PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DEMETRIO NUÑEZ Y DUBDUBAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Nuñez

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in a rape case. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Demetrio Nuñez for having carnal knowledge of his own daughter, Janeth Nuñez, a girl of tender age. The trial court convicted him and imposed the supreme penalty of death. The case matters to every bar candidate for two reasons. First, it is a clean illustration of the rule that the qualifying circumstances which raise rape to its qualified form and permit the death penalty must be alleged in the Information, not merely proved at trial. Second, it teaches that an improvident plea of guilty does not automatically void a judgment of conviction where the guilt is otherwise established by evidence on record.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 9, with rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act Number 7659. He was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. Midway through the presentation of the prosecution's evidence, on manifestation of counsel, he withdrew that plea and entered a plea of guilty. The trial court accepted the plea, required the prosecution to present its remaining evidence, and thereafter rendered judgment convicting him and sentencing him to death by lethal injection, with an award of 30,000 pesos as moral damages. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review. Before the Supreme Court the accused assigned a single error, namely that the trial court gravely erred in accepting his improvident plea of guilty to a capital offense and in failing to conduct a searching inquiry to determine whether he fully understood the consequences of that plea.

Facts

Janeth Nuñez was born on August 30, 1981, to Demetrio Nuñez and Nelia Ebay. When her mother took a job as a domestic helper in Guam, Janeth stayed with her father and younger brother in Lower Cabantian, Buhangin, Davao City.

On the night of January 17, 1996, at around ten o'clock in the evening, Janeth was roused from her sleep and discovered that her shorts and panties had been taken off. Her father, whom she found beside her, touched her nipple, inserted his finger into her vagina, and sucked her nipple. She pushed him away, and he returned to his bed. She put her clothes back on and went back to sleep. She woke again later and saw her father on top of her. He inserted his penis into her vagina. She pushed him aside and felt sticky fluid spill on her thigh and vagina. When her father left, she simply sat down and could no longer sleep.

The following day she confided in a classmate and in her teacher, Mrs. Meliana Geradona, who reported the matter to the police. Janeth submitted to an examination by the Medico-Legal Officer of the Davao City Health Office, Dr. Danilo Ledesma, who found a superficial laceration on her hymen at the six o'clock position. Angered by what her father had done, she herself initiated the complaint that led to the filing of the Information.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in accepting the accused's improvident plea of guilty to a capital offense without a searching inquiry into whether he fully understood the consequences of that plea.
• Whether or not the accused's guilt of rape was nevertheless established beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence on record, notwithstanding the irregular plea.
• Whether or not the penalty of death may be imposed where the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender, though proved at trial, were not alleged in the Information.
• Whether or not the civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages were correctly awarded.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11 of Republic Act Number 7659 provides:

Under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 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 degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent or victim.

This is the provision that would have authorized the death penalty, but only if both the minority of the victim and the relationship of the offender were alleged in the Information.

Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Reclusion perpetua is a single indivisible penalty which, under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, must be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the crime.

This governs the penalty once the Court reduced the conviction to simple rape, because an indivisible penalty is unaffected by either aggravating or mitigating circumstances.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the plea of guilty was indeed improvident. Both the trial court and defense counsel led the accused to believe that his plea would be a mitigating circumstance in his favor. This was misleading for two reasons. A plea of guilty may be considered mitigating only when seasonably interjected, that is, before the prosecution presents its evidence. And the penalty of death is indivisible and is not affected by either aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The accused was never categorically advised that his plea of guilt would not under any circumstance reduce his sentence, making his re-arraignment flawed.

On the second issue, however, the Court held that the improvident plea did not vacate the finding of guilt. A decision based on an irregular plea may be upheld where the judgment is supported by other adequate evidence on record. Here the direct and straightforward testimony of Janeth, the medical findings of Dr. Ledesma, and the accused's studied silence, which amounted to an admission of the sexual congress, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court stressed that a daughter of tender age would not accuse her own father of so heinous a crime had she not truly been aggrieved, and that her testimony alone, being credible, sufficed to sustain conviction.

On the third issue, the Court held that the death penalty could not be automatically imposed merely because the trial court appreciated both the fact of minority and the relationship, no matter how clearly established. These twin facts must be alleged in the Information. The seven attendant circumstances under Section 11 of Republic Act Number 7659 are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which, unlike generic aggravating circumstances that may be proved even if not alleged, cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the Information. Since minority was not alleged, the accused could not be convicted of qualified rape, and the penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua.

On the fourth issue, the Court noted that the trial court awarded moral damages but failed to impose civil indemnity, which is mandatory upon a finding of rape and is distinct from moral damages. Because the rape charged and proved was not qualified, the civil indemnity was set at 50,000 pesos. Moral damages of 50,000 pesos were also awarded, without need of pleading or proof, since moral injury is assumed in rape. Exemplary damages of 25,000 pesos were awarded because of the aggravating circumstance of relationship between the accused and his victim.

Doctrine

The qualifying circumstances under Section 11 of Republic Act Number 7659, particularly the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender, must be alleged in the Information; they cannot be proved as qualifying circumstances if not so alleged, and the death penalty cannot rest on proof alone. An improvident plea of guilty does not necessarily invalidate a conviction, because a judgment supported by other adequate evidence on record will be upheld. Reclusion perpetua is a single indivisible penalty that must be applied regardless of mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Civil indemnity is mandatory upon a finding of rape and is distinct from moral damages, and exemplary damages may be awarded where an aggravating circumstance attends the crime.

Disposition

The accused was found guilty of simple rape, the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua, and he was ordered to pay the complainant 50,000 pesos as indemnity, 50,000 pesos as moral damages, and 25,000 pesos as exemplary damages.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that the twin qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must be alleged in the Information, or the rape remains simple and the penalty is reclusion perpetua. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between qualifying and generic aggravating circumstances, and to test whether an improvident plea of guilty voids a conviction supported by independent evidence.