Death is the most severe penalty for crime. It is imposed in incestuous rape, regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance. In the case at bar, sixteen (16) year old MADRILYN D. MANGILA accused her father, ABUNDIO MANGILA y PAREÑO, of two (2) counts of RAPE, allegedly committed as follows:

Upon his arraignment, accused, assisted by counsel de officio, Atty. Marcosa U. dela Cuesta, admitted his guilt, but put up the alternative circumstance of intoxication when he committed the rape. The trial court entered a plea of 'not guilty' for the accused and conducted a full-blown trial.3 [Original Records of Criminal Case No. 2355-M, p. 20.]

The prosecution evidence consists of the testimonies of the victim, Madrilyn Mangila, and her mother, Nenita Mangila.

Accused and Nenita Mangila were married in 1977. Their union was blessed with five children and 16-year old Madrilyn is their second child. Accused was a caretaker of two (2) houses in Villa Tonang in Teresa, Rizal, near their residence.

At about 1:00 p.m. of June 7, 1995, accused took Madrilyn to Villa Tonang to help him clean one of the houses he was overseeing. While in the kitchen of the house, accused began to take off Madrilyn's shorts. She begged her father to stop. Instead, he poked a knife at her neck and ravished her. During the hour-long sexual assault, Madrilyn felt excruciating pain. Helpless, she could only sit on the floor and cry as the accused threatened to kill her should she reveal her defloration.4 [TSN, March 13, 1996, pp. 3-7.] Fear of reprisal sealed her lips.

Madrilyn's nightmare was not about to stop. Two (2) days later, accused told Nenita that he and Madrilyn would again clean the house in Villa Tonang. Madrilyn hesitated to go. However, when accused got mad, she was forced to go with him. As she was cleaning the house, accused grabbed her and forced her into a room. He pushed her near the bed and took off her skirt. She begged him to stop but again her pleas were drowned by his bestial desires. He poked a knife at her neck and sexually abused her. Madrilyn could only cry. They returned to their house at about 6:00 p.m.5 [Ibid., pp. 7-10.]

In the morning of June 16, 1995, on her way to school, accused told Madrilyn that he would fetch her after class. Wary of what accused would again do to her, Madrilyn spent the night with a friend. Her elder sister, Lourdes, and her aunt searched for her. When they found her, she confided to them that accused has violated her. Furious, Lourdes informed their mother of the rape.6 [TSN, March 13, 1996, pp. 10-11.]

Nenita Mangila recounted that in June 1995, a certain Badong delivered to her a letter from Madrilyn informing her that accused had defiled her. Before Nenita could finish reading the letter, the accused came and snatched it from her. They had a heated argument, with the accused denying Madrilyn's accusations. Later that evening, Madrilyn was found hiding in a friend's house. Madrilyn confirmed to Nenita the veracity of what she had written in her letter. Nenita confronted the accused who admitted his transgression. The accused knelt before Nenita in supplication and begged for her forgiveness. Nenita was unmoved.7 [TSN, June 26, 1996, pp. 2-5.] She accompanied Madrilyn to the police station. Madrilyn executed an affidavit8 [Exhibit "A", Original Records, p. 5.] on June 24, 1995 narrating the rape incidents. She also underwent a medical examination in Camp Crame. The medical report showed that Madrilyn was in a non-virginal state.

The defense presented the accused as sole witness.

During the direct-examination, the accused admitted committing the rape on June 7, 1995, but alleged that he had three (3) shots of gin shortly before he abused the victim. He imagined Madrilyn to be his wife and forced her to have sex with him. Madrilyn begged him to stop but he ignored her.9 [TSN, November 27, 1996, pp. 4-6.]

In the afternoon of June 9, 1995, accused again imbibed gin while Madrilyn was cleaning the house in Villa Tonang. Again, he ravished her but denied using a knife in the process.10 [Ibid., pp. 6-8.] Accused declared he took gin to forget his marital problems, particularly his wife's lack of affection for him. His wife refused to make love with him and ignored him whenever he would try to talk to her. She would likewise burn his clothes when they had an argument.11 [Ibid., pp. 4-5.]

On cross-examination, accused explained that he admitted his guilt because he was sorry for what he did and was hoping that his admission would mitigate his penalty, thus:12 [Ibid., pp. 8-9.]

"xxx xxx xxx."

After trial, the accused was sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death on both counts of rape. He was further ordered to pay the victim the total amount of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity.13 [Decision, dated February 21, 1997, penned by Judge Alejandro A. Marquez, Regional Trial Court of Morong, Rizal, Branch 79; Rollo, pp. 45-49.]

The case is now before us on automatic review.

In his appeal, accused impugns his conviction on the ground that the trial court failed to conduct a searching inquiry on the voluntariness and full comprehension of his plea, in violation of Section 33, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.

Section 3, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

To breathe life into this rule, we made it mandatory for trial courts to do the following:14 [People vs. Dayot, 187 SCRA 637 (1990); People vs. Camay, 152 SCRA 401 (1987).]

We explained the rationale of the rule in People vs. Albert,15 [Penned by Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado (now retired); 251 SCRA 136, 145-146 (1995).] thus:

The records show that the trial court failed to comply to the letter with these guidelines. It did not conduct a searching inquiry on whether accused understood the legal consequences of his admission of guilt. It is not shown that accused was informed of the effect of the concurrence of the special qualifying circumstance of minority of the victim and his parental relationship to her. After the accused testified on how he raped his daughter, he was not apprised that his crime is punishable by death.16 [Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, provides that the penalty of death shall be imposed 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.] The trial court also failed to explain to him that as the penalty of death is indivisible, it shall be imposed despite any mitigating or aggravating circumstance attending its commission.17 [Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.] Apparently, the trial court entertained the erroneous notion that the alleged intoxication of accused would lessen his liability.

These lapses, however, will not exculpate the accused. In People v. Derilo,18 [271 SCRA 633 (1997).] we held:

We find that, independent of the accused's admission of the crime in the case at bar, the prosecution has proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt by other evidence. The testimonies of the victim and her mother would suffice to convict the accused. The victim unflinchingly narrated the unfortunate fate she suffered in the hands of accused, thus:19 [TSN, March 13, 1996, pp. 4-10.]

"x x x x x x x x x

"x x x x x x x x x

"x x x x x x x x x

With respect to the rape committed on June 9, 1995, Madrilyn testified as follows:20 [TSN, March 13, 1996, pp. 4-10.]

"x x x x x x x x x

"x x x x x x x x x

"x x x x x x x x x

The trial court found her testimony worthy of belief. We find no reason to reverse this finding. It correctly noted that the victim, a 16-year old lass, would not narrate her scandalous ordeal and subject herself to the rigors of a public trial, expose herself to ridicule and submit herself to physical examination if her accusation is untrue. Generally, no young woman would accuse her own father of so grave a crime as rape unless she truly has been aggrieved.21 [People vs. Escala, 292 SCRA 48 (1998).] Moreover, Madrilyn's demeanor during the trial, as observed by the trial court, bolsters her credibility, thus:22 [Decision, dated February 21, 1997, p. 4.]

Thus, the evidence on record clearly shows that the accused is guilty of having carnal knowledge with his own daughter, then below eighteen (18) years of age, hence, a minor. His crime is punishable by death.

As to the civil indemnification awarded to the victim, the trial court erred in ordering the accused to pay P50,000.00 for each count of rape, or a total of P100,000.00. We have ruled that if rape is committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by the applicable amendatory law,23 [Article 335 as amended by R.A. 7659 and RA 8353 provides: "x x x The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying 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 or any law enforcement or penal institution;

"3. When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity;

"4. When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime;

"5. When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;

"6. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim;

"7. When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof of the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime.

"8. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability;

"9. When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime; and

"10. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime."] the indemnity for the victim shall be in the increased amount of not less than P75,000.00.24 [People vs. Victor, 292 SCRA 186 (1998); People vs. Prades, 293 SCRA 411 (1998); People vs. Pagupat, 293 SCRA 513 (1998).]

Civil indemnity is different from the award of moral damages.25 [People vs. Silvano, G.R. No. 127356, June 29,1999.] Undoubtedly, rape victims suffer mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and other emotional injuries that entitle them to moral damages,26 [Article 2217 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.] more so if, as in this case, the offender is the father. Thus, in People vs. Prades, this Court also resolved to grant moral damages to rape victims, in such amount as the Court deems just, without the necessity for pleading or proof of the basis thereof.27 [293 SCRA 411 (1998).] The conventional requirement of allegata et probata in civil procedure is dispensed with in criminal prosecutions for rape as no appropriate pleadings are filed wherein such allegations can be made. In rape cases, proof of mental and physical suffering provided under Article 2217 of the Civil Code can be dispensed with because it is recognized that the victim's injury is concomitant with and necessarily results from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se the award of moral damages.28 [People vs. Perez, G.R. No. 122764, September 24, 1998.] Thus, in the case at bar, the accused is liable to the victim for the amount of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape.

In sum, we find no reason to overturn accused's conviction as his guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. His conviction and the penalty imposed on him, subject to the modification discussed above, must be affirmed.

Four (4) members of this Court maintain their position that Republic Act No. 7659 is unconstitutional insofar as it prescribes the death penalty. Nonetheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority of the Court, i.e., that the law is constitutional and the death penalty should be imposed in the case at bar.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Morong, Rizal (Branch 79), in Criminal Case Nos. 2355-M and 2356-M, imposing the death penalty on accused ABUNDIO MANGILA y PAREÑO is AFFIRMED, with the modification that the accused is ordered to pay the victim the sum of P150,000.00 as civil indemnity and P100,000.00 as moral damages for the two (2) counts of rape.

Let the records of this case be forwarded to the Office of the President upon finality of this decision for possible exercise of executive clemency in accordance with Section 25 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 83 of the Revised Penal Code.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.