Title
People vs. Yu
Case
G.R. No. L-13780
Decision Date
Jan 28, 1961
A 1957 case in Davao City where Antonio Yu raped and murdered a 6-year-old girl, pleading guilty but contesting intent. The court ruled it a complex crime, upheld jurisdiction, and imposed the death penalty due to aggravating circumstances.
rape with murder
complex crime
jurisdiction

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-13780)

Amended Information and Plea

The amended information charged Antonio Yu with the crime of Rape with Murder, under Article 335 in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. It alleged that on the occasion of the rape, and in order to silence Delia Abule who was shouting, the accused attacked, assaulted, and strangled the child, acting with abuse of superior strength and with intent to kill, and that Delia Abule died as a result. The information further alleged two aggravating circumstances: (1) that craft was employed, and (2) that the acts were committed with evident premeditation.

With the assistance of counsel de oficio, the accused pleaded guilty, while reserving the right to prove the mitigating circumstance of “lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that which resulted.”

Trial Court’s Ruling

After hearing, the trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime charged. It held that the offense was attended by the two aggravating circumstances alleged in the information—evident premeditation and employment of craft—and that these were set off and compensated by two mitigating circumstances in favor of the accused: (1) the plea of guilty before reception of evidence, and (2) lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that which resulted.

Applying Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the trial court ruled that for a complex crime, the proper penalty was the penalty for the most serious crime, to be applied in its maximum period. It determined that murder was the more serious crime and that the penalty under Article 248 was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Although the trial court expressed reluctance about the wisdom of the death penalty, it imposed that penalty by express mandate of law. It also ordered indemnity to Delia Abule’s heirs in the amount of P6,000.00 and taxed costs.

Issues Raised on Automatic Review

On appeal, counsel de oficio assigned three errors attributed to the trial court: (1) that the trial court allegedly lacked jurisdiction, (2) that the trial court allegedly erred in finding that the accused committed the complex crime, and (3) that the trial court allegedly erred in imposing the death sentence.

For ease of disposition, the Supreme Court first resolved the second assigned error, which necessarily involved the characterization of the acts as a complex crime under Article 48.

Determination that the Offense Was a Complex Crime

The Supreme Court held that the accused committed the complex crime of rape with homicide—with homicide used in its generic sense. It reasoned that the raping and the killing of the victim were simultaneously committed, which made the offense a complex one under Article 48. The Court further held that the killing amounted to murder, because a qualifying circumstance of superior strength attended the killing, taking into account the victim’s tender age of six years, citing People vs. Jamoralin, G.R. No. L-2257, February 19, 1951.

In adopting the trial court’s factual and legal findings, the Supreme Court emphasized unity of criminal purpose and action. It agreed that the accused had to choke and strangle the child while satisfying his lust, and that it was necessary to silence her in order to consummate the rape. The Court also found support in the accused’s testimony. The accused stated: “My only intention was to abuse her, but when she tried to shout I covered her mouth and choked her and later I found out that because of that she died.” The Court read this testimony as implying that the accused strangled the child to stop her from resisting or shouting.

The Court also addressed the cited precedent People vs. Matela, 58 Phil. 718, where the Court had found the accused guilty of separate offenses (rape and homicide) under an information charging rape with homicide. The Supreme Court held that Matela did not apply because, in that case, the record did not show—after proofs were adduced on a plea of not guilty—that the offenses were so connected as to constitute a complex crime under Article 48. By contrast, in the present case, the amended information alleged that, on the occasion of the rape, the accused attacked, assaulted, and strangled the victim in order to silence her while she was shouting, and the accused had entered a plea of guilty to the amended charge. This pleading, the Court concluded, supplied the connective factual basis needed to treat the crimes as a complex offense.

Jurisdiction Despite Lack of Subscription by Parents or Guardian

The Supreme Court proceeded to the first assigned error concerning jurisdiction. It held that the trial court acquired jurisdiction to try and decide the case, even though the complaint was not signed by the parents or guardian of the victim, but by the prosecuting fiscal only. The Court explained that because the offense was complex, and one component offense was a public crime, the provincial fiscal alone could sign the complaint.

In support, the Supreme Court invoked Pueblo vs. Orcullo, 83 Phil. 787, where the Court had rejected an argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was not subscribed by the offended parties. In that connection, the Supreme Court referenced People vs. Martinez, 76 Phil. 599, which had held that for robo con violacion—a complex crime similarly involving both offenses—private-party instance was not indispensable because the complex offense was pursuable de oficio, given that one component crime was a public offense. The Supreme Court found no reason to withhold the same logic from the present case, where rape with homicide was likewise treated as a complex crime with public character.

The Court also referred to a persuasive commentary stating that in complex crimes where one component offense is a public crime, prosecution may be instituted by the fiscal, explaining the underlying public-interest rationale. The Court thus sustained the trial court’s jurisdiction.

Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances After a Plea of Guilty

On the third and central sentencing question, the Supreme Court scrutinized the trial court’s treatment of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It noted that the trial court had considered the two aggravating circumstances alleged in the information: evident premeditation and employment of craft, and that these were compensated by two mitigating circumstances: (1) plea of guilty before reception of evidence, and (2) lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.

The Supreme Court held that because the accused pleaded guilty to the information, the aggravating circumstances were deemed fully established, for the plea of guilty covered not only the crime charged but also its attendant circumstances, citing People vs. Acosta, 98 Phil. 642 and People vs. Yamson, et al., 109 Phil. 795, together with II Moran on the Rules of Court.

However, the Supreme Court refused to recognize the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. It focused on the accused’s testimony, which had sought to portray his intent as limited to abusing the child, explaining that when she tried to shout, he covered her mouth and choked her and later found out that she died. The Court treated intention as an internal process that, as a general rule, could only be derived from the offender’s conduct and the external acts, including the natural and inevitable consequences of those acts.

The Court found the accused’s claim inconsistent with the brutality of the conduct. It reasoned that the accused knew the child was extremely tender in age and defenseless. It held that he did not merely cover the mouth to silence her; he also choked her. The Court further held that strangulation by a man of superior strength, especially in the context of resistance during an assault upon honor, carried a natural and inevitable risk of death. Thus, the Court concluded that the “brute force” employed directly contradicted the claimed lack of intent to kill, citing People vs. Orongon, 58 Phil. 421, People vs. Flores, 50 Phil. 549, and People vs. Reyes, 61 Phil. 341.

The Supreme Court also took into account the procedural and substantive posture of the plea. It noted that the accused pleaded guilty after persuading the prosecution to amend the original information by deleting abuse of confidence, leaving only the two aggravating circumstances appearing in the amended information. The Court observed that the accused reserved only once, namely, to testify to prove the alleged mitigating circumstance of lack of intent. This, the Court treated as indicative of careful and matured reflection on the facts and consequences of the plea.

Penalty and Disposition

Having found that the acts constituted a complex crime and that the more serious component offense was murder, the Supreme Court ruled that the penalty for the most serious offense—under Article 248, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death—should be imposed in its maximum degree. It therefore affirmed the trial court’s impo

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms