9/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 355

VOL. 355, MARCH 26, 2001 301

People vs. Delos Santos

*
G.R. No. 137889. March 26, 2001.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO

DELOS SANTOS, accused-appellant.

Criminal Procedure; Plea of Guilty; Capital Offenses; Procedure to be

Observed by Trial Courts Where the Accused Pleads Guilty to a Capital
Offense.—Where the accused enters a plea of guilty to a capital offense, the
trial court is called upon to observe the following procedure: the court shall
conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and the accused’s full
comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution
to prove his guilt and the precise degree of his culpability. The accused may
also present evidence in his behalf (People vs. Dayot, 187 SCRA 637
[1990]).
Same; Same; Same; Qualified Rape; The trial court should take the
necessary measures to see to it that the accused really and freely
comprehends the meaning, full significance and consequences of his plea;
The act of an accused of pleading guilty to raping his daughter because he
pitied her is not a sufficient reason for the trial court to allow a change of
plea from “not guilty” to one of “guilty.”—It is observed that the procedure
followed by the trial court in respect of the affirmative plea of accused-
appellant leaves much to be desired. As required under Section 3, Rule 116
of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, the trial court should have taken
the necessary measures to see to it that accused-appellant really and freely
comprehended the meaning, full significance and consequences of his plea.
In the case at bar, accused-appellant pleaded guilty to raping his daughter
because he pitied her (tsn, July 9, 1998, p. 5). This is not a sufficient reason
for the trial court to allow a change of plea from “not guilty” to one of
“guilty.” Aside from ensuring the voluntariness of accused-appellant’s plea
and his full comprehension of the consequences of the same, the trial court
should also have impressed on him that by changing his plea from “not
guilty” to “guilty,” he was, in effect, admitting authorship of the crime of
rape against his own daughter. This the trial court failed to do.
Criminal Law; Qualified Rape; Right to be Informed; Minority; The
allegation of minority must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as
the crime itself; It is a common observance that in this age of modernity, a
physically developed 14-year old girl may be mistaken for an 18-year old

_______________

* EN BANC.

302

302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delos Santos

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8062ce33290aee2f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/7
9/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 355

young woman, in the same manner that a frail and youthful-looking 18-year
old lady may pass as a 14-year old minor.—Republic Act No. 7659 or the
Death Penalty Law, punishes the rape of a minor with death. The allegation
of minority must, however, be proved with equal certainty and clearness as
the crime itself. Thus, in People vs. Javier (311 SCRA 122 [1999]), we
required the presentation of the birth certificate of the victim to prove her
minority, failing which the imposition of the death penalty cannot be upheld.
It is a common observance that in this age of modernity, a physically
developed 14-year old girl may be mistaken for an 18-year old young
woman, in the same manner that a frail and youthful-looking 18-year old
lady may pass as a 14-year old minor. Thus, it is in this context that proof of
the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove
an iota of doubt that the victim is indeed under 18 years of age as to fall
under the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659.
In the case at hand, the prosecution did not present any independent proof of
Nenita’s minority. It merely alleged in the Information that Nenita was 14
years old when her father raped her. In the light of our discussion in Javier
(supra), this failure effectively removes the instant case from the operation
of the Death Penalty Law.
Same; Same; Same; It is a time-honored principle that in a criminal
prosecution, especially where the life of another human being is hanging on
the balance, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact
necessary to constitute the crime with which the accused is charged must be
established in order for the corresponding penalty thereto to be upheld.—It
is a time-honored principle that in a criminal prosecution, especially where
the life of another human being is hanging on the balance, nothing but proof
beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with
which the accused is charged must be established in order for the
corresponding penalty thereto to be upheld. The prosecution, in the instant
case, was remiss in this regard. The applicable penalty is, therefore,
reclusion perpetua and this penalty being an indivisible penalty, the benefits
under the Indeterminate Sentence Law are not applicable (Section 2, Act
No. 4103, as amended).

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, Br. 6.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
     Public Attorney’s Office for the accused-appellant.

303

VOL. 355, MARCH 26, 2001 303

People vs. Delos Santos

MELO, J.:

A father who ravages his own daughter reduces himself to the level
of a beast and forfeits his membership in the world of civilized men.
Nenita delos Santos was only 14 years old when her father,
accused-appellant Romeo delos Santos, sexually abused her. She
narrated that on July 31, 1997 at around 9 o’clock in the evening
while she was about to go to sleep, her father suddenly approached
her, held her waist and poked a knife at her side, threatening to kill
her if she tells anyone what he was about to do to her. Then her
father boxed her on the abdomen, inflicting on her so much pain and
causing her to fall down on the floor. While in such a position, her
father removed her short pants and panties even while she resisted;
but her father overpowered her and he succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her. Accused-appellant stopped violating his
daughter only after he has satisfied his lust. Nenita cried the whole
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8062ce33290aee2f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/7
9/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 355

night through and the days after because of the intense pain in her
private part, but more so because of the betrayal of the man who
gave her life and whom she trusted would protect and shield her
from life’s sorrows and pains. To add ignominy to his bestial acts,
accused-appellant not only violated his daughter once but several
times.
Out of shame and fear for her life, Nenita suffered in silence. She
never told anyone, not even her mother, about the horrible ordeal she
went through in the hands of her own father. But after several days,
she mustered enough courage and went to the police to report the
incident. She also submitted to a physical examination to
substantiate her allegations. The necessary information for multiple
rape was filed against accused-appellant.
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the
crimes charged.
The prosecution accordingly presented as its first witness Dr.
Felma Caybot, the physician who examined the victim. Dr. Caybot
testified, among other things that: (1) she was able to insert her two
fingers in Nenita’s private part with minimal resistance and there
was not even a change in the facial expression of the patient, and (2)
in the examination of the hymen of the patient, she found

304

304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delos Santos

healed lacerations at 6 o’clock and 3 o’clock positions (tsn, p. 3,

July 7, 1998).
The prosecution then called Nenita as its next witness. Nenita
had barely started her narration of the incidents when accused-
appellant manifested in court that he was changing his plea from
“not guilty” to “guilty” provided the Information is amended to a
single charge of rape. The trial court put accused-appellant on the
witness stand, and after seemingly satisfying itself that accused-
appellant understood the full consequences of his plea of guilty, the
court a quo allowed the amendment of the Information to one charge
of rape and changed accused-appellant’s plea of “not guilty” to
“guilty.”
Nenita continued with her testimony; after which, the prosecution
rested its case. When it was accused-appellant’s turn to present his
evidence, he manifested to the court that he had no evidence to
present.
On February 10, 1999, the court a quo convicted accused-
appellant of the crime of rape and imposed on him the supreme
penalty of death, thusly:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused ROMEO DELOS SANTOS,

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of RAPE as
defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by R.A. No. 7659, Sec. 11 thereof and hereby imposes upon the
accused Romeo delos Santos the penalty of DEATH; to pay the victim
Nenita delos Santos civil indemnity in the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND
(P50,000.00.) PESOS and the costs.
The death penalty having been imposed by this Court, let the records of
the case together with the transcript of stenographic notes be transmitted to
the Supreme Court by way of an automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 22 of Republic Act No.
7659.
SO ORDERED.
(pp. 72-73, Records.)     

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8062ce33290aee2f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/7
9/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 355

In this automatic review, accused-appellant faults the trial court “in

not applying the safeguards to a plea of guilty to a capital offense set
forth under Section 3, Rule 116, 1985 Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure” (Brief for the Accused-Appellant, Rollo, p. 29).

305

VOL. 355, MARCH 26, 2001 305

People vs. Delos Santos

We find the contention partially meritorious, but not sufficient to

warrant the reversal of the finding of guilt by the court a quo.
Section 3, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
(the Rule then prevailing when the instant crime was committed and
tried, and which remains unamended in the present 2000 Rules)
states the procedure to be followed where the accused, with the
assistance of counsel, voluntarily pleads to a capital offense:

Sec. 3. When an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall
conduct a searching inquiry info the voluntariness and full comprehension
of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt
and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present
evidence in his behalf (1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure).

Thus, where the accused enters a plea of guilty to a capital offense,

the trial court is called upon to observe the following procedure: the
court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and the
accused’s full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and
require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of
his culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf
(People vs. Dayot, 187 SCRA 637 [1990]).
In the case at bar, the trial court asked accused-appellant the
following questions to determine the voluntariness and full
comprehension of his change of plea from “not guilty” to “guilty,”
thus:

COURT:
      x x x.
  Put the accused in the witness stand for the searching questions
and inquiries.
Q You just change your plea of not guilty to plead guilty to the
- crime of rape, is that correct?
A Yes, Ma’am.
-
Q Do you know that by pleading guilty to the crime charged you
- can be meted out of a penalty of death?
A Yes, Ma’am.
-
Q By the way, is your decision to plead guilty voluntary on your
- part?
A Yes your Honor, because I pity her.
-

306

306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delos Santos

Q Nobody is threatening you of bodily harm so that you will

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8062ce33290aee2f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/7
9/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 355

- plead guilty to the crime charged?

A None your Honor. It is my own will.
-
Q Inspite the fact that you are already aware that the penalty
- provided for by law is death, will you still insist on your plea of
guilty?
A Yes, your Honor.
-
Q Aside from that reason that your wife deserted you and your
- small children are left behind are you still bent on proceeding
your plea of guilty despite that you can be meted with the
penalty of death?
A Yes your honor, I will go on with my plea of guilty.
-
     
  (pp. 4-5, tsn, July 9, 1998.)     

It is observed that the procedure followed by the trial court in

respect of the affirmative plea of accused-appellant leaves much to
be desired. As required under Section 3, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules
of Criminal Procedure (supra), the trial court should have taken the
necessary measures to see to it that accused-appellant really and
freely comprehended the meaning, full significance and
consequences of his plea. In the case at bar, accused-appellant
pleaded guilty to raping his daughter because he pitied her (tsn, July
9, 1998, p. 5). This is not a sufficient reason for the trial court to
allow a change of plea from “not guilty” to one of “guilty.” Aside
from ensuring the voluntariness of accused-appellant’s plea and his
full comprehension of the consequences of the same, the trial court
should also have impressed on him that by changing his plea from
“not guilty” to “guilty,” he was, in effect, admitting authorship of the
crime of rape against his own daughter. This the trial court failed to
do.
Nevertheless, even without considering said plea of guilty on the
part of accused-appellant as above discussed, there is adequate
evidence to warrant and justify the conviction of accused-appellant,
namely: the medical certificate attesting to the fact that the victim,
Nenita, has a lacerated hymen, and, the testimony of Nenita herself
that her father, herein accused-appellant, forced her to have sexual
intercourse with him, not just once but several times. This testimony
was unrebutted as accused-appellant did not present

307

VOL. 355, MARCH 26, 2001 307

People vs. Delos Santos

any evidence to prove his innocence even when asked to do so by

the court a quo. His plea of guilty effectively corroborated and
substantiated Nenita’s allegations that her father indeed raped her.
Of no small significance too is the fact that accused-appellant
changed his plea of “not guilty” to one of “guilty” after arraignment,
and after the prosecution has presented its witnesses—the physician
who examined Nenita, and, Nenita herself.
Republic Act No. 7659 or the Death Penalty Law, punishes the
rape of a minor with death. The allegation of minority must,
however, be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime
itself. Thus, in People vs. Javier (311 SCRA 122 [1999]), we
required the presentation of the birth certificate of the victim to
prove her minority, failing which the imposition of the death penalty

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8062ce33290aee2f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/7
9/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 355

cannot be upheld. It is a common observance that in this age of

modernity, a physically developed 14-year old girl may be mistaken
for an 18-year old young woman, in the same manner that a frail and
youthful-looking 18-year old lady may pass as a 14-year old minor.
Thus, it is in this context that proof of the actual age of a rape victim
becomes vital and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the
victim is indeed under 18 years of age as to fall under the qualifying
circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659. In the case at
hand, the prosecution did not present any independent proof of
Nenita’s minority. It merely alleged, in the Information that Nenita
was 14 years old when her father raped her. In the light of our
discussion in Javier (supra), this failure effectively removes the
instant case from the operation of the Death Penalty Law. It is a
time-honored principle that in a criminal prosecution, especially
where the life of another human being is hanging on the balance,
nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary
to constitute the crime with which the accused is charged must be
established in order for the corresponding penalty thereto to be
upheld. The prosecution, in the instant case, was remiss in this
regard. The applicable penalty is, therefore, reclusion perpetua and
this penalty being an indivisible penalty, the benefits under the
Indeterminate Sentence Law are not applicable (Section 2, Act No.
4103, as amended).
Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence the indemnity for rape is
now P50,000.00 (People vs. Itdang, G.R. No. 136393, 343 SCRA

308

308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Delos Santos

624, October 18, 2000, citing People vs. Betonio, 279 SCRA 532
[1997]). Rape victims shall likewise be entitled to moral damages in
the amount of P50,000.00 (People vs. Clado, G.R. Nos. 135699-70,
139103, 343 SCRA 729, October 19, 2000 citing People vs. Perez,
307 SCRA 276 [1999]).
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED
with the modification that the penalty to be imposed shall be
RECLUSION PERPETUA, instead of death. Accused-appellant is
further ordered to indemnify the victim in the amount of Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and to pay another Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages. No special pronouncement is
made as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

          Davide, Jr. (C.J.), Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,

Mendoza, Panganiban, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-
Santiago, De Leon, Jr. and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
     Quisumbing, J., On leave.

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.—While Republic Act No. 7659 did not give a legal

designation to the crime of rape attended L, any of the seven new
circumstances introduced in Article 335, the Supreme Court has
referred to such crime as qualified rape. (People vs. Ramos, 296
SCRA 559 [1998])
Courts are not the fora for a protracted debate on the morality or
propriety of the death penalty where the law itself provides such
punishment for specific and well-defined criminal acts. (People vs.
Mijano, 311 SCRA 81 [1999])

——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8062ce33290aee2f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/7
9/30/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 355

309

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d8062ce33290aee2f003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/7