People v. Santos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Ernesto Santos y Cruz, an escapee from the Davao Penal Colony, was charged with rape. The complaint alleged that on or about July 21, 1976, in Antipolo, Rizal, the accused, taking advantage of superior strength, by means of force, intimidation, and at knife point, succeeded in having carnal knowledge with Erlita Francisco y Fernando, a ten-year-old virgin, in a secluded place. Procedural History: The accused pleaded guilty when arraigned with the assistance of counsel de oficio. Despite the guilty plea, the trial court received evidence. The prosecution presented the testimony of the victim, the medical examiner, the school principal, and investigating policemen. The defunct Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal, imposed the death penalty on the accused. The Appeal: This case is an automatic review of the decision of the Circuit Criminal Court. The appellant's counsels de oficio disputed the application of Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, arguing that since the appellant was an escapee, he was not serving his sentence and thus did not commit the rape 'while serving the same.' They contended that the appropriate penalty should be reclusion perpetua only, not death.
Issue(s)
Whether Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable to the accused who was an escapee from the Davao Penal Colony at the time of the commission of the rape. Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court was correct.
Ruling
The judgment under review is modified. The appellant shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua only. The indemnity shall be increased to P20,000.00. Costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code requires, as a condition sine qua non, that the accused must have been "convicted by final judgment." The record did not show that the appellant had been convicted by final judgment when he committed the rape. The fact that he was an escapee from the Davao Penal Colony does not prove conviction by final judgment; he could have still been a detention prisoner. Therefore, the condition for the application of Article 160 was not met. On Issue 2: The crime of rape was committed, and the penalty for rape when committed with the use of a deadly weapon or against a minor under twelve years of age is reclusion perpetua to death, pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 4111. However, the trial court imposed the death penalty based on the application of Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code. Since the condition for the application of Article 160 was not met, the penalty should not be the maximum period prescribed by law for rape. Instead, the penalty should be reclusion perpetua only, as provided by Article 335 for the commission of rape under the given circumstances. The Court also increased the indemnity to P20,000.00.
Main Doctrine
Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes the commission of a felony after a prior conviction by final judgment, requires that the accused must have been convicted by final judgment. The fact that an accused is an escapee from a penal colony does not, in itself, prove that he had been convicted by final judgment, as he could have been a detention prisoner. Therefore, without proof of a prior conviction by final judgment, Article 160 cannot be applied to impose the maximum penalty.