THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ADELAIDO RAMOS, ALIAS BAYOT, ACCUSED WHOSE DEATH SENTENCE IS UNDER AUTOMATIC REVIEW.

The Circuit Criminal Court of Cebu in
its decision of September 27, 1971
convicted Adelaido Ramos of rape with murder,
sentenced him to death and ordered him to pay the heirs of Leonora Sipalay an indemnity of twelve thousand pesos (Criminal
Case No. 417).

The judgment of conviction was based on his plea of guilty,
extrajudicial confession and testimony. 
He did not appeal.  The case was
elevated to this Court for review en consulta.

In the evening of August 17, 1971, Ramos, an illiterate
twenty-two-year old farmer, married with three children, slept in the house of
his first cousin, Rogelio Sipalay, located at Sitio Capilla (Consaguibo), Barrio Tigbawan, Tabuelan, Cebu.  Ramos, who hailed from Ormoc City,
was temporarily residing with his family at Camotehan,
Villahermosa,
a barrio near Tigbawan.  Ramos went to Rogelio’s house ostensibly to
get the chicken which the latter had promised to give him.

At around six-thirty in the morning of the following day, August
18, Rogelio invited Ramos to take a bath at the well near the house of his
father, Juan Sipalay. 
After the two had walked some distance, Ramos told Rogelio that he was
going to return to the latter’s house because he had
allegedly forgotten his comb.  Rogelio
told him to hurry so that they could take a bath together.

On arriving at Rogelio’s house, Ramos revealed to Leonora Estañero, the wife of Rogelio, that the latter was robbed
of his cow and that he (Ramos) had eluded the robbers.  That fictitious tale scared Leonora.  She told Ramos not to leave her.  He asked her to give him Rogelio’s pistol so
that he could defend her in case the robbers would come to the house.  She complied with his request.

At the suggestion of Ramos, Leonora and her two children left the
house and took refuge on the top of a hill. 
Leonora carried the baby, Ronabeth, one year
and three months old, while Ramos carried the older one, Gerlito,
four years old.  After being ensconced in
that secluded area, Ramos, who had courted Leonora when she was still
unmarried, reminded her of their past romance and proposed to have sexual
congress with her.

Leonora, who was four months pregnant, refused to have any
criminal conversation with him.  On this
point, there is some discrepancy in the record. 
According to the confession of Ramos and his testimony at the
preliminary investigation, he succeeded in raping Leonora.  He pleaded guilty to the information for
consummated rape with murder.

The municipal health officer speculated that “there is a
possibility of consummated rape because of forcible tearing of the panty and
the whitish substance or specimen sent to the laboratory for analysis” (Exh. G).

However, when Ramos testified after arraignment, he declared on
direct examination that he did not have carnal intercourse with Leonora.  On cross-examination, when he was confronted
with his extrajudicial confession that he raped her, he conceded that he
“attempted to rape her” and that he was not able to consummate the
rape (16 and 20 tsn).

After the rape or attempted rape, Leonora slapped him.  She shouted for help.  To avoid discovery, Ramos killed her and her
two children with his bolo (sundang).  He cut the ear lobe of Nora, took her
earrings and placed them inside his wallet.

He went to his home at Sitio Camotehan and apprised his wife, Magdalena Nuñez, that he had killed Leonora and her children.  He asked his wife to escape with him because
he expected that the police would arrest him. 
As she was in failing health, she reluctantly went with him to hide in
an uncultivated area (libon).

The police, accompanied by Miguel Canciran,
Ramos’ brother-in-law, discovered the hiding place but Ramos was able to
escape.  He was arrested later at Barrio Ilihan, Tabogon, Cebu on his way to Leyte.

The autopsy disclosed that the lobule of Leonora’s left ear was
cut; that her neck was almost severed from her body, leaving only two
millimeters of skin; that she sustained a circular wound on her left shoulder,
and that she had wounds on the fingers, an indication that she tried to parry
the bolo thrusts.  Her uterus was
enlarged.

Gerlito sustained a fourteen-centimeter
incised wound in the skull.  He had also
a wound in the mastoid region.  His neck
was almost severed.  Ronabeth
had an incised wound in the neck which left only a small portion of skin in the
neck before it would be completely separated from the body.  Evi­dently, Ramos in a murderous frenzy
intended to behead his three victims.

The chief of police charged Ramos in the municipal court with
robbery, multiple murder and rape.  The
robbery was based on the statement of Rogelio Sipalay
that, on returning home, he discovered that the sum of P1,200
which he was keeping inside the loka-loka was
missing and that the coins deposited in the piggy bank (puyo-puyo)
were also missing.

Aside from Rogelio’s statement and the extrajudicial confession
of Ramos, the police took the statements of Ramos’ wife and his brother-in-law,
Canciran.  The
district state prosecutor filed an information for
rape with murder with the aggravating circumstances of treachery, evident
premeditation, abuse of superior strength, uninhabited place, “disrespect
to sex” and deliberately augmenting and causing other wrongs not neces­sary
for the commission of the crime.

For the killing of the children, Gerlito
and Ronabeth, two informations
for murder were filed against Ramos (Criminal Cases Nos. 418 and 419).  He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two reclusion
perpetuas. 
He did not appeal.

At the arraignment, Ramos was assisted by three counsels de oficio, one for each of the three cases.  In the instant case for rape with murder, his
counsel de oficio manifested that after
conferring with Ramos, the latter informed his counsel that he was willing to
plead guilty.  After the information was
read to Ramos in the Cebuano dialect, he pleaded
guilty.

The trial court asked him whether he understood the meaning of
his plea of guilty, whether he admitted all the material allegations of the
information, and whether he was aware of the gravity of the charge.  He gave a “yes” answer to those
questions.

Then, the trial judge informed Ramos that death would be the
penalty imposable on him.  He was asked
whether he still wanted to plead guilty. 
He answered yes.  When the same
question was repeated, he answered: “That is up to the Honorable Judge.”

After that dialogue, Ramos was placed on the witness stand.  As already stated, he testified that he
committed only attempted rape.  He
admitted having hacked to death Leonora and her children under the
circumstances already narrated.

The fiscal presented in evidence the bolo used by Ramos, his
wallet containing the pair of earrings, his bloodstained polo shirt and pants,
his extrajudicial confession, the necropsy report and the death certificate for
Leonora Estañero-Sipalay.

The trial court, proceeding on the assumption that Ramos had
consummated the rape, convicted him of rape with murder aggravated by abuse of
superiority, disregard of sex, despoblado and
cruelty.  It appreciated the mitigating
circumstance of plea of guilty which offset only one of the four aggravating
circumstances.  Hence the death penalty
was imposed.

In this automatic review of the trial court’s decision, counsel de
oficio contends that Ramos’ plea of guilty was
not an admission that he committed rape with murder and that the trial court
erred in holding that Ramos was guilty of that complex offense beyond
reasonable doubt.  Counsel insinuated
that Ramos made an improvident plea and that, since he denied having
consummated the rape, there should have been a full-dress trial.

We hold that even if the crime committed by Ramos is categorized
as attempted rape with homicide, death is still the penalty that should be
meted to him under the penultimate paragraph of article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 2632 and 4111.

The appreciation in his favor of the extenuating circumstance of
voluntary confession of guilt would not alter the result because when the Code
prescribes a single indivisible penalty like death, it is imposable regardless
of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the
commission of the crime (Art. 63, Revised Penal Code).

Inasmuch as Ramos in his testimony admitted having committed at
least attempted rape with homicide (which being used in a generic sense includes
murder), it cannot be justifiably argued that he had made an improvident plea
of guilty.

He is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted rape with
homicide, an offense included in the charge of rape with murder.  He cannot complain that he was not duly informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

Craft and fraud (astucia y fraude), despoblado,
abuse of superiority and cruelty aggravated that special complex crime.  Treachery, evident premeditation and
disregard of sex, which were alleged in the information, are not aggravating.

Although no offended party filed a complaint against Ramos, we
hold that, like robbery with rape, rape with homicide or attempted or
frustrated rape with homicide can be prosecuted de oficio.  That is the ruling in People vs. Yu, 110
Phil. 793, 797.

Ramos, in entering a plea of guilty with the knowledge that he
would be sentenced to death, realized the horrendousness or monstrosity of his
crimes which included abortion.  Because
of his fiendish and atrocious misdeeds, the full weight of retributive justice
should be brought to bear upon him.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed
with the modification that the designation of the special complex crime
committed by the accused should be attempted rape with homicide and not rape
with murder.  Costs de
oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Barredo,
Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera,
JJ., concur.

Fernando, C.J., no part.

Santos and Abad Santos, JJ., abroad.