of the Record of the preliminary investigation held by the 16th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Jordan, Guimaras, this document was not presented in evidence during the trial. Accordingly, it does not form part of the record of the case 25 and not having been formally offered nor marked as an exhibit, it cannot be considered as evidence nor be given evidentiary value 26 .

    Accordingly, the accused-appellant may only be convicted of simple rape, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua. With respect to civil liability the court reduces the award of civil indemnity to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and increases the moral damages to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), an award inherently concomitant to and resulting from the odiousness of rape 27 . An award of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) by way of exemplary damages is likewise justified to deter similar perversities as the rape of one’s own daughter.

    WHEREFORE, the decision under review is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Endrico Galas is convicted of simple rape in Criminal Case No. 0334 and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant is further ordered to indemnify Sharon Galas in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as civil indemnity, Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, and Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as exemplary damages.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr. and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

    Quisumbing, J., is on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Original Records, pp. 1-3.

    2. TSN, June 3, 1999.

    3. At p. 22.

    4. At pp. 23-24.

    5. Penned by Judge Merlin D. Deloria.

    6. Appellant’s Brief.

    7. TSN, June 3, 1999, pp. 4-7.

    8. People v. Dayot, 187 SCRA 637.

    9. Article 63, Revised Penal Code.

    10. People v. Abapo, G.R. No. 133387-423, prom. March 31, 2000.

    11. TSN, June 18, 1998.

    12. TSN, June 18, 1998.

    13. TSN, August 7, 1998.

    14. TSN, June 3, 1999 at pp. 40-42.

    15. People v. Petalcorin, 180 SCRA 685.

    16. TSN, June 3, 1999, pp. 18-22.

    17. Exhibit "A", p. 9, Original Records.

    18. People v. Burce, 269 SCRA 293.

    19. TSN, June 3, 1999, p. 8.

    20. A t p. 14.

    21. TSN, June 3, 1999, p. 6.

    22. People v. Cula, G.R. No. 133146, March 28, 2000; People v. Tipay, G.R. No. 131472, March 28, 2000; People v. Tabanggay, G.R. No. L-130504, June 29, 2000; People v. Javier, 311 SCRA 122.

    23. People v. Pecayo, Sr., G.R. No. 132047, prom. December 14, 2000; People v. Amban, G.R. No. 134286, prom. March 1, 2000; People v. Rebancos, 172 SCRA 425; People v. Vargas, 257 SCRA 603.

    24. People v. Silvano, 309 SCRA 362; People v. Alegado, 201 SCRA 37.

    25. Section 8, Rule 112.

    26. Section 34, Rule 132.

    27. People v. Tabanggay, G.R. No. 130504, June 29, 2000; People v. Prades, 293 SCRA 411.

    G.R. Nos. 139413-15   March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENDRICO GALAS




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED