G.R. No. 175350 - Equitable Banking Corp. vs Special Steel Products, Inc.

The case involves an automatic review of the decision of the defunct Circuit Criminal Court of Pasig, Rizal.
The accused, Ernesto Santos y Cruz, was charged with the crime of rape based on a verified complaint.
The rape was committed against a minor, Erlita Francisco y Fernando, who was ten years old at the time of the incident.

The crime occurred on or about July 21, 1976.
The incident took place at Manuel L. Quezon Extension, Municipality of Antipolo, Province of Rizal.
The complaint detailed that the accused, then an escapee from the Davao Penal Colony, deliberately used his superior strength, force, intimidation, and a 6-inch knife to commit the rape.
The testimony and evidence included:

The complainant’s (Erlita’s) account of the incident.
Medical examination results provided by Dr. Dario Gajardo from the PC Crime Laboratory.
Testimony of Bernarda Serato, the Principal of Juan Sumulong Elementary School.
Investigative statements from Policemen Rolando Gomez and Quirino Calica of the Antipolo Police Station.

During arraignment, Ernesto Santos y Cruz entered a plea of guilty with the assistance of counsel de oficio.
Despite the plea of guilty, the court admitted evidence which confirmed that a rape, by aggravated circumstances, had indeed been committed.
Under the prevailing law (Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 4111), the crime of rape in this instance warranted a penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

The trial court sentenced the accused to death, invoking Art. 160 of the Revised Penal Code.
Art. 160 mandates that a person who commits a felony after having been convicted by final judgment (or while serving the sentence) shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed for the new felony.
The application of Art. 160 was argued by the appellant’s counsel, contending that since Santos y Cruz was an escapee and not serving a sentence at the time of the rape, the clause “while serving the same” should not apply.

Appellant’s legal counsel argued that as an escapee, the accused was effectively not “serving his sentence” and thus the maximum penalty (death) should not be imposed.
Despite their argument, the court emphasized that the application of Art. 160 requires that the accused had been convicted by final judgment—a requirement not proven in the record.

Whether the imposition of the death penalty under Art. 160 was appropriate given that the accused was not established to have been convicted by final judgment prior to committing the crime.
Whether being an escapee from the Davao Penal Colony precludes the application of the “while serving the same” condition for enhanced sentencing.

Whether the evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the rape was committed under circumstances that warranted the imposition of the maximum penalty.
If the additional penalty of death was warranted, considering the legal prerequisites for its imposition under Art. 160.