Death

People vs. Domantay (a.k.a. Junior Utot), May 11, 1999

Crime: Homicide
Decision: Guilty of homicide with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength and
sentencing him to a prison term of 12 years of prision mayor, as minimum, to 20 years of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, and ORDERING him to pay the heirs of Jennifer Domantay the amounts of
P50,000.00, as indemnity, P50,000.00, as moral damages, P25,000.00, as exemplary damages, and
P12,000.00, as actual damages, and the costs.
Facts:
On the afternoon of October 17, 1996, at around 4 o’clock, when the body of six-year old Jennifer
Domantay was found sprawled amidst a bamboo grove in Guilig, Malasiqui, Pangasinan. The childs
body bore several stab wounds. Jennifer had been missing since lunch time. The medical examination
conducted the following day by Dr. Ma. Fe Leticia Macaranas, the rural health physician of Malasiqui,
showed that Jennifer died of multiple organ failure and hypovolemic shock secondary to 38 stab
wounds at the back. Dr. Macaranas found no lacerations or signs of inflammation of the outer and inner
labia and the vaginal walls of the victim’s genitalia, although the vaginal canal easily admitted the little
finger with minimal resistance. Noting possible commission of acts of lasciviousness, Dr. Macaranas
recommended an autopsy by a medico-legal expert of the NBI.
The investigation by the Malasiqui police pointed to accused-appellant Bernardino Domantay, a cousin
of the victim’s grandfather, as the lone suspect in the gruesome crime. At around 6:30 in the evening of
that day, police officers Montemayor, de la Cruz, and de Guzman of the Malasiqui Philippine National
Police (PNP) picked up accused-appellant at the Malasiqui public market and took him to the police
station where accused-appellant, upon questioning by SPO1 Antonio Espinoza, confessed to killing
Jennifer Domantay. He likewise disclosed that at around 3:30 that afternoon, he had given the fatal
weapon used, a bayonet, to Elsa and Jorge Casingal, his aunt and uncle respectively, in Poblacion Sur,
Bayambang, Pangasinan. The next day, October 18, 1996, SPO1 Espinoza and another policeman took
accused-appellant to Bayambang and recovered the bayonet from a tricycle belonging to the Casingal
spouses.
DEFENSE:
The Trial Court failed to prove the accused (Bernardino Domantay) his guilty beyond reasonable doubt
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty for the brutal killing of Jennifer Domantay

HELD:
Yes. While accused-appellant argues that it was improbable for a brutal killing to have been committed
without the children who were playing about eight to ten meters from Amparo Domantay’s grove, where
the crime took place, having heard any commotion, such contention has no merit since he could have
covered the young child’s mouth to prevent her from making any sound. In fact, Dr. Bandonill noted a
five by two inch (5 x 2) contusion on the left side of the victims forehead, which he said could have been
caused by a hard blunt instrument or by impact as her head hit the ground. The blow could have rendered
her unconscious, thus precluding her from shouting or crying. Also the testimonies of the witnesses of
which are relatives of the accused-appellant are far from contradicting each other. For these reasons, the
Court is convinced of Bernandino’s guilty to the killing of the child. It is clear that the prosecution has
proven beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant is guilty of homicide.
Art. 249 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 [parricide] shall kill another without the
attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article [murder], shall be
deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
The killing was committed with the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
The record shows that the victim, Jennifer Domantay, was six years old at the time of the killing. She was
a child of small build, 46 in height. It is clear then that she could not have put up much of a defense
against accused-appellants assault, the latter being a fully-grown man of 29 years. Indeed, the physical
evidence supports a finding of abuse of superior strength: accused-appellant had a weapon, while the
victim was not shown to have had any; there were 38 stab wounds; and all the knife wounds are located at
the back of Jennifer’s body.

People vs. Empante, April 21, 1999

CRIME: Qualified Rape against his daughter under 18 years’ old
DECISION: Guilty sentencing him to Death
Facts:
In November 1994, Elvie, then only 12 years old and a Grade VI student, was left alone with her
father, accused-appellant, in their house at Sitio Napo, Barangay Unidos, Plaridel, Misamis Occidental.
For some reason, her mother, brothers, and sister were all out at that time. She was cleaning the living
room of their house when she was called by accused-appellant to his room. When Elvie approached him,
accused-appellant, without warning, poked a hunting knife on her right side and told her not to make
any noise, otherwise he would kill her. Elvie described the knife as one with a sharp blade and a wooden
handle covered by black tape wound around it. Accused-appellant pushed her to the bed as a result of
which she fell on her back. Accused-appellant then went on top of her. He removed her shorts and panties
with his right hand as he held with his left hand the hunting knife. After removing his shorts, accused-
appellant succeeded in violating his daughter. Elvie resisted and tried to prevent accused-appellant from
ravishing her by closing her thighs, but her efforts proved futile. Elvie felt pain in her private parts. She
was warned not to tell her mother about the incident or accused-appellant would kill both of them. Elvie
knew her father to be a violent man. He maltreated her mother and threatened her with a bolo. Hence,
when her mother arrived later that day, Elvie did not tell her anything about the incident.
Her father, Pedro Empante, has then succeeded raping her on two occasions.
On June 20, 1997, Elvie filed with the Philippine National Police at Plaridel, Misamis Occidental three
criminal complaints for rape which became the basis of informations lodged with the Regional Trial
Court of Oroquieta City against accused-appellant.
The Trial Court found Empante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed upon his
own daughter Elvie Empante who was then below eighteen years old in all the three criminal cases , the
Court sentences him to suffer the penalty of death and to imdemnify Elvie Empante a total amount of
P150, 000 for moral damages for the three criminal cases.
DEFENSE:
Pedro Empante did not seek reversal of the findings of the Trial Court he,however, assails that the Trial
Court erred in imposing the penalty of Death upon him despite his plea of guilty and the defense of
intoxication which mitigate his liability. Thus, him deserving a penalty of reclusion perpetua only.

ISSUE:
Whether contention of the accused is meritorious

HELD:
No. The defense points 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). We are 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, the 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.
As we recently held in People vs. Mengote and People vs. Robles, even if the plea of guilty entered by
accused-appellant satisfied the requisites laid down by law, it would not serve to mitigate his
liability for qualified rape and justify the imposition of a lighter penalty. Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, states:
When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under
any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death.
When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion
thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:
1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
2. when the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities.
3. when the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other
relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.
4. when the victim is a religious or child below seven (7) years old.
5. when the offender knows that he is afflicted with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS) disease.
6. when committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine
National Police or any law enforcement agency.
7. when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical
mutilation.
As held in People vs. Garcia, the seven (7) circumstances enumerated in this provision are special
qualifying circumstances, the presence of any of which takes the case out of the purview of simple rape
and effectively qualifies the same by increasing the penalty one degree higher. Qualified rape is thus
punishable by the single indivisible penalty of death, which must be applied regardless of any mitigating
or aggravating circumstance which may have attended the commission of the deed.
In these cases, the Informations charged accused-appellant with having committed the crime of rape
qualified against complainant, under 18 years old, who is his daughter. As the charges were proven
beyond reasonable doubt, the imposition of the death penalty is required.
Four (4) Members of the Court, although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions expressed
in People vs. Echegaray that Republic Act No. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the penalty of death is
unconstitutional, nevertheless submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and
that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.

Extinction of Criminal Liability

Extinction in General
People vs. Desierto, 363 SCRA 585
Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, 363 SCRA 489