GROUP 3

Ardina, John Mikko

Braza, Maricris
Guevarra, Justinianne Joyce
Olasiman, Christine Fay
Pulutan, Antoinette
Vinluan, Jessica Marrielle
Vargas, Raven

People v. Empante
GR # 130665, April 21, 1999

FACTS:

The Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City found the accused-appellant Pedro Empante guilty of
three (3) counts of rape against his minor daughter Elvie Empante, and sentenced him to death, to
indemnify his daughter and to pay her moral damages. At the trial, accused appellant pleaded not guilty at
first but later on admitted having raped his daughter, with the prayer to also mitigate the penalty of death
to be imposed upon him into reclusion perpetua. Moreover, the defense pointed out that there was
contradicting testimonies given by Elvie to prove whether the accused Pedro was drunk or not when the
act of rape was committed on January 18, 1997.

However, the lower courts would not reverse its decision of death penalty even if he pleaded his
guilt. Hence, the accused-appellant now seeks decision from the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not accused-appellant can invoke the alternative circumstance of intoxication to

mitigate the penalty by one degree lower from death penalty to reclusion perpetua.

HELD:

No, he cannot invoke intoxication to mitigate the penalty of the rape. The Court ruled that after
reviewing the evidence in these cases, it found no reason to alter, much less to reverse, the decision of the
trial court. The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant. The
testimony of complainant is plain, straightforward, and positive. Although in rape cases it is sufficient for
the offended party to state that she has been raped, in the cases at bar, complainant's testimony is filled
with details which can only enhance its credibility. With clarity and candor, complainant recounted the
manner in which she was raped on the three occasions stated in the information. The testimony given by
Elvie was in fact corroborated even by accused-appellant.
 The defense pointed out an alleged contradiction between what she said during trial (that accused-
appellant was not drunk when he raped her) and what she said in her sworn statement before the police
(that accused-appellant smelled of liquor on January 18, 1997 when he raped her). The Court was not
persuaded. It may be that accused-appellant had taken some liquor and, for that reason, smelled of
alcohol, but he was not drunk or inebriated. In any event, this inconsistency concerns a minor matter and
does not affect the credibility of complainant's testimony. To the contrary, it serves to strengthen her
credibility as it shows that her testimony is not contrived. Nor is there any reason to suspect complainant
of any ill motive. She complained against her father because of what he had done to her.

Wherefore, the accused-appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and the imposition
of death penalty is required.