G.R. No. 167179 - People vs. Ceredon y Pagaran

The People of the Philippines, as plaintiff-appellee, brought criminal charges against Elmer Ceredon y Pagaran, the accused-appellant.
The case involves multiple counts (ten in all) of rape committed against the accused’s youngest sister (referred to as AAA), an incestuous crime that shocks public sensibility.

Multiple Criminal Informations filed under Criminal Cases Nos. 08-1296 to 08-1305 allege that, between 1995 and 2000, the accused committed repeated acts of rape against his sister.
The offenses were committed in the Municipality of Gattaran, Province of Cagayan, often involving the use of a knife, threats, force, intimidation, and other coercive means.
The acts included abduction within the confines of the accused’s residence and other locations, where he undressed, gagged, tied, whipped, and forcibly penetrated the victim.

The victim, AAA, was about ten years old when the accused, armed with a knife, forcibly abducted her from her home while her brothers were present.
After overcoming her initial resistance and using threats in her native language, the accused gagged, whipped, tied, and brought her to a bed where he committed the rape.

Subsequent incidents occurring soon after the first charge in 1995 followed a similar modus operandi wherein the victim was forcibly undressed, intimidated by a knife, and raped on the same bed in the accused’s residence.
In each instance, the victim experienced extreme physical abuse and was compelled not to report the incidents under threat of death.

The pattern of repeated rape continued with the victim aging from ten to eleven years old.
The accused, using similar coercive measures including tying and threatening to kill, raped the victim again in different settings within the family home, even after the family relocated due to natural calamities.

When the victim was approximately thirteen years old, two incidents of rape were recorded where the accused once again used force and intimidation.
In both instances, the victim, isolated at home with the rest of her family away, had no means of escape and endured the abuse.

The final reported incident occurred on May 8, 2000, during the wake of the father’s death, with the victim aged fifteen.
The accused, having his own residence nearby, forcibly intercepted the victim as she was sent to feed the chickens, subdued her by physical force, and committed the rape while threatening her life.

The accused was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court in 2001 initially pleading “not guilty” but later, with counsel’s assistance, changed his plea to “guilty” on all ten counts.
Joint trial proceedings were conducted with the teacher of AAA and the victim herself testifying, while no evidence was presented by the defense.
Confrontations occurred after the victim disclosed the repeated abuse to family members and acquaintances, during which the accused admitted to multiple counts of rape in a face-to-face confrontation with the victim and relatives.
The trial court rendered a judgment convicting the accused on all ten counts of rape, initially sentencing him to the death penalty for each count.

The automatic appeal was forwarded to the Supreme Court; however, on the basis of People v. Mateo, the case was remanded for intermediate review by the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA affirmed the conviction with modifications:

The death penalty was replaced by reclusion perpetua following the repeal of the Death Penalty Law (via Republic Act No. 9346).
The CA also modified the award of damages, granting private complainant civil indemnity, moral damages (increased upon review), and exemplary damages.

The accused contended that his change of plea from “not guilty” to “guilty” was not made with full understanding of its consequences, particularly the imposition of the death penalty.
The issue revolved around whether the trial court conducted a sufficient “searching inquiry” into the voluntariness and full comprehension of his plea.

The accused argued that the Informations were defective for failing to specifically establish with exact dates the commission of each rape.
The contention questioned whether the omission of precise dates compromised the validity of the charges.

The accused maintained that even if his plea was not improvident, the imposition of the death penalty in one of the criminal cases was error.
The argument also touched upon whether the qualifying circumstance of relationship (being the victim’s brother) was properly alleged given the statutory requirements.

It was further contended that the offense should not be elevated to warrant the death penalty since the relationship qualification (sibling relationship) was not explicitly detailed in terms required (i.e., within a specific degree of consanguinity).
The issue extended to whether layman’s terms sufficed for establishing the qualifying circumstance.