Scribd
Upload
328 views2 pages

Crimpro - Digest (8) 77 - People - V - Documento - Rule - 116 - 1P

Documento was charged with two counts of raping his daughter. He initially pled not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty. The trial court accepted his guilty plea without conducting a proper inquiry to determine if the plea was made voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences. While the appellate court found Documento's conviction proper, it determined that the trial court failed to properly inform him of the consequences of a guilty plea. Specifically, Documento was not told that the penalty could still be death and that he had a right to present evidence. However, remanding the case was unnecessary because there was sufficient evidence beyond Documento's guilty plea to find him guilty, including testimony from his daughter and others establishing the rapes.

Uploaded by

Jestherin Baliton
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
328 views2 pages

Crimpro - Digest (8) 77 - People - V - Documento - Rule - 116 - 1P

Documento was charged with two counts of raping his daughter. He initially pled not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty. The trial court accepted his guilty plea without conducting a proper inquiry to determine if the plea was made voluntarily and with full understanding of the consequences. While the appellate court found Documento's conviction proper, it determined that the trial court failed to properly inform him of the consequences of a guilty plea. Specifically, Documento was not told that the penalty could still be death and that he had a right to present evidence. However, remanding the case was unnecessary because there was sufficient evidence beyond Documento's guilty plea to find him guilty, including testimony from his daughter and others establishing the rapes.

Uploaded by

Jestherin Baliton
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SLC-LAW

BATCH 8 DIGEST 77: PEOPLE VS DOCUMENTO


TOPIC: RULE 116_PLEA OF GULTY
G.R. No. 188706               March 17, 2010
PLAINTIFF: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
APPELLANT: OSCAR M. DOCUMENTO
FACTS:

Documento was charged before the RTC with two (2) counts of Rape for raping his daughter AAA, a minor, 16 years
of age. Upon arraignment, Documento pled not guilty. Subsequently, however, he changed his earlier plea to one of
guilt. As such, the RTC ordered a re-arraignment and entered appellant’s plea of guilt to the charges.

The prosecution presented evidence consisting of the testimonies of private complainant herself, AAA, her mother,
BBB, and Dr. Johann A. Hugo. Their testimonies established the following:

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.

2. Documento raped AAA on a number of occasions in the houses 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 told anyone of the rape.

Documento asseverated that he pled guilty to the crime of Rape only because Prosecutor Hector B. Salise
convinced him to do so. Documento contended that he did not rape AAA, and that, to the contrary, they had a
consensual, sexual relationship.

RTC found Documento guilty

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 comprehension of his plea of guilt.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the case shall be remanded to the trial for the failure to fully inform accused of the consequences of his
guilty plea.

RULING:
It is true that the appellate court noted the trial court’s failure to conduct the prescribed "searching inquiry" into
the matter of whether or not Documento’s plea of guilt was improvidently made. Nonetheless, it still found the
conviction of appellant proper. Its disquisition on Documento’s plea of guilt is in point.

The questions propounded were clearly not compliant with the guidelines set forth by the High Court. The appellant
was not fully apprised of the 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 imposable penalty, which is death as he might
have erroneously 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 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, -
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SLC-LAW
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

You might also like