Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People Vs Mariano (Rape With Homicide)
People Vs Mariano (Rape With Homicide)
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
This is an automatic review of the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court, 6th
Judicial District, Manila in Criminal Case No. CCC-VI-2466 entitled "The
People of the Philippines vs. Mario Mariano y Alejandro" convicting the
accused of the crime of rape with homicide and sentencing him to death and
to indemnify the heirs of the victim the sum of P12,000.00 for the death of
the latter and the sum of P8,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the
costs. 1
The accused was charged with the crime of rape with homicide in the
following:
I N F OR M A T ION
Contrary to law.
Upon being arraigned on November 19, 1976, and after the information
was translated to Tagalog, the accused, assisted by his counsel de
oficio, manifested his desire to enter a plea of guilty to the offense charged.
Despite the warning of the trial judge that the imposable penalty is death,
the accused spontaneously entered a plea of guilty.
Considering the gravity of the offense charged and in order to determine the
nature of the crime and precise culpability of the accused, the trial court set
the case for hearing on November 25, 1976 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning.
On said date the accused was assisted by his counsel de parte, Atty. Narciso
Santiago. The prosecution presented as witnesses Juanita Mapola, adopting
mother of the victim, Rebecca Molina, Santiago Vargas, a patrolman, WPD,
MPF and Luis Larion medico-legal officer, WPD, MPF.
Juanita Mapola declared that the victim, Luningning Mapola who was her 6-
year old adopted child in fact, was missing on Thursday, November 11, 1976;
and that she looked for Luningning and through the information of a small
boy, Juanita found Luningning on the following day at 3:00 o' clock in the
afternoon in an uninhabited house in Fernandez Street, Tondo, Manila,
already dead with the dress rolled up to her abdomen, without panty, and
her eyes swollen with blood having oozed from the left eye.
Rebecca Molina, a 13-year old student, testified that on November 11, 1976
at about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, while she was walking at the corner
of Fernandez and Laong Nasa Streets, the accused, Mario Mariano, whistled
at her, and she ran away.
Santiago Vargas, a patrolman, testified on his investigation of the case in the
process of which, the accused gave his written confession voluntarily (Exhibit
"B") and re-enacted the commission of the crime (Exhibits "E ","E-1" and "E-
2").
Luis Larion medico legal officer, declared on his autopsy of the victim (Exhibits
"G" to "J").
The accused, Mario Mariano, declared that he was born on May 29, 1956 as
shown by his birth certificate (Exhibit "1") and that he did not intend to kill
the victim.
The trial on December 17, 1976 was reset to December 29, 1976 and then
to January 18, 1977 and finally to January 25, 1977. On this last date,
the prosecution presented the marriage contract of the accused showing that
he was married on March 11, 1975 (Exhibits "L" and "L-1"). The accused
also presented as additional witnesses Angelo Singian, Medico Legal Section,
WPD, MPF who declared that the death of the victim, luningning, was due
to the laceration of the vagina caused by a stiffened male organ or by the
insertion of a hard blunt object t out of proportion to the size of the vagina
and that the traumatic head injury was only contributory to the cause of
death.
Cesar Villanueva declared that on November 11, 197 6 at. 3:00 o'clock in
the afternoon, he saw the accused walking unsteadily and when the witness
asked the accused why, the latter answered that he took something but
without saying what it was.
The trial court concluded from the evidence that the accused really
committed the offense charged.
The contention of the counsel de oficio of the accused-appellant that the trial
court erred in improvidently accepting the plea of guilty of defendant-
appellant without inquiring into the causes which brought about the same, or
whether the defendant-appellant fully understood the serious charge and the
necessary implications of his plea to a capital offense, in not taking the proper
precautions directed in the decisions of the Supreme Court and dictated by
prudence under the circumstances, and, thereafter, convicting the
defendant-appellant to suffer the penalty of death has no merit.
That the defendant-appellant was fully apprised of the charge against him
and the consequences of his plea of guilt is clearly shown by the following
dialogue between the accused and the lower court:
COURT:
COURT:
COURT:
Q Where is that?
Q How?
The lower court took pains in explaining to the accused the precise nature of
the crime charged in the information as shown by the following dialogue
between the accused and the lower court at the trial on November 25, 1976:
COURT:
ACCUSED:
ATTY. SORIANO:
ATTY. SORIANO:
COURT:
ORDER
SO ORDERED.
ATTY. SORIANO:
COURT:
As a matter of fact, did you interview him?
ATTY. SANTIAGO:
COURT:
ATTY. SANTIAGO:
COURT:
ACCUSED:
It will be noted from the above-quoted portions of the transcript that the
trial court used simple words which could have been easily understood by the
accused who said that he finished Grade 6 at Princess Urduja School at Solis,
Tondo, Manila (Exhibit "B"). Moreover, the record shows that the information
was read to him in Tagalog. In spite of the efforts of the trial judge to explain
the nature of the charges against the accused and the effect of his plea of
guilty, the accused then assisted by his counsel of choice, Atty. Narciso
Santiago, reiterated his plea of guilty to the crime charged. It cannot be said,
therefore, that the accused-appellant was sentenced to death on an
improvident plea.
The testimony of the accused that he was prompted to rape the victim
because he was not in his right senses inasmuch as he was an addict is no
defense at all. Drug addiction is punishable by law. Nobody should profit
therefrom.
There is no question that the death of the victim was brought about by the
rape committed by the accused-appellant. That he did not intend to kin her
was of no moment. A person who performs a criminal act is responsible for
all the consequences of said act regardless of his intention. 5 The testimonies
of Dr. Luis Larion a prosecution witness, and Dr. Angelo Singian, a defense
witness, established beyond doubt that the death of the victim was due to
profused hemorrhage brought about by the laceration of the vagina caused
by a stiffened male organ or by the insertion of a hard blunt object. (p. 19,
tsn, Nov. 25, 1976; p. 6, tsn, Jan. 25, 1977). The extrajudicial confession
of the accused is fully corroborated by proof of corpus delicti. Hence, said
extra-judicial confession is sufficient to support conviction.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed and the accused-
appellant is sentenced to death and ordered to indemnify the heirs of the
victim the sum of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) for the death of the
latter, and the sum of Eight Thousand Pesos (P8,000.00) as moral damages
and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo, Antonio, Muñoz Palma, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, Fernandez and
Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
Presidential Decree No. 1179, which took effect on August 15, 1977 and
which amended article 189 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code by providing
that the youthful offender should be below eighteen years of age (instead of
twenty-one years, as originally prescribed) may be applied retroactively to
the appellant who is now over twenty-one years old (he was twenty years
and 163 days old when the crime was committed on November 11, 1976).
Our own criminal law jurisprudence recognizes that a drug, like opium, is
"pernicious and dangerous to a degree in its effect, mental moral and
physical, upon the individual addicted thereto ... Its usual concomitants are
imbecility,pauperism and crime (U.S. vs. Tan Tayco, 12 Phil. 739;
underscoring supplied). Justice Malcolm, speaking for the Court, reaffirmed
that opium or any other drug is dangerous, because "the weak and unwary,
unless prevented, may use it to their physical and mental ruin. ...
Indulgence in this unwholesome, disgusting and degrading habit generates
diseases, pauperism and crime. The usual concomitants are (generation
neglect of appearance, of family and of duty, abject poverty and criminal
propensities" (US vs. Delgado, 41 372, 376, citing US vs. Lim Sing, 23 Phil.
42-4 and American cases; US vs. Tan Tayco, supra, emphasis supplied).
This young man can still be rehabilitated and ultimately rescued from his
present addiction. While it is true that under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, the death penalty for rape with homicide is mandatory,
regardless of the presence of mitigating circumstances, the unusual or
abnormal predicament of the accused herein justifies the interposition of the
executive benign prerogative of mercy to commute the sentence from death
to life imprisonment, which I strongly recommend. The fault does not lie
entirely with the accused as he is a victim of his own poverty as well as the
failure of the government to completely eliminate all drug pushers and
peddlers and to effectively control the smuggling and marketing of narcotics
or prohibited drugs.
Separate Opinions
Presidential Decree No. 1179, which took effect on August 15, 1977 and
which amended article 189 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code by providing
that the youthful offender should be below eighteen years of age (instead of
twenty-one years, as originally prescribed) may be applied retroactively to
the appellant who is now over twenty-one years old (he was twenty years
and 163 days old when the crime was committed on November 11, 1976).
Our own criminal law jurisprudence recognizes that a drug, like opium, is
"pernicious and dangerous to a degree in its effect, mental moral and
physical, upon the individual addicted thereto ... Its usual concomitants are
imbecility,pauperism and crime (U.S. vs. Tan Tayco, 12 Phil. 739;
underscoring supplied). Justice Malcolm, speaking for the Court, reaffirmed
that opium or any other drug is dangerous, because "the weak and unwary,
unless prevented, may use it to their physical and mental ruin. ...
Indulgence in this unwholesome, disgusting and degrading habit generates
diseases, pauperism and crime. The usual concomitants are (generation
neglect of appearance, of family and of duty, abject poverty and criminal
propensities" (US vs. Delgado, 41 372, 376, citing US vs. Lim Sing, 23 Phil.
42-4 and American cases; US vs. Tan Tayco, supra, emphasis supplied).
This young man can still be rehabilitated and ultimately rescued from his
present addiction. While it is true that under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, the death penalty for rape with homicide is mandatory,
regardless of the presence of mitigating circumstances, the unusual or
abnormal predicament of the accused herein justifies the interposition of the
executive benign prerogative of mercy to commute the sentence from death
to life imprisonment, which I strongly recommend. The fault does not lie
entirely with the accused as he is a victim of his own poverty as well as the
failure of the government to completely eliminate all drug pushers and
peddlers and to effectively control the smuggling and marketing of narcotics
or prohibited drugs.
Footnotes
2 Rollo, p. 2.