GR 188706; (March, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 188706 ; March 17, 2010
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Oscar M. Documento, Appellant.
FACTS
Appellant Oscar M. Documento was charged with two counts of Rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to R.A. 7659. The Informations alleged that on October 15, 1995, in Barangay Antongalon, Butuan City, and on April 22, 1996, on Ochoa Avenue, Butuan City, he had carnal knowledge of his daughter, AAA, a minor, through force and intimidation. Upon arraignment, Documento initially pled not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him of both counts and imposed the death penalty. On automatic review, the case was remanded to the Court of Appeals (CA) following People v. Mateo. The CA affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count and increased the moral damages. Documento appealed, arguing that the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the prosecution failed to prove the rapes occurred in Butuan City, and that the court failed to conduct a proper searching inquiry into the voluntariness of his guilty plea.
ISSUE
1. Whether the trial court had territorial jurisdiction over the crimes charged.
2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension by the accused of the consequences of his guilty plea.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification.
1. On Territorial Jurisdiction: The Court held that the trial court had jurisdiction. The prosecution established through AAA’s sworn statement, the prosecutor’s resolution, and the Informations themselves that the rapes occurred in Barangay Antongalon and Ochoa Avenue, Butuan City. Furthermore, the inclusion of these barangays in Butuan City is a matter of mandatory judicial notice under the Rules of Evidence.
2. On the Guilty Plea: The Court agreed with the CA that the trial court failed to conduct the required searching inquiry to ensure Documento fully understood the consequences of his guilty plea, particularly that it would not affect the imposable penalty (death at the time) and that he had the right to present evidence. This rendered his plea improvident. However, a remand was unnecessary because the conviction was based not solely on the guilty plea but on sufficient and credible evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimonies of AAA, her mother BBB, and Dr. Johann A. Hugo, as well as medical findings.
The Court modified the CA decision by increasing the award of exemplary damages from ₱25,000.00 to ₱30,000.00 for each count of rape, in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count and other damages were affirmed.