PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO BALIAO EMPANTE @ “PETER,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Empante versus People

The Case

This is the case of Empante versus People, an automatic review by the Supreme Court of a conviction for three counts of rape. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Pedro Baliao Empante, known as Peter, for raping his own daughter Elvie on three separate occasions, when she was twelve years old and later fifteen. The accused admitted his guilt but asked that the death penalty be reduced on account of his plea of guilty and his alleged intoxication. The case matters because it fixes the standards for appreciating voluntary plea of guilty and intoxication as mitigating circumstances in qualified rape, and because it reminds us that moral ascendancy of a father over his daughter can substitute for actual force or intimidation.

Procedural History

Three informations for rape were filed against the accused before the Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental, Branch 12. At arraignment he pleaded not guilty. During trial he twice moved to change his plea to guilty; the first motion was denied, but the second was granted after the trial court satisfied itself that the plea was unconditional, freely, knowingly, and voluntarily made. The trial court rendered judgment finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of all three counts, sentencing him to death for each, and ordering him to pay fifty thousand pesos as civil indemnity and another fifty thousand pesos as moral damages for each count. Because the penalty imposed was death, the records were forwarded to the Supreme Court for automatic review under Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act Number 7659.

Facts

Elvie Empante was born on March 6, 1982, the eldest of four children of Pedro Empante and Flaviana Intong. Her father worked at a quarry in Barangay Unidos, Plaridel, Misamis Occidental, while her mother worked as a domestic helper outside Plaridel and came home only on weekends. In November 1994, when Elvie was twelve and in Grade Six, she was left alone with her father. He called her to his room, poked a hunting knife at her side, and warned her not to make any noise or he would kill her. He pushed her onto the bed and succeeded in raping her despite her resistance. He warned her not to tell her mother or he would kill them both. Knowing her father to be violent, she kept silent.

The family later moved near the national highway. On the evening of December 24, 1996, Elvie was left at home with her younger brothers. She was awakened to find her father on top of her, her shorts and underwear removed, and a hunting knife pointed at her side. He again succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. When she later asked to sleep in another room, he got angry, forced the door open, slapped her, hit her on the back, and dragged her outside. When her mother arrived, Elvie finally told her what happened, and her parents quarreled.

On January 16, 1997, after being beaten by the accused, Elvie's mother left for Manila, leaving Elvie with no one to protect her. On the evening of January 18, 1997, her father again went on top of her while she slept, removed her clothes, and threatened her with the hunting knife. He again raped her. When she demanded why he abused her instead of going to others, he answered by asking why he should go to others when she was there. The next morning she told her grandmother, Lourdes Intong, who brought her to the barangay captain, then to the police, and to the Calamba District Hospital, where a medico-legal examination showed healed lacerations of the hymen and posterior fourchette. She filed three criminal complaints, which became the basis of the informations.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty despite the accused's plea of guilty and his claim of intoxication, which he says should mitigate his liability and reduce the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
• Whether or not the plea of guilty was validly entered and may be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.
• Whether or not intoxication may be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance in these cases.

Applicable Provisions

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as quoted by the trial court, defines the crime:

Article 335, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code: having carnal knowledge of a woman by using force or intimidation.

This is the crime charged, and the use of a hunting knife and the moral ascendancy of the father supply the force or intimidation.

Rule 116, Section 3 of the Rules of Court governs the plea of guilty:

Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court: no plea of guilty shall be accepted unless the court is satisfied that the accused fully understands the consequences of his plea.

The trial court observed these safeguards before accepting the change of plea, which is why the plea is treated as voluntary and unconditional.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the conviction and the death penalty. The complainant's testimony was plain, straightforward, and positive, filled with details that enhanced its credibility, and it was corroborated by the accused himself. The Court held that a teenage unmarried girl would not ordinarily file a rape charge against her own father unless it were true, and that the trial court's evaluation of her demeanor deserved great respect.

On the plea of guilty, the Court held that it was validly entered. The trial judge took care that the safeguards for its admission were observed, and the transcript showed that the accused understood that the death penalty could be imposed and still insisted on pleading guilty. His plea was an admission of everything alleged in the informations.

On intoxication, the Court rejected the claim. Even if the accused was intoxicated and not a habitual drinker, the intoxication must be shown to have so impaired his willpower that he did not know what he was doing or could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts. Here the complainant denied he was drunk, and the accused himself could recall details of the rapes, which was the best proof that he knew what he was doing.

The Court also held that even if no knife was used, the accused's admission that he raped his daughter by threatening her was sufficient, considering the moral ascendancy he had over his child.

Doctrine

A plea of guilty, to be mitigating, must be voluntary and unconditional, made with full understanding of its consequences, and the trial court must observe the safeguards of Rule 116, Section 3. Intoxication, to mitigate, must be shown to have so impaired the offender's willpower that he did not know what he was doing or could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts; mere drinking is not enough. In rape, the moral ascendancy of a father over his daughter can substitute for actual force or intimidation, so the use of a weapon need not be proven. The evaluation of a witness's testimony by the trial court is entitled to great respect.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court in all respects, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of rape and imposing the death penalty, with civil indemnity and moral damages of fifty thousand pesos each for every count.

Remember This

Remember that a plea of guilty mitigates only when it is voluntary and unconditional, and that intoxication mitigates only when it so impairs willpower that the offender did not know what he was doing. Examiners like to use this case to test the requisites of voluntary plea of guilty and intoxication as mitigating circumstances, and the rule that moral ascendancy substitutes for force or intimidation in rape by a father against his daughter.