People vs. Ceredon

A plea of guilty to rape is not improvident under Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court where the death penalty has been repealed, because the rule’s rationale—ensuring full comprehension of a capital consequence—no longer applies; in any event, a conviction stands where it rests on sufficient prosecution evidence, not solely on the plea.

Appellant Elmer Ceredon y Pagaran is the older brother of private complainant AAA, his youngest sister. The ten rape charges were prosecuted under Article 266(A) and (B) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 and R.A. No. 7659. By the time of the SC’s review, R.A. No. 9346 had repealed the Death Penalty Law, a statutory change that affected both the penalty and the plea-of-guilty analysis.

Private complainant AAA, born on February 18, 1985, was the youngest sister of appellant Elmer Ceredon y Pagaran. The first rape took place sometime in 1995, when AAA was ten years old, at mid-day in their home at Baraoidan, Gattaran, Cagayan. AAA was playing with her brothers BBB and CCC when appellant beckoned to her; she ignored him for fear of being whipped. Appellant came out, ordered BBB and CCC to go down to the river, then held AAA by the arms and brought her inside the house. When she cried, appellant told her in Ilocano, “Uki ni nam, ta bedbedak ta ngiwat mo,” roughly meaning “Vulva of your mother, I will gag your mouth,” and searched for a handkerchief. AAA ran toward their youngest brother’s cradle, but appellant pulled her to another room, gagged her, whipped her with a belt, tied her hands behind her back with rope, pulled her dress down, laid her on a bed, and tied each leg to separate corners of the bed. He left and returned with scissors, snipped off her shorts and underwear, undressed himself, mounted her, and inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her great pain. Afterwards he wiped her genital region with a handkerchief and showed her the blood on it. Hearing their sister DDD’s voice, appellant covered AAA with a towel, dressed, and left laughing. BBB, CCC, and DDD found AAA still tied to the bed; one of her brothers pulled off the towel and untied her. AAA did not tell them of the rape because she feared appellant and his threat to kill them all.

The second rape also occurred in 1995. AAA was tending their youngest brother when appellant summoned her to extract his armpit hairs; she ignored him. Appellant instructed BBB to take the youngest sibling to the river to bathe him, and BBB complied. Left alone with AAA, appellant dragged her inside a room and ordered her to remove her clothes; when she refused, he forcibly undressed her at knife-point, brought her to the same bed, disrobed, poked her with the knife, mounted her, and penetrated her vagina. He again threatened to kill all of them if she reported the matter. Later that same year, while their parents were out of the house, AAA was sleeping on top of their trunk when she awoke to appellant undressing her. She cried and begged him to stop, but he disregarded her pleas and inserted his penis into her vagina; afterwards he repeated his threat to kill them all if she revealed the incident. A few days after this third rape, appellant raped AAA again inside their house, in the same room and upon the same bed, poking a knife at her to compel submission; out of fear she did not struggle or resist, and appellant had carnal knowledge of her. The fifth rape happened later that same year, when appellant was already married. It was noontime and AAA had just come home from visiting their grandfather. When she entered the bedroom, appellant followed, closed and locked the door, poked a knife at her, and told her to strip; when she refused, he forcibly undressed her, removed his own clothes, laid her on the bed, mounted her while pointing the knife at her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. She pleaded, “Manong kaasiandak kadin, husto na kadin,” meaning “Brother, have pity on me, please stop it,” but appellant slapped her mouth and proceeded to rape her, then threatened to kill them all if she divulged the matter.

In 1996, when AAA had turned eleven, appellant raped her for the sixth time. She was playing alone in front of their house when she saw appellant approaching; afraid, she tried to run but stumbled, and he caught her. He dragged her inside, laid her on the living room floor, and, as the rest of the family had gone to harvest rice at their kaingin, removed her dress and underwear, removed his own clothes, mounted her, and inserted his penis into her vagina against her will. He afterwards uttered the same threats to kill everyone should she expose the rape. The seventh rape also occurred in 1996, after the family had transferred to a new house at the foot of a mountain in Baraoidan, Gattaran, Cagayan, because their old home had been swept away in a flood. When asked about the details of this seventh incident, AAA disclosed that she could no longer remember the exact manner in which appellant raped her, but she was certain that she was raped twice in 1996 by the same appellant.

The eighth rape took place in 1998, when AAA was thirteen years old. She was lying alone inside their house while her parents and other siblings were out working in their kaingin. Appellant suddenly appeared and moved closer; she tried to rise, but he pushed her back down, forcibly removed her shorts and panty, and unbuttoned his pants. She could not have escaped while appellant was undressing because she feared what he might do to her. After removing his own clothes, appellant went on top of her and commenced raping her. AAA pleaded, “Manong, kuston kaasiannak kadin” (“Brother, enough, have pity on me”), but appellant slapped her in the mouth and, after the sexual abuse, issued the same threatening statements. Also in 1998, the ninth rape occurred under similar circumstances. The rest of their family had gone to their kaingin, leaving AAA alone in their house at the foot of the mountain. Seeing that she was alone to tend the house, appellant again pounced on the opportunity to impose his bestial urges on his young sister. At that time AAA was still thirteen years old; appellant forced her to undress, removed his own clothing, mounted her, and penetrated her vagina.

The tenth rape occurred in 2000, when AAA was fifteen years old. It was committed in a new house, also in Baraoidan, Gattaran, Cagayan, where the family had transferred. Appellant had his own house by then, situated about five hundred meters away. Their father was lying in state at appellant’s house. At noontime, their mother sent AAA home to feed the chickens. She obeyed and went inside their house to fetch rice with which to feed them when appellant followed and grabbed her. She resisted and kicked him in the abdomen; he fell down and she tried to run, but he grabbed her foot, causing her to stumble and fall. Appellant then removed all her clothes, kissed her lips and breasts several times, mounted her, and sexually violated her. All the while he told her, “Nagimas gayam ti kabagis ko” (“I derived so much satisfaction from my sister”), and afterwards issued the same previous threats.

On September 18, 2000, AAA reached the end of her rope and, notwithstanding appellant’s threats, revealed to her sister DDD, friend Giselle, and teacher Teresa that appellant had raped her. Teresa, upon hearing the revelation, accompanied AAA to their head teacher Felix Salvador; together they went to the barangay captain, who told them to report the matter to the police, which they did. On September 20, 2000, policemen were dispatched to bring appellant to the police station, where a confrontation arose between AAA and appellant; upon seeing him, AAA punched him and said, “Hayop ka, baboy, nirape mo ako” (“You animal, pig, you raped me”). On September 21, 2000, a second confrontation took place before their mother, their sister DDD, their uncle Raymundo Bumanglag, appellant’s wife Josephine, and AAA’s teachers Charito Elesterio, Jerry Roque, and Elpidio Salvatierra. In that confrontation, AAA accused appellant of raping her ten times, while he admitted to having raped her thrice only. Josephine told him to admit so that AAA could forgive him; appellant then admitted that he had raped her ten times and asked for forgiveness, beseeching her to take pity on his family. AAA replied that she could no longer forgive him because her heart had “already hardened like stone,” and appellant cried. At trial, AAA’s Grade IV teacher Teresa Andres-Teresa and AAA herself testified for the prosecution, while the defense presented no evidence. The RTC found that AAA was born on February 18, 1985, and was about ten years old in 1995 and eleven in 1996, and that it was natural for her not to remember the exact dates because of the negative, horrifying, and traumatic effect of the rapes on her life.

• Improvident Plea of Guilt: Appellant argued that the RTC convicted him based on an improvident plea of guilt because, when he was re-arraigned and pleaded guilty to all ten charges, he was not fully apprised of the consequences of changing his plea from not guilty to guilty; the trial court did not inquire into the voluntariness of his plea and failed to explain that conviction would carry the death penalty under R.A. No. 7659, citing Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court.
• Sufficiency of the Informations as to Dates: Appellant argued that, assuming no improvident plea, the RTC erred in convicting him in Criminal Cases Nos. 08-1296 to 08-1304 because the Informations failed to sufficiently establish with particularity the dates of the commission of the offenses.
• Death Penalty in Criminal Case No. 08-1305: Appellant argued that, assuming no improvident plea, the RTC erred in imposing the death penalty in Criminal Case No. 08-1305.
• Relationship as Qualifying Circumstance: Appellant argued that, assuming the date was sufficiently established, the RTC erred in imposing the death penalty because the qualifying circumstance that he was the brother of the victim, and hence a relative within the second degree of consanguinity, was not properly alleged.
• Proof of Age: Appellant argued that in Criminal Case No. 08-1305 no evidence was presented as to the age of the victim.

• Improvident Plea of Guilt: Whether the RTC erred in convicting appellant based on an improvident plea of guilt where he was allegedly not fully apprised of the consequences of his plea and no searching inquiry was conducted.
• Sufficiency of the Informations as to Dates: Whether the RTC erred in convicting appellant in Criminal Cases Nos. 08-1296 to 08-1304 where the Informations failed to allege with particularity the dates of the commission of the rapes.
• Proof of Age in Criminal Case No. 08-1305: Whether the age of AAA in Criminal Case No. 08-1305 was sufficiently established despite the absence of a certificate of live birth or other authentic document.
• Relationship as Qualifying Circumstance: Whether the Informations sufficiently alleged the qualifying circumstance of relationship where they described AAA as appellant’s youngest sister but did not use the phrase “relative within the second degree of consanguinity.”
• Penalty and Damages: Whether the death penalty should be reduced and the damages modified in light of R.A. No. 9346.

• Improvident Plea of Guilt: No. The conviction was not based solely on the plea; the prosecution presented sufficient evidence, and with R.A. No. 9346 the death-penalty rationale for a searching inquiry no longer applied.
• Sufficiency of the Informations as to Dates: No. The exact date of rape is not an essential element; the Informations stated the elements and acts, and objections to their form were waived.
• Proof of Age in Criminal Case No. 08-1305: Yes. AAA testified to her age and appellant admitted it in the confrontation; under the circumstances, the absence of a birth certificate was not fatal.
• Relationship as Qualifying Circumstance: Yes. Describing AAA as appellant’s youngest sister sufficiently alleged the brother-sister relationship, which is necessarily within the second civil degree.
• Penalty and Damages: The death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole under R.A. No. 9346; civil indemnity of P75,000.00 and exemplary damages of P25,000.00 stand per count, and moral damages are increased to P75,000.00 per count.

• Improvident Plea of Guilt: Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court requires that when an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court must (1) conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the plea, (2) require the prosecution to present evidence proving guilt and the precise degree of culpability, and (3) ask the accused if he desires to present evidence and allow him to do so. There is no fixed formula for the searching inquiry; the trial judge must be fully convinced that the plea was voluntary and its consequences understood. The records showed that appellant was assisted by counsel at both arraignment and re-arraignment; his counsel manifested the desire to change the plea; and when re-arraigned, the charges were read and explained to him in Ilocano, his native tongue. Appellant also admitted the rapes in the confrontations, first admitting three and later ten after his wife Josephine urged him to admit the whole truth. More importantly, the RTC convicted him not on the plea alone but on the prosecution’s evidence. The SC relied on People vs. Lakindanum, where conviction was sustained despite a cursory searching inquiry because the child victim positively identified the rapist and candidly narrated the rape; the SC would not allow the perversion to go unpunished on mere procedural grounds. Finally, Section 3, Rule 116 applies where the death penalty may be imposed; with R.A. No. 9346 prohibiting the death penalty, the rationale for the rule was absent.
• Sufficiency of the Informations as to Dates: The date or time of rape need not be alleged with precision; it is enough that the information states that the crime was committed at a time as near as possible to its actual commission. Failure to allege the exact date does not render the information defective or void. An information is valid if it distinctly states the elements of the offense and the constitutive acts or omissions; the exact date is not an essential element. In rape, the material fact is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its commission, because the gravamen is carnal knowledge through force and intimidation. The RTC explained that AAA was only ten in 1995 and eleven in 1996, born on February 18, 1985, and naturally could not remember the dates because of the traumatic effect of the rapes. Appellant also failed to raise the issue at arraignment or to file a bill of particulars; objections to matters of form in the information cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The SC cited People vs. Espejon, People vs. Lim, People vs. Malapo, People vs. Losano, and People vs. Magbanua.
• Proof of Age in Criminal Case No. 08-1305: The claim that no evidence proved AAA’s age in Criminal Case No. 08-1305 was false. Under People vs. Pruna, the best evidence of age is the original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth, but its presentation is not a sine qua non for appreciating minority. In the absence of (a) a certificate of live birth, (b) an authentic document, or (c) testimony of the victim’s mother or relatives, the complainant’s testimony suffices provided it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. AAA categorically disclosed that she was ten at the first rape in 1995 and fifteen at the last rape; appellant admitted these in a confrontation witnessed by their mother and other relatives. The defense did not object to AAA’s claim of minority when it was consistently bared during trial, and appellant, through his plea of guilt, admitted the age alleged in the Informations. He could not claim ignorance of the age of his own sister. The RTC also made the categorical finding required by Pruna, stating that AAA was born on February 18, 1985, and was about ten in 1995 and eleven in 1996.
• Relationship as Qualifying Circumstance: The defense’s argument that the Informations had to allege that AAA was a “relative within the second degree of consanguinity” was not novel and had been rejected in People vs. Sanchez. In Sanchez, the SC struck down the argument that an information had to allege that the victim was a “relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity” for the death penalty to be imposed for raping a sister. People vs. Ferolino required such an allegation where the offender was merely a relation, but the SC distinguished Ferolino because the victim there was a niece, while in Sanchez the victim was a sister. A niece-uncle relationship may fall beyond the third civil degree, but a sister-brother relationship is obviously in the second civil degree, and no other sister-brother relationship exists in civil law that falls beyond the third civil degree. Hence, the sister-brother relationship is an exception to Ferolino. Rule 110, Section 9 of the Rules of Court requires the acts or omissions and qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be stated in ordinary and concise language, not necessarily in statutory language, sufficient for a person of common understanding to know the offense and for the court to pronounce judgment. The Informations categorically identified AAA as appellant’s younger sister, satisfying the requirement.
• Penalty and Damages: Only one qualifying circumstance is needed to qualify rape; here there were two, relationship and age. Even if age had not been duly proven, relationship could not be denied. R.A. No. 9346 repealed the death penalty effective June 24, 2006. Section 2 provides that in lieu of death, reclusion perpetua is imposed when the law violated uses the nomenclature of the Revised Penal Code, or life imprisonment when it does not. Section 3 provides that persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences are reduced to reclusion perpetua by the Act, shall not be eligible for parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The CA’s civil indemnity of P75,000.00 was correct for each count because each rape was qualified by circumstances warranting the death penalty. Moral damages of P50,000.00 were increased to P75,000.00 without need of pleading or proof of basis. Exemplary damages of P25,000.00 were justified by the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship.

• Improvident plea of guilty — In capital offenses, Section 3, Rule 116 requires a searching inquiry into voluntariness and full comprehension, prosecution evidence of guilt and precise culpability, and an opportunity for the accused to present evidence. The doctrine loses its death-penalty rationale when the death penalty is repealed; and a conviction based on sufficient evidence, not solely on the plea, is sustained. Applied: appellant’s plea was not improvident; conviction affirmed.
• Exact date in rape Informations — The date or time of rape is not an essential element and need not be alleged with precision; an information is sufficient if it states the elements and constitutive acts and alleges the time as near as possible to actual commission. Applied: the Informations in nine cases were not defective for lack of exact dates; objections to form were waived.
• Relationship as qualifying circumstance — The relationship need not be alleged in technical civil-law language; alleging that the victim is the offender’s sister is sufficient because a sister-brother relationship is necessarily within the second civil degree. Applied: the “youngest sister” allegation sustained the qualifying circumstance.
• Proof of age — The best evidence is the birth certificate, but it is not indispensable; absent a birth certificate, authentic document, or testimony of the mother or relatives, the victim’s testimony suffices if expressly and clearly admitted by the accused, and the court must make a categorical finding. Applied: AAA’s testimony and appellant’s admissions proved age.
• Effect of R.A. No. 9346 — The law prohibits the death penalty and substitutes reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment depending on the nomenclature used by the violated law; persons so sentenced are not eligible for parole. Applied: ten death sentences reduced to reclusion perpetua without parole.
• Damages in qualified rape — Civil indemnity of P75,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, and exemplary damages of P25,000.00 may be awarded for each qualified rape. Applied: the CA awards were modified accordingly.

• “When, as in this case, the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the same must be sustained for the simple reason that the conviction is predicated not on the guilty plea of accused but on the convincing evidence proving his commission of the offenses charged.” — The SC used this to reject the improvident-plea claim, holding that the conviction stood on the prosecution’s evidence rather than on the plea alone.
• “The date or time of the commission of the rape need not be alleged with precision. It is enough for the information or complaint to state that the crime has been committed at a time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.” — This is the SC’s core ruling on the sufficiency of the Informations despite the absence of exact dates.
• “However, a sister-brother relationship is obviously in the second civil degree and no other sister-brother relationship exists in civil law that falls beyond the third civil degree.” — The SC used this to hold that the allegation of “youngest sister” sufficiently alleged relationship as a qualifying circumstance.
• “In the absence of (a) certificate of live birth, (b) authentic document, or (c) testimony of the victim’s mother or relatives concerning the victim’s age, complainant’s testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.” — This is the Pruna rule the SC applied to sustain the proof of AAA’s age.

• People vs. Lakindanum, G.R. No. 127123, March 10, 1999, 304 SCRA 429 — Relied on; conviction sustained despite a cursory searching inquiry where the child victim positively identified the rapist and narrated the rape.
• People vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 135563, September 18, 2003, 411 SCRA 288 — Controlling; sister-brother relationship need not be alleged as a relative within the third civil degree.
• People vs. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471, October 10, 2002, 390 SCRA 577 — Relied on; guidelines on proof of age, allowing the victim’s testimony when admitted by the accused.
• People vs. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640 — Relied on procedurally; the case was forwarded to the CA for intermediate review.
• People vs. Espejon, G.R. No. 134767, February 20, 2002, 377 SCRA 412 — Relied on; the exact date is not required in an information for rape.
• People vs. Magbanua, G.R. No. 128888, December 3, 1999, 319 SCRA 719 — Relied on; objections to matters of form in the information cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
• People vs. Barcena, G.R. No. 168737, February 16, 2006, 482 SCRA 543 — Relied on; civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is proper for qualified rape.

• Article 266(A) and (B), Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 and R.A. No. 7659 — The rape charges were defined and penalized under these provisions; appellant was indicted and convicted on ten counts.
• Section 3, Rule 116, Rules of Court — Requires a searching inquiry, prosecution evidence, and an opportunity to present evidence when an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense; applied to reject the improvident-plea claim because the death penalty had been repealed and the conviction rested on evidence.
• Section 9, Rule 110, Rules of Court — Requires the acts or omissions and qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be stated in ordinary and concise language; applied to hold that “youngest sister” sufficiently alleged relationship.
• R.A. No. 9346, Sections 2 and 3 — Prohibits the death penalty, substitutes reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and bars parole for those sentenced or reduced to reclusion perpetua; applied to reduce the ten death sentences to reclusion perpetua without parole.
• New Civil Code, Article 2230 — Authorizes exemplary damages when a qualifying circumstance is present; applied to justify P25,000.00 exemplary damages per count due to minority and relationship.
• A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC — Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases; applied when the CA elevated the records to the SC for review.
• Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children, Section 40; R.A. No. 9262 IRR, Rule XI, Section 63 — Required withholding the victim’s identity; applied by using fictitious initials AAA and related initials.