Back to Search
JurisprudenceG.R. No. 128289 -

G.R. No. 128289 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. GREGORIO LIMA Y SILPA, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

En Banc

Cited Laws

RA 7659RA 727RA 421,RA 811RA 759,RA 655RA 429,RA 685RA 168RA 529,RA 76RA 702RA 487RA 7659,RA 413RA 82RA 126,RA 465RA 411
Share:

Decision

Ruling

Accordingly, finding the evidence of the prosecution more than sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused Gregorio Lima Y Silpa beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged for rape under Criminal Case No. 36, 517-96, said accused is sentenced to suffer an indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to Art. 335, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, together with all the accessory penalty attached therewith in accordance with law. In Criminal Case No. 36,380-96, finding the evidence of the prosecution, notwithstanding the plea of guilty of the accused voluntarily entered, more than sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused, pursuant to Republic Act 7659, Sec. 11 thereof, sub-paragraph 7, accused Gregorio Lima y Silpa is sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death by electrocution pursuant to sec. 24 of R.A. 7659 in the manner therein provided, subject to such other method of carrying out his sentence as may be provided for by law, under existing procedure or maybe regulated through other means such as lethal injection to be executed in the manner and procedure therein provided. Moreover, pursuant to Art. 100, in relation to Art. 104 of the Revised Penal Code, governing civil indemnity, accused is furthermore ordered to indemnify complainant Sherilyn Lima... the amount of P30,000.00 by way of moral damages of all the ignominy and sufferings she incurred out of accused demonic act of sexually abusing his own daughter. x x x. (Emphasis supplied) In this appeal, appellant asserts, as his lone assignment of error, that the trial court gravely erred in convicting (him) on an improvident plea of guilty and sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua (in Criminal Case No. 36,517-96) and the supreme penalty of death (in Criminal Case No. 36,380-96). [14] Appellant argues, in essence, that his plea in both cases was improvident, fatally defective and void because the trial court failed to observe the mandatory provisions of Sec. 3, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides Sec. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence - When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf. Appellant claims that nothing on record shows that: a) he understood the two (2) separate charges against him; and b) he was made to understand and was specifically warned that in Crim. Case No. 36,380-96, he shall be sentenced to death and that his plea of guilty shall not in any way affect or reduce the penalty. The records of the proceedings during the rearraignment of appellant show how he entered his plea of guilty, thus: ATTY ARIQUEZ: For the accused. We would like to inform the Honorable Court that the accused intend to withdraw his p