G.R. No. 188706 March 17, 2010 Upon arraignment, Documento pled not guilty.

Subsequently, however, he
changed his earlier plea to one of guilt. As such, the RTC ordered a re-
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, arraignment and entered appellant’s plea of guilt to the charges.
vs.
OSCAR M. DOCUMENTO, Appellant. Thereafter, the prosecution presented evidence consisting of the testimonies
of private complainant herself, AAA, her mother, BBB, and Dr. Johann A.
RESOLUTION Hugo. Their testimonies established the following:

NACHURA, J.: 1. Documento started sexually molesting his daughter, AAA, in

1989 when she was ten (10) years old. Eventually, AAA became
pregnant and gave birth in 1993.
On appeal is the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision1 dated August 13, 2008,
affirming the Regional Trial Court2 (RTC) Decision3 dated June 9, 2003,
finding appellant Oscar Documento guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two 2. Documento raped AAA on a number of occasions in the houses
(2) counts of Rape. of Barsilisa Morada, Documento’s relative, and Aida Documento,
both located in Butuan City. During each incident, Documento hit
and hurt AAA physically. He likewise threatened to kill her if she
Documento was charged before the RTC with two (2) counts of Rape, as
defined and punished under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, in told anyone of the rape.
separate Informations, which read:
3. AAA’s mother, BBB, who was working in Manila from 1994 to
1996, went to Barsilisa and asked for help in locating Oscar and
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 6899
AAA. BBB testified that she had not seen nor heard from the two
since April 7, 1994, when Documento brought their daughters AAA
That sometime on April 22, 1996 at Ochoa Avenue, Butuan City, Philippines, and CCC to Tubod, Lanao del Norte, for a vacation. Thereafter,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused Documento left CCC in Tubod and brought AAA with him to
with the use of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully Santiago, Agusan del Norte.
and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his daughter AAA, a minor, 16
years of age, against her will and consent.
4. When BBB found out from their relatives that AAA got pregnant
and gave birth, she suspected that Documento was the culprit. Upon
CONTRARY TO LAW: (Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to learning that Documento and AAA were in Butuan City, she went
R.A. 7659). to the Butuan Police Station and requested assistance in securing
custody of AAA. As soon as Documento was arrested, AAA
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 6900 informed the police that Documento raped her.

That sometime on October 15, 1995 at Barangay Antongalon, Butuan City, 5. Dr. Hugo testified on the genital examination he conducted on
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above- AAA, and affirmed the medical certificate he issued with the
named accused with the use of force and intimidation, did then and there following findings:
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with his
daughter AAA, a minor, 16 years of age, against her will and consent. Physical exam: HEENT – with in normal limits.

CONTRARY TO LAW: (Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to C/L – with in normal limits.
R.A. 7659).4
CVB – with in normal limits.

Rule 129. What need not be proved

 ABD – Soft; NABS exemplary damages, respectively, for each count of rape in
accordance with recent jurisprudence.
GU – (-) KPS
Let a Commitment Order be issued for the transfer of accused Oscar M.
Genitalia - Parrous Documento from Butuan City Jail to the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa,
Metro Manila.
- Healed vaginal laceration
Let the records of these cases be forwarded immediately to the Supreme
Court for mandatory review.
- Vaginal introitus; admits 2 finger[s]

with ease SO ORDERED.6

Consistent with our ruling in People v. Mateo,7 Documento’s appeal was

- Hymen with pemnants "caruncula
remanded to the CA.
multiforma"
Ruling on the appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction, but changed the
5
penalty imposed on Documento from death penalty to reclusion perpetua, and
Labs; Vaginal Smear; Negative for Spermatozoa. increased the award of moral damages from ₱50,000.00 to ₱75,000.00 for
each count of Rape. The fallo of the Decision reads:
Documento testified as the sole witness for the defense. He asseverated that
he pled guilty to the crime of Rape only because Prosecutor Hector B. Salise WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision finding appellant Oscar Documento
convinced him to do so. Documento contended that he did not rape AAA, and guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of the crime of rape and
that, to the contrary, they had a consensual, sexual relationship. He further ordering him to indemnify the victim for each count of rape the amounts of
alleged that the incident did not happen in Butuan City, but in Clarin, Misamis ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity and ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages, is
Occidental. Finally, on cross-examination, Documento disowned the AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral damages is
handwritten letters he had supposedly written to his wife and to AAA, asking increased to ₱75,000.00 for each count of rape and that in lieu of the death
for their forgiveness. penalty, appellant Oscar Documento is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape without possibility of parole.
The RTC rendered judgment convicting Documento of both counts of Rape,
to wit: SO ORDERED.8

WHEREFORE, as a consequence of the foregoing, this Court finds accused Hence, this appeal, assigning the following errors:
Oscar M. Documento GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the two (2)
counts of rape and correspondingly sentences him:
I
1. To suffer the penalty of DEATH in each of the two (2) rape cases
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DECIDING THE CASE
filed against him - Criminal Case No. 6899 and Criminal Case No.
WITHOUT FIRST RESOLVING ITS TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
6900;
OVER THE CRIME CHARGED AS THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO
ESTABLISH THAT THE TWO (2) COUNTS OF RAPE WERE
2. To indemnify the victim, AAA, in the amount of ₱75,000.00 as PERPETRATED IN BUTUAN CITY.
civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages and ₱25,000.00 as
II.

Rule 129. What need not be proved

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING TO CONDUCT A and Ochoa Avenue, Butuan City on October 15, 1995 and April 22, 1996,
SEARCHING INQUIRY INTO THE VOLUNTARINESS AND FULL respectively.
COMPREHENSION BY ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE
CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA.9 Fourth. The inclusion of the two Barangays in the City of Butuan is a matter
of mandatory judicial notice by the trial court. Section 1 of Rule 129 of the
We find no cogent reason to disturb Documento’s conviction. We affirm the Revised Rules on Evidence provides –
CA, but with modification.
SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. – A court shall take judicial
On the issue of the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction over the crime, we notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial
completely agree with the appellate court’s ruling thereon. Contrary to the extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of
insistence of Documento that the prosecution failed to establish that the two nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world
(2) counts of Rape were perpetrated in Butuan City, the CA pointed to and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the
specific parts of the records which show that, although AAA did not official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
specifically mention "Butuan City" in her testimony, the incidents in the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
present cases transpired in Barangay Antongalon and on Ochoa Avenue, both divisions.10
in Butuan City.
Documento avers that his conviction for Rape must be reversed because the
First. AAA in her Sworn Statement dated April 24, 1996 answered the trial court did not properly conduct a searching inquiry on the voluntariness
prosecutor’s question in this wise: and full comprehension of his plea of guilt.

15. Q : Right after you arrived [in] Butuan City, did your father We disagree.
molest you or rape you?
It is true that the appellate court noted the trial court’s failure to conduct the
A : Yes, sir. prescribed "searching inquiry" into the matter of whether or not Documento’s
plea of guilt was improvidently made. Nonetheless, it still found the
Q : When was that? conviction of appellant proper. Its disquisition on Documento’s plea of guilt
is in point.
A : From the month of October 15, 1995 when we stayed [in]
Barangay Antongalon, Butuan City, and the last happened in the Nothing in the records of the case at bench shows that the trial court complied
evening of April 22, 1996 [on] Ochoa Avenue, Butuan City. with the guidelines [set forth by the Supreme Court in a number of cases]
after appellant’s re-arraignment and guilty plea. The questions propounded
Second. The Resolution dated May 3, 1996 of Hector B. Salise, Second to appellant during the direct and cross-examination likewise fall short of
these requirements. x x x.
Assistant City Prosecutor, states that:

xxxx
There were many places they stayed and several sexual intercourse that took
place which this office has no jurisdiction to conduct preliminary
investigation but only on the incidents of rape that took place [in] The questions propounded were clearly not compliant with the guidelines set
Antongalon, Butuan City on October 15, 1995 and [on] Ochoa Avenue, forth by the High Court. The appellant was not fully apprised of the
Butuan City on April 22, 1996. consequences of his guilty plea. In fact, as argued by appellant, "the trial court
should have informed him that his plea of guilt would not affect or reduce the
Third. The two (2) Informations dated May 8, 1996, clearly state that the imposable penalty, which is death as he might have erroneously believed that
crimes charged against appellant were perpetrated in Barangay Antongalon under Article 63, the death penalty, being a single indivisible penalty, shall

Rule 129. What need not be proved

be applied by the court regardless of any mitigating circumstances that might
have attended the commission of the deed." Moreover, the trial court judge
failed to inform appellant of his right to adduce evidence despite the guilty
plea.1avvphi1

With the trial court’s failure to comply with the guidelines, appellant’s guilty
plea is deemed improvidently made and thus rendered inefficacious.

This does not mean, however, that the case should be remanded to the trial
court. This course of action is appropriate only when the appellant’s guilty
plea was the sole basis for his conviction. As held in People v. Mira, -

Notwithstanding the incautiousness that attended appellant’s guilty plea, we

are not inclined to remand the case to the trial court as suggested by appellant.
Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside only if such
plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient and
credible evidence in finding the accused guilty, the judgment must be
sustained, because then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the
accused but also on evidence proving his commission of the offense
charged.11

On the whole, we find that the appellate court committed no reversible error
in affirming the trial court’s ruling convicting Documento.

Lastly, on the matter of the appellate court’s award of exemplary damages,

we increase the award from ₱25,000.00 to ₱30,000.00 in line with prevailing
jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated

August 13, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR–HC No. 00285 is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that the award of exemplary damages is hereby increased
from ₱25,000.00 to ₱30,000.00. The Decision is affirmed in all other
respects.

SO ORDERED.

Rule 129. What need not be proved