THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERNESTO SANTOS Y CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Santos versus People

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Ernesto Santos y Cruz, an automatic review of a death sentence for rape. The accused, an escapee from a penal colony, pleaded guilty to raping a ten-year-old girl at knife point. The case matters because it fixes a hard condition for the special aggravating circumstance of reiteration or quasi-recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code: the prior conviction by final judgment must be proved, and mere escape from prison does not prove it. It is a short, clean lesson on the burden of establishing an aggravating circumstance and on why a plea of guilty does not relieve the court of its duty to receive evidence.

Procedural History

The accused was charged by a verified complaint for rape before the Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal. Arraigned with the assistance of counsel de oficio, he pleaded guilty. Despite the plea, the trial court received evidence: the testimony of the complainant Erlita, of Doctor Dario Gajardo who conducted the medical examination, of Bernarda Serato, principal of the Juan Sumulong Elementary School, and of Policemen Rolando Gomez and Quirino Calica of the Antipolo Police Station. The trial court convicted him and imposed the death penalty, relying on Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code because he was an escapee from the Davao Penal Colony. The case went to the Supreme Court on automatic review because the penalty imposed was death.

Facts

On or about the twenty-first day of July, 1976, at Manuel L. Quezon Extension in the Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rizal, Ernesto Santos y Cruz had carnal knowledge of Erlita Francisco y Fernando, a ten-year-old virgin, at a secluded place. He took advantage of his superior strength and used force, intimidation, and a six-inch knife. The complaint described him as an escapee from the Davao Penal Colony.

When arraigned with the assistance of counsel de oficio, the accused pleaded guilty. The trial court nonetheless received evidence of the crime, including the testimony of the victim, the examining physician, the school principal, and the investigating policemen. There was no dispute that rape was committed on the person of Erlita.

The trial court sentenced him to death. It reasoned that Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code applied because he committed the felony after having been convicted by final judgment, or while serving sentence, as shown by his status as an escapee. His counsel de oficio, Godofredo Ramos and Ramon Oben, argued that as an escapee he was free from restraint and could not be said to be serving sentence, so the proper penalty was reclusion perpetua only.

Issues

• Whether or not the penalty for the rape of a girl under twelve years of age committed with a deadly weapon is reclusion perpetua to death.
• Whether or not Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code may be applied to raise the penalty to death on the sole basis that the accused was an escapee from the Davao Penal Colony.
• Whether or not the accused was convicted by final judgment before he committed the rape, as Article 160 requires.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 4111, provides:

When the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or when the rape is committed by two or more persons, or when the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

This fixes the range of the penalty for the rape committed here, because it was accomplished with a six-inch knife and the victim was under twelve years of age.

Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, insofar as relevant, provides:

Any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.

This is the provision the trial court used to justify the death penalty, and it is the provision the Court construes strictly against the prosecution.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that rape was committed not only because carnal knowledge was accomplished with the use of a deadly weapon, a six-inch knife, but also because Erlita was then under twelve years of age. Under these circumstances, the penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua to death. When the accused pleaded guilty, he should have been sentenced to reclusion perpetua only.

On the second and third issues, the Court refused to apply Article 160. The provision requires as a condition sine qua non, a condition without which the provision cannot operate, that the accused must have been convicted by final judgment. There is nothing in the record to show that the appellant had been convicted by final judgment when he raped the complainant. The fact that he was an escapee from the Davao Penal Colony does not prove conviction by final judgment; he could have been still a detention prisoner. The Court thus did not need to resolve the argument of counsel that an escapee is not serving sentence, because the prosecution failed on the threshold requirement of a prior final conviction.

Doctrine

Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code applies only when the accused was previously convicted by final judgment, whether before beginning to serve sentence or while serving it. That prior final conviction is a condition sine qua non and must be alleged and proved by the prosecution; it is never presumed. The status of an escapee from a penal colony does not by itself establish a prior conviction by final judgment, because the escapee could have been a detention prisoner awaiting trial. Absent proof of the prior final conviction, the penalty for the new felony is the ordinary penalty prescribed by law, not its maximum period. And where the rape is committed with a deadly weapon or against a child under twelve, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, which the trial court may impose as reclusion perpetua upon a plea of guilty.

Disposition

The Court modified the judgment, sentencing Ernesto Santos y Cruz to reclusion perpetua only and increasing the indemnity to twenty thousand pesos, with costs against the appellant, and directed payment of five hundred pesos to the widow of his deceased counsel de oficio.

Remember This

Memorize this line: Article 160 requires conviction by final judgment as a condition sine qua non, and escape from a penal colony does not prove it. Examiners use this case to test the elements of quasi-recidivism and the rule that aggravating circumstances must be proved, not presumed.