People v. Mariano Entes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The facts involve the elements of rape under Philippine Law. Procedural History: A verified complaint was filed and, after waiver of the second stage of preliminary investigation, the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance for trial. The trial court convicted the accused of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and imposed the death penalty and an award of indemnity. The case proceeded on automatic review to the Supreme Court En Banc. The Petition: The accused's sole assignment of error was that the trial court erred in not considering the affidavits of desistance of the complainant and her aunt as a ground for dismissal of the complaint or as a mitigating circumstance. The accused alternatively sought commutation of the penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the affidavits of desistance justify the dismissal of the complaint. Whether the affidavits of desistance can be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Whether the alleged use of a deadly weapon, not expressly alleged in the information, may be treated as a qualifying aggravating circumstance to elevate the penalty to death.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for rape but modified the penalty imposed by the trial court. The death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The Court held that the affidavits of desistance executed after the institution of the criminal action do not justify dismissal and cannot be treated as mitigating in the circumstances; and that a qualifying aggravating circumstance must be expressly alleged in the complaint or information to justify elevation of the penalty.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the affidavits of desistance justify dismissal: The Court held that the affidavits of desistance cannot justify dismissal of the complaint because the pardon or forgiveness contemplated by Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code must be made prior to the institution of the criminal action. Applying People v. Miranda (57 Phil. 274 [1932]), the Court observed that a pardon to justify dismissal should have been made before the action was instituted; the affidavits in this case were executed after institution and while trial was ongoing. The Court therefore found Exhibits 1 and 2 ineffective to terminate the prosecution. The Court also noted that the timing and circumstances under which the affidavits were executed—after the action had been instituted and while the complainant was completing her testimony—undermined their efficacy as a ground for dismissal. Finally, the Court emphasized that private forgiveness post-institution does not divest the State of its authority to prosecute public crimes where the law requires a complaint or prior pardon before institution. On Whether the affidavits of desistance constitute mitigating circumstances: The Court examined whether the affidavits could be considered mitigating and found they did not. The Court distinguished the present case from People v. Coronel (L-19091, June 30, 1966, 17 SCRA 509) because the affidavits of desistance here did not amount to an admission of guilt by the accused or a manifestation of contrition; rather, the accused continued to deny the acts even while relying on the affidavits. The Court explained that an admission of guilt made during trial might indicate submission to law and a disposition to reform, but that is not equivalent to post-institution desistance executed by third parties or influenced by familial pressure. Consequently, the Court concluded the affidavits could not be considered a mitigating circumstance in this case. On Whether the use of a deadly weapon, not alleged in the information, qualifies to elevate the penalty to death: The Court agreed with the Solicitor General that the use of a deadly weapon, though shown in evidence and not objected to at trial, was not expressly alleged in the information as a qualifying aggravating circumstance. The Court held that a qualifying aggravating circumstance must be expressly alleged in the criminal complaint or information to be treated as qualifying so as to elevate the penalty under paragraph 5 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code; absent such allegation, it can only be considered an ordinary aggravating circumstance. Applying this rule, the Court treated the use of a deadly weapon as an ordinary aggravating circumstance and therefore reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The Court noted that ordinary aggravating circumstances affect only the degree of the penalty within the prescribed range, but do not convert an ordinary penalty into a higher afflictive penalty unless the circumstance was pleaded as qualifying in the information.
Main Doctrine
Affidavits of desistance executed after the institution of the criminal action do not justify dismissal of the complaint; a qualifying aggravating circumstance must be expressly alleged in the complaint or information to be treated as a qualifying circumstance elevating the penalty.