8/11/2014

G.R. No. 188706

THIRDDIVISION

PEOPLEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,
G.R.No.188706
Appellee,

Present:

CORONA,J.,

Chairperson,

VELASCO,JR.,
versus
NACHURA,

PERALTA,and

MENDOZA,JJ.

Promulgated:
OSCARM.DOCUMENTO,

Appellant.
March17,2010

xx

RESOLUTION

NACHURA,J.:

[1]
On appeal is the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated August 13, 2008,
[2]
[3]
affirming the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision dated June 9, 2003, finding
appellantOscarDocumentoguiltybeyondreasonabledoubtoftwo(2)countsofRape.

DocumentowaschargedbeforetheRTCwithtwo(2)countsofRape,asdefined
and punished under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, in separate Informations,
whichread:

CRIMINALCASENO.6899

ThatsometimeonApril22,1996atOchoaAvenue,ButuanCity,Philippines,and
withinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccusedwiththeuseofforce
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/188706.htm

1/9

8/11/2014

G.R. No. 188706

knowledgewithhisdaughterAAA,aminor,16yearsofage,againstherwillandconsent.

CONTRARYTOLAW:(Art.335oftheRevisedPenalCodeinrelationtoR.A.
7659).

CRIMINALCASENO.6900

That sometime on October 15, 1995 at Barangay Antongalon, Butuan City,

Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccusedwith
theuseofforceandintimidation,didthenandtherewillfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslyhave
carnal knowledge with his daughter AAA, a minor, 16 years of age, against her will and
consent.

CONTRARYTOLAW:(Art.335oftheRevisedPenalCodeinrelationtoR.A.
[4]
7659).

Uponarraignment,Documentoplednotguilty.Subsequently,however,hechanged
his earlier plea to one of guilt. As such, the RTC ordered a rearraignment and entered
appellantspleaofguilttothecharges.

Thereafter, the prosecution presented evidence consisting of the testimonies of

private complainant herself, AAA, her mother, BBB, and Dr. Johann A. Hugo. Their
testimoniesestablishedthefollowing:

1.Documentostartedsexuallymolestinghisdaughter,AAA,in1989whenshe
wasten(10)yearsold.Eventually,AAAbecamepregnantandgavebirthin1993.
2.DocumentorapedAAAonanumberofoccasionsinthehousesofBarsilisa
Morada,Documentosrelative,andAidaDocumento,bothlocatedinButuanCity.During
eachincident,DocumentohitandhurtAAAphysically.Helikewisethreatenedtokillher
ifshetoldanyoneoftherape.

3.AAAsmother,BBB,whowasworkinginManilafrom1994to1996,went
toBarsilisaandaskedforhelpinlocatingOscarandAAA.BBBtestifiedthatshehadnot
seen nor heard from the two since April 7, 1994, when Documento brought their
daughters AAA and CCC to Tubod, Lanao del Norte, for a vacation. Thereafter,
Documento left CCC in Tubod and brought AAA with him to Santiago, Agusan del
Norte.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/188706.htm

2/9

8/11/2014

G.R. No. 188706

4.WhenBBBfoundoutfromtheirrelativesthatAAAgotpregnantandgave
birth, she suspected that Documento was the culprit. Upon learning that Documento and
AAAwereinButuanCity,shewenttotheButuanPoliceStationandrequestedassistance
in securing custody of AAA. As soon as Documento was arrested, AAA informed the
policethatDocumentorapedher.

5.Dr.HugotestifiedonthegenitalexaminationheconductedonAAA,and
affirmedthemedicalcertificateheissuedwiththefollowingfindings:

Physicalexam:HEENTwithinnormallimits.
C/Lwithinnormallimits.
CVBwithinnormallimits.
ABDSoftNABS
GU()KPS

GenitaliaParrous
Healedvaginallaceration
Vaginalintroitusadmits2finger[s]
withease
Hymenwithpemnantscaruncula
multiforma

[5]
LabsVaginalSmearNegativeforSpermatozoa.
Documentotestifiedasthesolewitnessforthedefense.Heasseveratedthathepled

guiltytothecrimeofRapeonlybecauseProsecutorHectorB.Saliseconvincedhimtodo
so.DocumentocontendedthathedidnotrapeAAA,andthat,tothecontrary,theyhada
consensual, sexual relationship. He further alleged that the incident did not happen in
Butuan City, but in Clarin, Misamis Occidental. Finally, on crossexamination,
Documentodisownedthehandwrittenlettershehadsupposedlywrittentohiswifeandto
AAA,askingfortheirforgiveness.

TheRTCrenderedjudgmentconvictingDocumentoofbothcountsofRape,towit:

WHEREFORE,asaconsequenceoftheforegoing,thisCourtfindsaccusedOscarM.
Documento GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the two (2) counts of rape and
correspondinglysentenceshim:

1.TosufferthepenaltyofDEATHineachofthetwo(2)rapecasesfiledagainst
himCriminalCaseNo.6899andCriminalCaseNo.6900

2.Toindemnifythevictim,AAA,intheamountofP75,000.00ascivilindemnity,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/188706.htm

3/9

8/11/2014

G.R. No. 188706

P50,000.00asmoral damagesand P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, respectively, for each

countofrapeinaccordancewithrecentjurisprudence.

LetaCommitmentOrderbeissuedforthetransferofaccusedOscarM.Documento
fromButuanCityJailtotheBureauofCorrections,Muntinlupa,MetroManila.

LettherecordsofthesecasesbeforwardedimmediatelytotheSupremeCourtfor
mandatoryreview.

[6]
SOORDERED.

[7]
Consistent with our ruling in People v. Mateo, Documentos appeal was
remandedtotheCA.

Ruling on the appeal, the CA affirmed the RTCs conviction, but changed the
penalty imposed on Documento from death penalty to reclusion perpetua, and increased
theawardofmoraldamagesfromP50,000.00toP75,000.00foreachcountofRape.The
fallooftheDecisionreads:

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision finding appellant Oscar Documento guilty

beyondreasonabledoubtoftwocountsofthecrimeofrapeandorderinghimtoindemnifythe
victimforeachcountofrapetheamountsofP75,000.00ascivilindemnityandP25,000.00as
exemplary damages, is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of moral
damagesisincreasedtoP75,000.00foreachcountofrapeandthatinlieuofthedeathpenalty,
appellantOscarDocumentoisherebysentencedtosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuafor
eachcountofrapewithoutpossibilityofparole.

[8]
SOORDERED.

Hence,thisappeal,assigningthefollowingerrors:
I

THETRIALCOURTGRAVELYERREDINDECIDINGTHECASEWITHOUTFIRST
RESOLVINGITSTERRITORIALJURISDICTIONOVERTHECRIMECHARGEDAS
THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TWO (2) COUNTS OF
RAPEWEREPERPETRATEDINBUTUANCITY.

II.

THETRIALCOURTGRAVELYERREDINFAILINGTOCONDUCTASEARCHING
INQUIRY INTO THE VOLUNTARINESS AND FULL COMPREHENSION BY
[9]
ACCUSEDAPPELLANTOFTHECONSEQUENCESOFHISPLEA.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/188706.htm

4/9

8/11/2014

G.R. No. 188706

WefindnocogentreasontodisturbDocumentosconviction.WeaffirmtheCA,

butwithmodification.

Ontheissueofthetrialcourtsterritorialjurisdictionoverthecrime,wecompletely
agree with the appellate courts ruling thereon. Contrary to the insistence of Documento
thattheprosecutionfailedtoestablishthatthetwo(2)countsofRapewereperpetratedin
Butuan City, the CA pointed to specific parts of the records which show that, although
AAA did not specifically mention Butuan City in her testimony, the incidents in the
presentcasestranspiredinBarangayAntongalon and on Ochoa Avenue, both in Butuan
City.

First.AAAinherSwornStatementdatedApril24,1996answeredtheprosecutors
questioninthiswise:

15.Q:Rightafteryouarrived[in]ButuanCity,didyourfathermolestyouorrape
you?
A:Yes,sir.

Q:Whenwasthat?
A : From the month of October 15, 1995 when we stayed [in] Barangay
Antongalon, Butuan City, and the last happened in the evening of
April22,1996[on]OchoaAvenue,ButuanCity.

Second.TheResolutiondatedMay3,1996ofHectorB.Salise,SecondAssistantCity
Prosecutor,statesthat:

Thereweremanyplacestheystayedandseveralsexualintercoursethat
took place which this office has no jurisdiction to conduct preliminary
investigationbutonlyontheincidentsofrapethattookplace[in]Antongalon,
ButuanCityonOctober15,1995and[on]OchoaAvenue,ButuanCityon
April22,1996.

Third. The two (2) Informations dated May 8, 1996, clearly state that the crimes
charged against appellant were perpetrated in Barangay Antongalon and Ochoa Avenue,
ButuanCityonOctober15,1995andApril22,1996,respectively.

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 Revised Rules on
Evidenceprovides

SECTION1.Judicialnotice,whenmandatory.Acourtshalltake
judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and
territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and
symbolsofnationality,thelawofnations,theadmiraltyandmaritimecourtsof
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/188706.htm

5/9

8/11/2014

G.R. No. 188706

theworldandtheirseals,thepoliticalconstitutionandhistoryofthePhilippines,
the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical
[10]
divisions.

Documento avers that his conviction for Rape must be reversed because the trial
court did not properly conduct a searching inquiry on the voluntariness and full
comprehensionofhispleaofguilt.

Wedisagree.

It is true that the appellate court noted the trial courts failure to conduct the
prescribedsearchinginquiryintothematterofwhetherornotDocumentospleaofguilt
wasimprovidentlymade.Nonetheless,itstillfoundtheconvictionofappellantproper.Its
disquisitiononDocumentospleaofguiltisinpoint.

Nothingintherecordsofthecaseatbenchshowsthatthetrialcourtcompliedwiththe
guidelines [set forth by the Supreme Court in a number of cases] after appellants re
arraignmentandguiltyplea.Thequestionspropoundedtoappellantduringthedirectandcross
examinationlikewisefallshortoftheserequirements.xxx.

xxxx

Thequestionspropoundedwereclearlynotcompliantwiththeguidelinessetforthby
theHighCourt.Theappellantwasnotfullyapprisedoftheconsequencesofhisguiltyplea.In
fact, as argued by appellant, the trial court should have informed him that his plea of guilt
wouldnotaffectorreducetheimposablepenalty,whichisdeathashemighthaveerroneously
believed that under Article 63, the death penalty, being a single indivisible penalty, shall be
applied by the court regardless of any mitigating circumstances that might have attended the
commissionofthedeed.Moreover,thetrialcourtjudgefailedtoinformappellantofhisright
toadduceevidencedespitetheguiltyplea.

Withthetrialcourtsfailuretocomplywiththeguidelines,appellantsguiltypleais
deemedimprovidentlymadeandthusrenderedinefficacious.

Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatthecaseshouldberemandedtothetrialcourt.This
courseofactionisappropriateonlywhentheappellantsguiltypleawasthesolebasisforhis
conviction.AsheldinPeoplev.Mira,

Notwithstandingtheincautiousnessthatattendedappellantsguiltyplea,
we are not inclined to remand the case to the trial court as suggested by
appellant.Convictionsbasedonanimprovidentpleaofguiltaresetasideonlyif
suchpleaisthesolebasisofthejudgment.Ifthetrialcourtreliedonsufficient
and credible evidence in finding the accused guilty, the judgment must be
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/188706.htm

6/9

8/11/2014

G.R. No. 188706

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

affirmingthetrialcourtsrulingconvictingDocumento.

Lastly, on the matter of the appellate courts award of exemplary damages, we

increasetheawardfromP25,000.00toP30,000.00inlinewithprevailingjurisprudence.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theCourtofAppealsDecisiondatedAugust
13, 2008 in CAG.R. CRHC No. 00285 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION
thattheawardofexemplarydamagesisherebyincreasedfromP25,000.00toP30,000.00.
TheDecisionisaffirmedinallotherrespects.

SOORDERED.

ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/188706.htm

7/9

8/11/2014

G.R. No. 188706

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.

RENATOC.CORONA
AssociateJustice
Chairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
CourtsDivision.

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja, with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Elihu A. Ybaez,
concurringrollo,pp.526.
[2]
AgusandelNorteandButuanCity,Branch5.
[3]
PennedbyJudgeAugustusL.Calo,CArollo,pp.2138.
[4]
Rollo,p.6.
[5]
Id.at8.
[6]
CArollo,p.38.
[7]
G.R.Nos.14767887,July7,2004,433SCRA640.
[8]
Rollo,pp.2526.
[9]
CArollo,p.50.
[10]
Rollo,pp.2324.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/188706.htm

8/9

8/11/2014

G.R. No. 188706

[11]
Id.at1316.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/188706.htm

9/9