THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE VS. ANTONIO YU, ALIAS SOSTENES YONGCO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

People versus Yu

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Antonio Yu, also known as Sostenes Yongco, a criminal case that reached the Supreme Court on automatic review of a death sentence. The accused was charged with the complex crime of rape with murder for the violation of a six year old girl who died when he strangled her. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee must hold on to: it teaches when two grave felonies committed on one occasion form a single complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and it settles who may sign the complaint when one of the component offenses is a public crime.

Procedural History

The accused was charged in the Court of First Instance of Davao under an amended information for rape with murder. With the assistance of counsel de oficio, he pleaded guilty to the crime charged, reserving only the right to prove the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a crime. After hearing, the trial court rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of rape with murder, attended by two aggravating circumstances, evident premeditation and employment of craft, which it set off against two mitigating circumstances, the plea of guilty before reception of evidence and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. The court sentenced him to death, ordered him to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of six thousand pesos, and to pay the costs. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case came to the Supreme Court on automatic review. Counsel de oficio assigned three errors: that the lower court was without jurisdiction to try the offenses, that it erred in finding that the accused committed the complex crime, and that it erred in imposing the death sentence.

Facts

On or about the fourteenth of November, nineteen hundred fifty seven, in the City of Davao, the accused, by means of violence and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of Delia Abule, a girl six years of age, against her will. On the occasion of the rape, in order to silence the child who was then shouting, he attacked, assaulted, and strangled her with abuse of superior strength and with intent to kill. As a result, the child died.

The amended information alleged that the raping and the killing were simultaneous, and that the accused strangled the victim precisely to silence her while he was satisfying his lust on her. When the accused testified, he did not claim that he killed the girl after he had already raped her in order to prevent detection. He said instead that his only intention was to abuse her, but when she tried to shout he covered her mouth and choked her, and later he found out that because of that she died.

The trial court found that there was unity of thought in the criminal purpose of the accused, and that this unity of thought and action could not be altered by the circumstance that both the crime of rape and the crime of murder resulted. It convicted him of the complex crime and imposed death, and the case was elevated for automatic review.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the case even though the complaint was signed only by the prosecuting fiscal and not by the parents or guardian of the victim.
• Whether or not the accused committed the complex crime of rape with homicide, or two separate offenses of rape and homicide.
• Whether or not the death penalty was properly imposed upon the accused.

Applicable Provisions

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Act Number 4000, provides:

When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

This is the provision that makes the raping and the killing a single complex crime and fixes the penalty for the more serious offense in its maximum period.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, on murder, provides the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. This is the penalty for the more serious component offense, murder, which the Court applied in its maximum degree.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 2632, is the rape provision discussed by the Court. The Court noted that under this amendment, if on the occasion or by reason of the commission of the crime of rape, whether consummated or attempted, homicide is committed, the criminal action may be instituted at the initiative of the prosecuting fiscal. This answers the jurisdictional objection, because the fiscal alone could sign the complaint.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court had acquired jurisdiction to try and decide the case notwithstanding that the complaint was signed by the prosecuting fiscal only and not by the parents or guardian of the victim. The crime committed being complex, and one of the component offenses being a public crime, the provincial fiscal alone could sign the complaint. The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Pueblo versus Orcullo, where the accused charged with robbery in band with rape claimed that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction because the complaint was not subscribed to by the offended parties. There the Court held that the offense was a complex crime, that robbery with rape is prosecutable even without the instance of the offended woman, and that her instance was not indispensable. The Court quoted that ruling with approval:

El delito de robo con violacion es perseguible de oficio aun sin instancia de la ofendida. La instancia de la ofendida no es indispensable en el caso presente.

In plain English: the crime of robbery with rape may be prosecuted officially even without the complaint of the offended woman, and her complaint is not indispensable. The Court also cited a commentator to the effect that in cases of complex crimes where one of the component offenses is a public crime, the criminal prosecution may be instituted by the fiscal, because public interest is always paramount to private interest.

On the second issue, the Court held that the appellant committed the complex crime of rape with homicide, homicide being used in its generic meaning. The raping and the killing of the victim were simultaneously committed, making the crime a complex one. The killing is murder because of the qualifying circumstance of superior strength, considering the tender age of the victim, who was just a six year old girl. The Court agreed with the trial court that there was unity of thought in the criminal purpose of the accused, and that this unity could not be altered by the circumstance that both rape and murder resulted. The accused had to choke and strangle the girl at the same time that he was satisfying his lust on her, and it was necessary for him to silence her so that he could consummate the rape. The Court distinguished People versus Matela, where the accused was found guilty of two separate offenses under an information charging the complex crime of rape with homicide, because in that case there was nothing to show, after proofs were adduced on a plea of not guilty, that both crimes were so connected as to constitute a complex crime. Here the amended information alleged that on the occasion of the rape the accused strangled the victim to silence her, and the accused voluntarily pleaded guilty thereto.

On the third issue, the Court held that the death penalty was properly imposed. Having pleaded guilty to the information, the aggravating circumstances alleged were deemed fully established, for the plea of guilty to the information covers both the crime as well as its attendant circumstances. The Court, however, refused to appreciate in favor of the appellant the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. Since intention is a mental process, an internal act, it can generally be gathered only from the conduct and external acts of the offender and the results of the acts themselves. The accused knew the girl was very tender in age, weak in body, helpless, and defenseless. He did not only cover her mouth to silence her but choked her, and he knew or ought to have known the natural and inevitable result of strangulation committed by a man of superior strength, especially on an occasion when she was resisting the onslaught upon her honor. The brute force employed completely contradicted his claim that he had no intention to kill the victim. The Court also observed that he pleaded guilty only after prevailing upon the prosecution to amend the original information by deleting the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence, and that he made only one reservation, which showed that he pleaded guilty after careful and matured reflection. Finding the crime to be a complex crime, the penalty for the more serious offense, murder, penalized with reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, should be imposed in its maximum degree, which is death.

Doctrine

When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the offender commits a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and the penalty for the most serious crime is imposed in its maximum period. Where the raping and the killing of the victim are simultaneous, there being unity of thought in the criminal purpose of the accused, the crime is a complex crime of rape with homicide, not two separate offenses. The qualifying circumstance of superior strength may be appreciated from the tender age of the victim, as where she was a six year old girl. In a complex crime where one of the component offenses is a public crime, the criminal action may be instituted by the prosecuting fiscal alone, and the complaint of the offended party or her parents or guardian is not indispensable, because public interest is paramount to private interest. A plea of guilty to the information covers both the crime and its attendant circumstances, so the aggravating circumstances alleged are deemed established. The mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated where the offender employed brute force and knew or ought to have known the natural and inevitable result of his acts.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in all respects, with costs, sentencing Antonio Yu, also known as Sostenes Yongco, to death for the complex crime of rape with murder.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is this: where rape and killing are simultaneous, there being unity of thought in the criminal purpose, the crime is the complex crime of rape with homicide under Article 48, and the fiscal alone may file it because one component offense is a public crime. Examiners like to use this case on the complex crime rule, on the sufficiency of the fiscal's complaint in complex crimes, and on why lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong cannot be appreciated against proof of brute force.