People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Moreno y Reg

For the special complex crime of robbery with rape, the offender must have the intent to take personal property under circumstances making the taking robbery, and such intent must precede the rape; if the original plan was rape and the taking was merely an afterthought, the robbery is a separate and distinct crime. Nocturnity is not aggravating by itself and must be both proven as purposely sought and alleged in the information.

Marites Felix was a 20-year-old service crew member at a Burger Machine outlet in Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati. Rogelio Moreno y Reg, a 19-year-old resident of Laperal Compound, Guadalupe Viejo, Makati, was known to pass by that outlet twice a week without buying anything. The case reached the Supreme Court on automatic review because the Regional Trial Court imposed the death penalty for the special complex crime of robbery with rape under the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.

Marites Felix, 20 years old, was a service crew member of the Burger Machine outlet located at Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati. At about 12:45 A.M. of January 8, 1999, after her duty, she was walking along ABC Commercial Complex, Makati, when she noticed a man behind her. The man suddenly put his arms around her and pointed a fan-knife at her neck. Because the place was illuminated by streetlights and lights coming from the ABC Commercial Complex, Marites noticed the tattoos on his arms and recognized him as accused-appellant Rogelio Moreno. Prior to January 8, 1999, Rogelio would pass by their Burger Machine outlet twice a week, but he never bought anything from Burger Machine.

Rogelio dragged Marites and ordered her to follow him to the side of ABC Complex, about five arms-length away from EDSA. Marites removed her ring from her bag and gave it to Rogelio, but he told her, “Mamaya na iyan,” meaning that it would come later because he would give it back to her but she had to follow him first. Rogelio grabbed her long-sleeved shirt, unbuttoned it, and pushed her to a vacant space behind a car then parked on the side of ABC Complex. He again pointed his knife at her throat and pulled down her pants. When she pleaded for mercy, he replied, “Huwag kang maingay, kundi papatayin kita.” Rogelio then removed his pants and again uttered, “Huwag kang maingay kundi sasaksakin kita.” Marites told him that he could get her bag if he needed money, but he replied, “I do not need money.” Rogelio ordered her to open her legs apart or else he would kill her, and Marites was forced to obey. Rogelio then went on top of her with his right hand holding her throat, inserted his sexual organ into hers, and kept on pumping. After he was through, Rogelio went again on top of Marites and ordered her to put his organ inside her vagina. Marites said, “Ayoko.” At this point, she heard someone nearby running. Rogelio forthwith put on his shorts and snatched the shoulder bag of Marites, which contained her ATM card, P200 cash, a small Bible, coupons of Burger Machine, and a T-shirt with Burger Machine markings. He then ran away toward the direction of the other side of EDSA.

The vendors who saw Marites crying as she was walking inquired about what happened to her. They brought her back to the Burger Machine outlet and called the police. Marites joined the police in the search for Rogelio around the vicinity and to the place where the incident happened. One of the two policemen saw her ring in said place. They continued to search the vicinity until they reached Laperal Compound. As they were approaching Guadalupe Bridge, several persons who were talking to each other scampered away upon seeing Marites and the police officers. One of them was Rogelio, who immediately went inside a house and turned off its lights. With the assistance of the barangay tanod, the police went to the back portion of the house and saw Rogelio, who at the time was wearing a hat and a blue jacket with his head bowed down. Upon seeing Rogelio, Marites exclaimed, “He is the one.” Rogelio refused to remove his hat when she tried to remove it. After finally succeeding in removing his hat, Marites confirmed, “He [was] the one who raped me.” She then removed his jacket and saw under it her T-shirt with Burger Machine prints at the left sleeve and catsup stains in the front and upper parts of the shirt. This was the shirt she used in working at their Burger Machine outlet.

The police brought Rogelio and Marites to the police station where Marites was investigated. At 9:00 A.M. of the following day, Marites was examined by Dr. Aurea P. Villena, a medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation. Dr. Villena found that Marites sustained contusions on her breasts. She also noted that the hymen was intact but distensible and its orifice wide, 2.5 cm in diameter, as to allow complete penetration of an average-sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection without producing any genital injury; and that semenology was positive for human spermatozoa, highly indicative of recent sexual intercourse with a man. SPO3 Quillano Molmisa of the Makati Police Station corroborated the testimony of Marites that upon receiving her complaint for rape, he, together with her and SPO4 Alejandro Alisangco, proceeded to the Laperal Compound in Guadalupe, which was known to the police officers as a hiding place of criminals in that area. Rogelio ran away upon seeing Marites and the police officers. Rogelio was later found hiding in a kneeling position in Laperal Compound. Marites was hysterical as she positively identified Rogelio. SPO3 Molmisa brought Rogelio to the Ospital ng Makati for medical examination before bringing him to the police station.

Accused-appellant Rogelio, 19 years old and a resident of Laperal Compound, Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City, put up the defense of alibi. He testified that on or about 12:45 A.M. of January 8, 1999, he was sleeping in a folding bed located outside the house owned by his uncle, with whom he had been living. Rogelio was roused from sleep by the police. Marites approached him, took off his hat, and was hysterical when she pointed to him saying, “Iyan nga po iyon, iyan nga po iyon.” “Ikaw ang nangholdap sa akin at nang rape.” Then the policemen tied his hands and brought him to the Ospital ng Makati, together with Marites. Rogelio did not deny that he was wearing a T-shirt with Burger Machine prints at the time of his arrest. According to him, it had been with him for almost a year prior to the incident and was given to him as a souvenir by a friend who worked at the Burger Machine. Zaldy Carino, a 17-year-old neighbor and friend of Rogelio for three years prior to the incident, testified that between 5:00 and 8:00 P.M. of January 7, 1999, he was playing basketball with Rogelio and the latter’s friends. Rogelio was wearing a Burger Machine T-shirt the whole time they were playing basketball. After winning the game, Rogelio bought some merienda for his playmates, since he was the one who placed the bet. They stayed in Rogelio’s house until about 10:00 P.M. when Rogelio told them that he was going to sleep. After Zaldy and his friends left, Rogelio slept in a folding bed located outside the house of his uncle. Between 2:00 and 3:00 A.M. of the following day, Zaldy was awakened when he heard noises. He went out of the house and went to the place where the noise was coming from. He found out that it came from the place where Rogelio was sleeping, and he saw Rogelio being beaten up by four persons, including a barangay tanod. Zaldy also saw Marites shouting, crying, and claiming that the T-shirt worn by Rogelio was hers. Rogelio and another person by the name of Inteng were taken away. The trial court gave full faith and credit to the version of the prosecution, disregarded Rogelio’s defenses of denial and alibi in view of his positive identification by Marites as her assailant, and appreciated against him the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity.

• Sufficiency of Evidence and Resistance: Rogelio argued that his guilt for the crime charged was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, banking on the alleged absence of resistance and struggle by Marites as evidenced by the absence of injuries on her person.
• Robbery with Rape as Improper Charge: Rogelio argued that it was improper to charge him with robbery with rape, since the taking of the victim’s property was a mere afterthought and an independent act from the alleged commission of rape.
• Custodial Investigation Rights: Rogelio alleged that when he was arrested, he was not informed of his right to remain silent, and when he was forced by the policemen to undress and admit the crime, he was not assisted by an independent and competent counsel.
• Nocturnity: Rogelio maintained that the trial court erred in appreciating against him the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity because the place where the rape took place was not covered with darkness, and there was no evidence that nighttime was deliberately sought after by him to carry out a criminal intent.

• Basis of Conviction: The Office of the Solicitor General argued that Rogelio’s conviction was based on the direct testimony of Marites and not on his alleged admission; in fact, no evidence on his alleged admission was presented by the prosecution.
• Robbery with Rape: The OSG supported the trial court in convicting Rogelio of robbery with rape, as the law does not differentiate whether rape is committed before, during, or after the robbery; it is enough that rape accompanied robbery.
• Nocturnity: The OSG agreed on the existence of the aggravating circumstance of nighttime, since Rogelio waited until 12:45 A.M. of the day in question to accomplish his evil design.
• Alternative Rape Qualification: The OSG asserted that even if the rape and robbery were considered independently, Rogelio’s sentence for the rape would still be death because such crime was committed with the use of a deadly weapon and attended by nocturnity.
• Damages: The OSG prayed that the challenged decision of the trial court be affirmed, but recommended that compensatory damages in the amount of P75,000 be awarded to Marites and the moral damages be reduced to P50,000.

• Rape: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Rogelio had carnal knowledge of Marites by force and intimidation, notwithstanding her alleged failure to resist and the absence of injuries.
• Robbery with Rape vs. Separate Crimes: Whether the taking of Marites’s shoulder bag was part of the special complex crime of robbery with rape or a separate crime of theft committed after the rape.
• Alibi and Denial: Whether Rogelio’s defenses of alibi and denial can prevail over Marites’s positive identification.
• Nocturnity: Whether the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was properly appreciated.
• Custodial Investigation Rights: Whether Rogelio’s constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested and brought to the police station for custodial investigation without the assistance of an independent and competent counsel and without being informed of his right to remain silent.
• Deadly Weapon as Qualifying Circumstance: Whether the rape, if treated as a separate offense, was qualified by the use of a deadly weapon.
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the penalties and damages imposed were proper.

• Rape: Yes. Force and intimidation were established; physical resistance need not be proven when intimidation is exercised and the victim submits against her will because of fear for her life and personal safety.
• Robbery with Rape vs. Separate Crimes: No. The intent to take personal property under circumstances making the taking robbery must precede the rape; here the taking was an afterthought following rape, so it was separate theft.
• Alibi and Denial: No. Alibi and denial cannot prevail over positive identification that is categorical, consistent, and without showing of ill-motive; alibi also failed because Rogelio was only a five-minute walk from the locus criminis.
• Nocturnity: No. Nocturnity must be shown to have facilitated the crime and been purposely sought; it was not alleged in the information and the victim testified there were streetlights and lights.
• Custodial Investigation Rights: No violation affecting conviction. Even assuming non-observance, no statement or confession was executed; conviction rested on Marites’s testimony and other evidence.
• Deadly Weapon as Qualifying Circumstance: No. The information did not allege that rape was committed with a deadly weapon; the allegation “armed with a bladed weapon” referred to robbery.
• Penalty and Damages: Modified. Rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua under Article 266-A; theft based on P200 value is punishable by six months of arresto mayor; moral damages were reduced to P50,000 and civil indemnity of P50,000 was awarded; actual value was reduced to P200.

• Rape: The Court found that Rogelio succeeded in having carnal knowledge of Marites with the use of force and intimidation. When he first put his arms around her, he had a fan-knife directed toward her neck. As he was on top of her, his hand was on her throat and he threatened to stab and kill her should she create noise. Fear of further injury overpowered and stifled her attempt to resist the sexual assault. Marites might have failed to resist, but such failure was a manifestation of involuntary submission, not consent. Force or intimidation itself is sufficient justification for a woman’s failure to offer resistance. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself against her will to the rapist’s advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. The law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance; the prosecution need only prove the use of force or intimidation. Marites’s conduct immediately following the assault—reporting the incident to the police, accompanying them in looking for her assailant, identifying him upon sight, undergoing police investigation, and submitting to physical examination—negated fabrication or prevarication.
• Robbery with Rape vs. Separate Crimes: The special complex crime of robbery with rape defined in Article 293 in relation to paragraph 2 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, employs the clause “when the robbery shall have been accompanied with rape.” To be liable for such crime, the offender must have the intent to take the personal property of another under circumstances that makes the taking one of robbery, and such intent must precede the rape. If the original plan was to commit rape, but the accused after committing the rape also committed robbery when the opportunity presented itself, the robbery should be viewed as a separate and distinct crime. A painstaking assessment of the evidence convinced the Court that Rogelio committed two separate offenses of rape and theft, not the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Immediately after Rogelio put his arms around Marites and directed the knife at her neck, he dragged her to the vacant space and removed her clothes. These acts clearly showed that Rogelio had in mind sexual gratification. This intent was further established when Marites offered to give her ring to Rogelio, but he did not take it and instead replied, “Mamaya na iyan”; and when he removed his pants, Marites told him to get her bag if he needed money, but he replied, “I do not need money.” After giving vent to his lustful desire, he snatched the victim’s shoulder bag and ran away. Clearly, the taking of personal property was not the original evil plan of Rogelio; it was an afterthought following the rape. The constitutive element of violence or intimidation against persons in robbery was not present at the time of the snatching of the shoulder bag. The force or intimidation exerted by Rogelio against the victim was for a reason foreign to the taking of the bag—it was for the purpose of accomplishing his lustful desire. Hence, it could not be considered for the purpose of classifying the crime as robbery. Rogelio was thus liable for simple theft only, in addition to rape.
• Alibi and Denial: The alibi and denial of Rogelio could not prevail over the testimony of Marites positively identifying him. Marites had an adequate look at Rogelio’s features during the assault. She deliberately looked at Rogelio’s face while he was pumping on top of her. She was determined never to forget his face and to make him pay for the crime he had done. Marites even emphasized that she had the occasion to see the tattoos on Rogelio’s arms, his pimpled face, and the triple V prints on his shirt, which was later found in Rogelio’s knapsack. She recognized him as one who would pass by the Burger Machine outlet in Guadalupe twice a week. It is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to see the looks and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which the crime was committed. Alibi and denial are worthless and cannot prevail over positive identification that is categorical, consistent, and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the witness. Rogelio’s bare denial amounted to nothing more than negative and self-serving evidence unworthy of weight in law. His defense of alibi also failed because he did not prove that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time. He claimed he was sleeping in Laperal Compound, which is just a five-minute walk from the locus criminis; it was not impossible for him to be at the crime scene.
• Nocturnity: The trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity or nighttime. For nocturnity to be properly appreciated, it must be shown that it facilitated the commission of the crime and that it was purposely sought for by the offender. By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance. No sufficient evidence was offered to prove that Rogelio deliberately sought the cover of darkness to accomplish his criminal design. In fact, the victim testified that there were streetlights and lights from the ABC Commercial Complex. That the crime scene was dark was negated by the victim’s testimony that he was able to see the face of the accused and even the “marking NFC and the nos. 555” in his dark shirt. Moreover, the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity was not alleged in the information. Section 8 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, requires that the complaint or information must specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstances attending the commission of the crime charged. This provision, being favorable to the accused, may be given retroactive effect.
• Custodial Investigation Rights: The issue of failure by the arresting officers to inform Rogelio of his constitutional rights and to afford him the benefit of counsel during custodial investigation required strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that law enforcers acted in the regular performance of their official duties. Even granting arguendo that the constitutional requirements were not observed, the same was of no significance because it did not appear that Rogelio executed a statement or confession. The conviction of Rogelio was not based on any extrajudicial confession but on the testimony of Marites and other evidence.
• Deadly Weapon as Qualifying Circumstance: The Court did not subscribe to the assertion of the OSG that should rape be considered as a separate offense, it would be qualified by the circumstance of “use of a deadly weapon” in the commission thereof. A reading of the information disclosed no allegation that the rape was committed with the use of a deadly weapon. The circumstance “armed with a bladed weapon” alleged in the information referred to the robbery. Hence, it could not serve to qualify the crime of rape.
• Penalty and Damages: For the crime of rape, now punished under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law, which is the governing law in this case, the penalty is reclusion perpetua. As to the civil aspect, the trial court’s award of P200,000 as moral damages was reduced to P50,000 conformably with current jurisprudence. In rape cases, moral damages are awarded without need of proof of the victim’s mental, physical, and psychological sufferings, for these are too obvious to still require their recital at the trial by the victim. Marites was also entitled to an award of P50,000 as indemnity ex delicto. For the crime of theft, the penalty was based on the value of the thing stolen. Except for the money in the amount of P200, no evidence was presented by the prosecution as regards the value of the other stolen personal properties. Hence, the basis of the penalty was P200. Under Article 309(4) of the Revised Penal Code, any person guilty of theft shall be punished by arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period if the value of the property stolen is over P50 but does not exceed P200. Since there were neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the penalty was imposed in its medium period, which is arresto mayor in its maximum period, with a duration of four months and one day to six months. As to the award of P1,000 representing the value of the personal properties taken from Marites, the same was reduced to P200, representing the actual cash contained in the stolen bag, there being no sufficient proof as regards the actual value of the other stolen personal properties.

• Robbery with Rape — Intent to Rob Must Precede Rape — The special complex crime of robbery with rape under Article 293 in relation to Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code requires that the offender have the intent to take personal property under circumstances making the taking robbery, and such intent must precede the rape. If the original plan was rape and the taking was merely an afterthought when the opportunity presented itself, the robbery is a separate and distinct crime. In this case, because Rogelio’s original purpose was sexual gratification and he took the bag only after the rape, he was liable for separate rape and theft, not robbery with rape.
• Force or Intimidation in Rape; Resistance Not Required — Physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits against her will because of fear for her life and personal safety. Force or intimidation itself is sufficient justification for failure to offer resistance. The prosecution need only prove the use of force or intimidation; the law does not impose on the rape victim the burden of proving resistance. Applied where Rogelio held a fan-knife to Marites’s neck and threatened to stab and kill her.
• Conduct of Rape Victim After Assault — The conduct of a woman immediately following the alleged assault is of utmost importance. Immediate report to the police, participation in the search, identification of the assailant, and submission to examination negate fabrication. Applied to Marites.
• Alibi and Denial vs. Positive Identification — Alibi and denial are worthless and cannot prevail over positive identification that is categorical, consistent, and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the witness. Bare denial is negative and self-serving. Alibi also requires proof that the accused was elsewhere at the time of the crime and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis. Applied where Rogelio was positively identified and was only five minutes away.
• Nocturnity — For nocturnity to be properly appreciated, it must be shown that it facilitated the commission of the crime and that it was purposely sought by the offender. Nighttime by itself is not an aggravating circumstance. It must also be alleged in the information under Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Applied to reject nocturnity because it was not proven and not alleged.
• Custodial Investigation Rights; No Confession — Alleged failure to inform the accused of constitutional rights and to afford counsel during custodial investigation requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that law enforcers acted in the regular performance of official duties. Even if not observed, it is of no significance where no statement or confession was executed and the conviction rested on other evidence. Applied to reject Rogelio’s claim.
• Use of Deadly Weapon as Qualifying Circumstance Must Be Alleged — The circumstance of use of a deadly weapon cannot qualify rape unless alleged in the information. An allegation that the accused was “armed with a bladed weapon” in connection with robbery cannot serve to qualify a separate rape charge. Applied to reject the OSG’s alternative theory.
• Penalty for Theft Based on Value; Moral Damages in Rape — Theft penalty is based on the value of the thing stolen; where only P200 was proven, Article 309(4) of the Revised Penal Code applies. In rape, moral damages are awarded without need of proof of mental, physical, and psychological sufferings, and civil indemnity ex delicto is also awarded. Applied to modify damages and the theft penalty.

• "The special complex crime of robbery with rape defined in Article 293 in relation to paragraph 2 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, employs the clause “when the robbery shall have been accompanied with rape.” In other words, to be liable for such crime, the offender must have the intent to take the personal property of another under circumstances that makes the taking one of robbery, and such intent must precede the rape." — This passage states the ratio decidendi for why the conviction was modified from robbery with rape to separate rape and theft.
• "If the original plan was to commit rape, but the accused after committing the rape also committed robbery when the opportunity presented itself, the robbery should be viewed as a separate and distinct crime." — This passage supplies the controlling rule applied to the facts: Rogelio’s taking of the bag after the rape was an afterthought and therefore separate theft.
• "For nocturnity to be properly appreciated, it must be shown that it facilitated the commission of the crime and that it was purposely sought for by the offender. By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance." — This passage defines the requisites for nocturnity and was applied to reject the trial court’s appreciation of the aggravating circumstance.
• "It is doctrinally settled that alibi and denial are worthless and cannot prevail over positive identification that is categorical, consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the witness." — This passage states the settled rule on the weight of alibi and denial against positive identification, which the Court applied to uphold the rape conviction.

• People vs. Cruz, 203 SCRA 682 [1991] — Cited for the rule that in robbery with rape, the intent to take personal property must precede the rape; if the original plan was rape, a subsequent robbery is a separate crime.
• People vs. Dinola, 183 SCRA 493 [1990] — Cited for the rule that the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance, and for the principle that a robbery committed after rape when the opportunity presents itself is a separate and distinct crime.
• People vs. Prades, 293 SCRA 411 [1998]; People vs. Bartolome, 296 SCRA 615 [1998] — Cited for the rule that physical resistance need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim.
• U.S. vs. Birueda, 4 Phil. 229 [1905] — Cited for the constitutive element of violence or intimidation in robbery; force exerted for a purpose foreign to the taking cannot classify the act as robbery.
• People vs. Dolar, 231 SCRA 414 [1994] — Cited for the natural reaction of victims of criminal violence to strive to see the looks and faces of their assailants.
• People vs. Macaliag, 337 SCRA 502 [2000]; People vs. Molina, 336 SCRA 400 [2000]; People vs. Mansueto, 336 SCRA 735 [2000] — Cited for the rule that alibi and denial are worthless against positive identification and for the requisites of alibi.
• People vs. Docena, 322 SCRA 820 [2000] — Cited for the award of moral damages in rape without need of proof of the victim’s mental, physical, and psychological sufferings.
• People vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. 131477, April 20, 2001 — Cited for the rule that the penalty for theft is based on the value of the stolen property.
• People vs. Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492, January 31, 2001 — Cited for the retroactive application of Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requiring allegation of aggravating circumstances.
• People vs. Simon, 234 SCRA 555 [1994] — Cited in relation to automatic review under Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.

• Article 293, Revised Penal Code — Defines robbery and is cited in relation to Article 294(2) for the special complex crime. The Court used it to explain that robbery requires intent to take personal property under circumstances making the taking robbery.
• Article 294, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines the special complex crime of robbery with rape through the clause “when the robbery shall have been accompanied with rape.” The Court held that the intent to rob must precede the rape.
• Article 266-A, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law) — The governing law for rape; the penalty is reclusion perpetua. Applied to sentence Rogelio for rape.
• Article 309(4), Revised Penal Code — Penalty for theft based on the value of the property stolen; if the value is over P50 but does not exceed P200, the penalty is arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period. Applied to impose six months of arresto mayor.
• Article 63, Revised Penal Code — The trial court applied it to impose death due to the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity; the Supreme Court did not apply it because nocturnity was not properly appreciated.
• Article 64(1), Revised Penal Code — Cited for the imposition of the penalty in its medium period when there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance. Applied to the theft penalty.
• Section 8, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires the complaint or information to specify the qualifying and aggravating circumstances. The Court held that nocturnity could not be appreciated because it was not alleged; the provision was given retroactive effect as favorable to the accused.
• Article 47, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659 — Basis for the automatic review of the death penalty case.

Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.