People Vs Ceredon

PEOPLE VS CEREDON
Rule 116: Arraignment and Plea

| G.R. No. 167179 | January 28, 2008 |
Reyes, R.T., J.
(Torrillo, Alexandria T.)
-You may only copy those that are underlined and italicized-
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
On September 18th, 2000, victim AAA revealed to DDD (her sister), Giselle (friend),
and Teresa (teacher) that she was raped by her brother, the appellant, Elmer Ceredon.
Together, they went to the barangay captain who told them to report to the police.
Policemen were dispatched and brought the appellant to the station.
The victim accused the appellant of raping her 10 times during the second
confrontation. The appellant then admitted that he raped his sister 10 times and asked
for forgiveness. The victim, however, could no longer forgive him as her heart has
hardened like stone.
The appellant was indicted for 10 counts of rape (1995 x5, 1996 x2, 1998 x2, 2000 x1).
The trial court convicted appellant on all ten counts of rape, sentencing him to suffer the
death penalty in each of the 10 criminal informations.
Appellant contends that the Informations against him do not sufficiently charge the
offenses committed because the exact dates were not alleged. He added that he was
convicted by his plea of guilty.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt based on an improvident plea of guilty?
Assuming arguendo that there was no improvident plea of guilty, whether or not the trial
court erred in convicting accused-appellant considering that said Informations failed to
sufficiently establish the dates of the crimes with particularity?
Assuming arguendo that there was no improvident plea of guilty, whether or not the trial
court gravely erred in imposing the death penalty upon the accused-appellant?
Assuming further that the prosecution has sufficiently established the dates of the
crimes, whether or not the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty as the
qualifying circumstance that the accused is her brother was not properly alleged?
RULING:
The rule where the accused desires to plead guilty to a capital offense, the court is to
observe the following: it must make investigate the voluntariness and full
comprehension of the consequences of the accused’s plea, they must require the
prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt, and the court must ask the accused
if he would want to present evidence on his behalf. Since there is no concrete rule on
how a trial judge may go about the matter of a proper “searching inquiry” regarding the
rule above, it is incumbent upon a trial judge to determine and be convinced that the
plea of the guilty was voluntarily made and its consequences were fully comprehended
by the accused.
However, appellant was not convicted because of his plea of guilty, but on the strength
of the prosecution’s evidence. The trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence
to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Convictions based on pleas of guilt to
capital offenses have been set aside because of their improvidence. This is also the
case when such plea is the only basis for a judgment.
The trial court explained that the victim was only 10 years old in 1995 and 11 in 1996. It
was natural for her not to remember the dates, especially when they were horrifying and
negative times.
The date or time of rape need not be alleged with precision. It is enough for the
Information/Complaint to state that the crime was done at a near possible time. Failure
to allege the exact date does not render the Information defective, much less 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 of it.
Thus, in rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of

the rape, not the time. The date or time is not a material ingredient, because the
gravamen of the crime is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation.
Since the precise time has no substantial bearing on its commission, the date or time
need not be stated with absolute accuracy. It is sufficient that the complaint or
information states tha the crime as been committed at any time as near as possible to
the date of its actual commission.
It was already too late for appellant to question the sufficiency of the Information. He
had all the time to raise this during the course of the trial, especially his arraignment.
However, he chose to remain silent and never lifted a finger to question the Information.
He is deemed to have waived whatever objections he had and now cannot seek
affirmative relief. Furthermore, objections to the Information’s form cannot be made for
the first time on appeal.

People Vs Ceredon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Ceredon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Ceredon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE VS CEREDON

Rule 116: Arraignment and Plea

Policemen were dispatched and brought the appellant to the station.

Thus, in rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of

You might also like