Title
People vs. Ceredon y Pagaran
Case
G.R. No. 167179
Decision Date
Jan 28, 2008
Elmer Ceredon convicted of 10 counts of raping his minor sister, AAA, from 1995-2000; death penalty reduced to reclusion perpetua due to R.A. 9346.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 167179)

Applicable Law

The legal basis for the charges arises from the Revised Penal Code, specifically Article 266(A) and (B), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353 and R.A. No. 7659. Furthermore, a central element of the case is the repeal of the Death Penalty Law through R.A. No. 9346, which impacts the sentencing options available for the convicted individual.

Charges and Plea

Elmer Ceredon y Pagaran faced ten counts of rape, all committed against his sister when she was a minor. During the trial, he initially pleaded not guilty, but later, during a pretrial conference, he opted to change his plea to guilty on all counts. The court granted this request, and a joint trial followed, where the prosecution presented witness testimonies without any evidence from the defense.

Facts of the Case

The chronology of incidents spans from 1995 to 2000, during which the accused repeatedly raped AAA, who was between the ages of 10 to 15 during these offenses. The occurrences involved threats of violence, physical coercion, and extreme psychological intimidation, effectively silencing the victim through fear.

Trial Court and Court of Appeals Proceedings

The trial court found Ceredon guilty of all ten counts of rape, initially imposing the death penalty before the case was escalated to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the trial court's decision but modified the sentence from death to reclusion perpetua, following the precedent set by the repeal of the Death Penalty Law.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Ceredon contested his conviction on several grounds:

  1. He claimed his plea of guilty was improvident due to lack of thorough inquiry by the trial court into his understanding of the consequences.
  2. He argued that the Informations filed against him failed to sufficiently establish the exact dates of the offenses.
  3. He contended the court erred in imposing the death penalty for one count based on insufficient establishment of qualifying circumstances regarding his familial relationship with the victim.

Court's Ruling on Issues

The Supreme Court ruled against the appellant's claims:

  1. The court held that there was no improvident plea of guilty as Ceredon was adequately informed of the charges and consequences, particularly since his conviction was also based on overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution.
  2. The determination of exact dates was deemed non-essential; the charges were sufficiently clear about the nature of the offenses, and the timeline was plausible given the psychological trauma experienced by the victim.
  3. The court clarified the indictment's language sufficed in denoting the relationship as sufficient for establishing the qualifying circumstance necessary for a rape conviction.

Sentenci

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.