Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2a. People Vs Documento
2a. People Vs Documento
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:
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.
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.
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
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, -
On the whole, we find that the appellate court committed no reversible error
in affirming the trial court’s ruling convicting Documento.
SO ORDERED.