PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN PUZON Y MARCAIDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This is an automatic review of the decision of the Circuit Criminal
Court, 7th Judicial District, Pasig,
Metro Manila, imposing on the accused Benjamin Puzon y Marcaida the penalty of
death.  The dispositive portion of the
decision reads:

“Sa gayon paraan, dahil sa kusang loob na pag-amin ng
nasasakdal, napatunayan ng Hukumang ito, nang walang pag-aalinlangan na siya ay
nagkasala sa paglabag sa Artikulo 335 ng Binagong Kodigo Penal, Artikulo 294,
na ayon sa sakdal, at siya ay pinarurusahan nang KAMATAYAN. 
Pagbabayaran din niya ang biktima ng halagang P100,000.00 dahil
sa pagsira sa moral, at karangalan at upang maging halimbawa sa sinumang gagawa
nang ganitong karumaldumal na gawain. 
Pagbabayaran din niya ang gastos ng Pamahalaan sa usaping ito.” (p.
8, Rollo)

On April 23, 1979,
Cayleen M. Kahayon filed a complaint against the accused Benjamin Puzon for the
crime of “rape with robbery” committed as follows:

“That on or about the 9th day of April, 1979, in the
municipality of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the
Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd
designs, by means of force and intimidation and at the point of a gun, did,
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with
the undersigned against her will and consent; that on the occasion of said
rape, in the furtherance of his criminal act, did, then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the amount of P600.00,
belonging to the offended party, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the aforementioned amount of
P600.00.  (p. 1, Original Records)

The facts attendant to the commission of the crime charged
are as follows:

“Ayon kay CAYLEEN KAHAYON noong ika-7 ng Abril, 1979 siya ay
papauwi na buhat sa Loyola Memorial Chapel sa Guadalupe.  Ang nasasakdal ay lumapit sa kanya at
nagtanong ng oras, pagkatapos noon ay
tinanong ang kanyang pangalan, ang kanyang pinagtratrabahuhan at ang kanyang
tirahan.  Sinabi nang nasasakdal na siya
ay isang doktor at ang pangalan niya ay DR. ARTURO YUPANGCO, anak siya nang mga
multi-millionaryong angkan nang mga YUPANGCO,
may ari at nagtitinda nang YAMAHA Organ at bahay sanlaan nang mga
YUPANGCO.  Nang sumunod na araw, Abril 8,
ika-8:00 ng gabi habang si KAHAYON ay papasok sa trabaho nakita niya ulit ang
nasasakdal na si BENJAMIN PUZON sa Del
Pan.  Tinawag siya ng nasasakdal sa kabila
ng kanyang pagtataka.  Sinabi ng
nasasakdal na siya ay nakatira sa MAGALLANES
VILLAGE at inutusan daw siya nang
kanyang ama upang kumbidahin ang mga doktor sa ST.
ANNE’S HOSPITAL dahil di umano ay anibersaryo nang kasal ng kanyang mga
magulang at may pa-raffle sila nang YAMAHA Organ sa Abril 28 at siya daw ang
bubunot nang stub.  Kinumbida siya nang
nasasakdal at dadayain daw niya ang pag-ra-raffle at si BB. KAHAYON ang
mananalo.  Ang isang YAMAHA ORGAN ay
nagkakahalaga nang P25,000.00.  Niyaya
siya nang nasasakdal sa Barrio Fiesta sa Makati
at pagpasok nila sa nasabing restaurant ay sumaludo ang nasasakdal na si
BENJAMIN PUZON alias DR. ARTURO YUPANGCO at sumaludo naman ang mga Waiter, at
sabi ‘Doktor doon po kayo sa second floor’. 
Napansin nang nagsasakdal na kumindat siya sa isang babae at ipinakilala
ito sa kanya na CORA ang pangalan at sabi ‘Dok, yan na ba?’ Ang nasasakdal ay
nagkuwento tungkol sa kanyang pamilya, nang mga YUPANGCO at tiniyak niya na
siya ay isang multi-millionaryo at may ipinakita pa itong larawan na di umano
siya daw ay graduate na SUMMA CUM LAUDE sa SILIMAN UNIVERSITY at ipinakita niya
ang larawan nang isang malaking bahay sa MAGALLANES.  Sila ay kumain ng salad at dahil sa
nagmamadali ang nagsasakdal na pumasok sa trabaho siya ay pinigilan nang
nasasakdal na si BENJAMIN PUZON alias DR. 
ARTURO YUPANGCO at niyakag siyang magpunta sa PENINSULA HOTEL at doon
sila uminom ng juice.  Pagkatapos kumain
ay inihatid nang nasasakdal si CAYLEEN KAHAYON sa Food Terminal sa Taguig,
Metro Manila.  Nang sila ay makarating
doon ay may binati ang nasasakdal na isang babae na nangangalang VICKY DE LARA
at tinawag din siya ng DOKTOR at tinanong siya kung bakit naroon siya.  Kumain sila; ipinakilala siya nang nasasakdal
kay VICKY DE LARA at sinabing nang nasabing VICKY sa kanya ang ganito, ‘iba
yon, si DR. YUPANGCO YON, ang SUWERTE MO NAMAN’.  Ang sumunod na araw ay Fiesta Opisyal; ang
nagsasakdal na si CAYLEEN KAHAYON ay papasok nang gabing iyon, nakita niya ulit
ang nasasakdal sa Barrio Fiesta sa Makati,
at kumain sila nang salad.  Sinabi sa
kanya nang nasasakdal na ihahatid na siya nito sa kanyang trabaho; pumayag siya
sa dahilang naihatid na siya nito noong isang gabi.  Tumawag nang taxi ang akusado subalit sa
halip na siya ay ihatid sa kanyang trabaho ay inutusan ang tsuper na sila ay
ihatid sa Pasig.  Habang sila ay nasa taxi ay bigla na lang niyakap ng akusado ang biktima at
ipinakita niya dito ang baril na kanyang daladala at ang sabi nang
nasasakdal, ‘pasasabugin ko ang ulo mo kung ikaw ay sisigaw, kayang-kaya kong
bayaran ang iyong buhay, Yupangco yata
ito’.  Natakot ang biktima at
nalaman na lang niya na siya ay dinala sa Orchids Motel.  Pagdating nila sa Orchids Motel ay sa VIP
room siya dinala sa kuwarto
numero 39 at sinabi pa rin ng nasasakdal na ang kuwarto numero 40 ay sa kanyang
tiyo, sinabi pa rin niya sa biktima na sila
ang may-ari nang Orchids Motel. 
Ayaw pumasok nang biktima sa kuwarto dahil sa siya ay natatakot subalit
patuloy na tinatakot siya ng nasasakdal sa pamamagitan ng hawak nitong
baril.  Pagpasok nila sa kuwarto ang
nasasakdal ay nagpunta sa palikuran kaya ang biktima ay tumakbo sa telepono
upang tumawag subalit ang telepono ay isang intercom lamang.  Walang nagawa ang biktima kundi ang umiyak at magmakaawa sa nasasakdal subalit
walang nangyari kundi tinakot lamang siya nito sa pamamagitan ng baril. 
Tinutukan siya nang baril at pinahiga sa kama at
sa takot ni Cayleen ay napilitan siyang humiga. 
Inilagay ng nasasakdal ang baril sa ulunan at pumatong ito sa biktima;
siya ay sapilitang hinubaran, inalis ang kanyang bra at sapilitang hinubad ang
kanyang panty.  Siya ay hinalikan sa
mukha, sa labi, pisngi at pababa sa dibdib, sa suso sa buong parte ng katawan
niya at dinilaan ang kanyang ari at pagkatapos ay ipinasok ng nasasakdal ang
kanyang ari sa ari ng
nagsasakdal.  Sa gayon ay napasigaw ang
nagsasakdal nang ‘Dios ko, ang sakit’. 
Pagkaraan nang ilang sandali siya ay muling tinakot sa pamamagitan ng
pagtutok ng baril at siya ay pinadapa sa kama at pinapikit ang kanyang mata,
pinatay ang ilaw at pagkatapos ay binuksang muli at pagkatapos ay sinabi sa
kanya ng nasasakdal na sisirain ang kanyang buhay at pati na ang kanyang
trabaho sapagkat siya ay nakunan nang larawan na naka hubo’t hubad at sinabi pa
rin na ikakalat niya ito.  Kinuha sa
kanyang pitaka ang halagang P600.00 at isang lighter na Windmill.  Kinuha pa rin nito ang isang ID solo at grupong
litrato at siya ay pinagbantaan na ang lahat nang gamit na kanyang kinuha ay
gagamitin niya laban sa nagsasakdal. 
Palalabasin nito di umano na siya ay napagnakawan at iiwan nito ang mga
gamit niya upang siya ang mapagbintangan
na kasabuwat ng magnanakaw.  Kaya
kinakailangan ay sundin niyang lahat ang gusto nito.  At sa kanilang pag-uwi habang daan ay
hinihingian siya nito nang P1,000.00 at kung hindi siya magbibigay ay papatayin
siya nito.  Napilitang mangutang ang
biktima upang siya ay hindi maeskandalo, at nakautang siya sa kanyang kasamahan
sa trabaho nang halagang P1,000.00.  Sinabi sa kanya ng nasasakdal na kukunin ito
sa kanya nang Abril 11 sa ganap na alas 7:00
nang umaga subalit hindi ito dumating at siya ay naghintay hanggang alas 9:00 ng umaga. 
Nang bandang alas 11:00 ng tanghali ang nasasakdal ay dumating sa bahay nang biktima sa Sta. Ana, Maynila. 
Siya ay pinatuloy ng kanyang ina at sila ay nag-usap.  Sinabi sa kanya na papatayin siya at ang
lahat nang miembro nang kanyang pamilya at kinuha sa kanya ang pera at sinabi
na hindi pa tapos ang kanyang misyon. 
Napaiyak si Cayleen sa pagaakalang iyon na ang katapusan at hindi
na siya gagambalain at muli siyang tinakot na huwag magsusumbong kahit kanino
kundi ay papatayin siya at ang miembro
nang kanyang pamilya.  Subalit siya ay
nagsumbong sa kanyang ama at
siya ay sumailalim sa isang pagsusuri ni Dr. Dario Gajardo.  Nagsalaysay si Dr. Gajardo na ang
laceration nang hymen ay sariwa pa
kahit na siya ay iniksamin nang makalipas ang pitong araw pagkatapos na siya ay
gahasain. x x x.” (pp. 46-50, Original Records)

On April 24, 1979,
upon arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty (p. 14, Original Record).

Accused-appellant
raises the following assignments
of errors:

I

THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL COURT WERE IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED AND HENCE NULL AND VOID.

II

ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT A PLEA OF GUILTY WAS
MADE BY PUZON, THE TRIAL COURT
ERRED IN FINDING PUZON GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED ON THE BASIS OF HIS PLEA SINCE IT WAS
IMPROVIDENTLY ENTERED WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE MEANING AND CONSEQUENCES OF HIS
ACT.

III

ASSUMING ARGUENDO, THAT PUZON WAS GUILTY OF
THE CRIME CHARGED, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN IMPOSING THE MAXIMUM PENALTY OF
DEATH SINCE THE PROSECUTION NEITHER ALLEGED NOR PROVED ANY AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES.  (p. 43, Rollo)

Accused-appellant’s first assigned error is based on the claim
that his plea of guilty was not definite — that the same was not made
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily and, is therefore, in violation of
his constitutional rights to be presumed innocent.

The foregoing is premised
on the portion of the arraignment proceeding which reads:

“Q:  Are
you aware that you will be punished in accordance with law?

“A:   Yes, sir.  I have nothing to do, I am only poor.

ATTY. AGOOT:

“Your Honor, in
view of the manifestation of the accused, may I request of (sic) the guilt
(sic) of the accused be pleaded NOT GUILTY. 
(sic) May I ask some clarificatory evidence?

COURT:

“Are you aware Mr.
Accused by pleading guilty of (sic) this offense you may be punished in
accordance with the law?

FISCAL ANGELES:

“May I make of
record that the accused is tantamount (sic) to answer the question of the
court.

COURT:

“Let the
presentation of evidence for the prosecution be set tomorrow, 25 April 1979, at 8:00 o’clock in the morning.  SO ORDERED.” (pp. 101-102, Arraignment
proceeding, April 24, 1979).

We agree with the Solicitor General that the plea of guilty by
the accused was validly made.

The reply of the accused to the question regarding his
awareneness of the implications of his plea during the arraignment, shows that
he fully understood the admission of guilt. 
It cannot be said that the accused uttered his plea unknowingly as he
answered in the affirmative when asked by the Judge if he is aware that by
pleading guilty to the offense he may be punished in accordance with the law
(Original TSN, Arraignment).  The plea
was made by him in the presence of counsel. 
The additional clause, “I am only poor”, does not vitiate the
validity of the plea.

Furthermore, the educational attainment of the accused, a Marine
Officer, and his intellectual capacity as evidenced by his grades in his
collegiate transcript of records (p. 28, Rollo) negate the claim that he did
not understand the gravity of the offense he committed and the consequences of
his plea of guilt.

Even if the plea of the accused is one of guilt, the court must
still receive evidence to determine whether or not the accused erred in his
pleading guilty.  This, the trial court
did.  The prosecution was able to present
sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.  The victim herself testified on the accused
having committed the crime against her. 
As held in People v.
Aragona, (138 SCRA 569); and People v. Ramos, (128
SCRA 266), the accused may be convicted on the sole basis of the
complainant’s testimony, if credible.  In
this case, there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the victim.  In fact, the accused himself admitted
that he brought the victim to the place of the crime (p. 39, Original Records). 
He brought her to the motel for
a criminal design.  He was able to
accomplish that purpose.  Moreover, the
records show that the victim was of
a decent background and was in fact holding a good job at the Food Terminal,
Inc., when the crime happened.  All other
evidence including the medico-legal report (p. 30, Original Records, Exh.
“B”) point to the commission of the crime as testified by the victim
and to the guilt of the accused.

The pretensions of the appellant challenging the validity of the plea he entered are devoid
of merit in the face of the prosecution evidence.  Even without any plea, the evidence is
sufficient to convict him.

The defense also assails the denial of its request to prove the
mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt.

The position taken by the appellant is self-contradictory.  In one assignment of error, he states that
the plea of guilt was improvidently made and should be set aside.  In another, he argues that he should have
been allowed to present proof of a mitigating circumstance which is the plea of
guilt.  At any rate, the appreciation of
the plea of guilt as a mitigating
circumstance has become moot with the commutation of the penalty to reclusion perpetua.

On the second assigned error, the claim that the plea was
improvidently made has been negated by the fact that the offended party herself
testified and was extensively cross-examined by the counsel of the accused. 
His guilt was established sufficiently by testimony.

The contention of the accused-appellant that the conviction was
made on the basis of his plea and that the same should be set aside in
accordance with the Nismal ruling is untenable.  The Nismal ruling (People v. Nismal, 114 SCRA 487)
applies only to convictions which are based on a plea of guilty in capital offenses where such plea is the sole
basis of the judgment.  As clearly shown
by the records, the conviction is predicated not so much on the plea as on the evidence proving the commission by
the accused of the offense
charged.  The objective of the trial
court in taking the testimony of the prosecution witnesses despite the plea of
guilt is for the court to satisfy itself that the accused did not err in
admitting his guilt; that even without his plea, the evidence from the prosecution would be sufficient to
convict him.

The defense of the
accused-appellant is further weakened by other cases which have been
reported against him.  (pp. 72 and 73, tsn., May 3,
1979) According to
the records, the same modus operandi had been employed by him in nineteen (19)
other cases (p. 51, Original
Records).

In the face of the evidence presented, there is more than
sufficient proof to sustain a judgment of conviction.  The counsel for the appellant asks for a
sentence of reclusion perpetua. 
The prayer has become academic because of the 1987 Constitution.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that the PENALTY shall be RECLUSION PERPETUA.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ., concur.