Title
People vs. Documento
Case
G.R. No. 188706
Decision Date
Mar 17, 2010
Appellant convicted of raping his minor daughter; guilty plea deemed improvident but upheld due to substantial evidence. Damages increased.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140713)

Procedural History

Two separate Informations were filed before the RTC for each incident. Documento initially pleaded not guilty, then changed his plea to guilty upon arraignment and re-arraignment. The prosecution presented testimonies from AAA, her mother BBB, and Dr. Hugo. Documento testified in his defense, claiming consensual relations and contesting venue, and disowned letters attributed to him.

RTC Decision

The RTC found Documento guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both counts of rape and sentenced him to death under Article 335, as amended by R.A. 7659. It awarded AAA ₱75,000 civil indemnity, ₱50,000 moral damages, and ₱25,000 exemplary damages per count, and ordered commitment to the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa. The case was forwarded for mandatory Supreme Court review.

CA Ruling

On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed guilt but modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua without parole in lieu of death, increased moral damages to ₱75,000 per count, and maintained civil indemnity and exemplary damages.

Issues on Appeal

  1. Whether the RTC had territorial jurisdiction over the offenses.
  2. Whether the plea of guilt was entered voluntarily and with full comprehension, in compliance with due process.

Analysis on Territorial Jurisdiction

Under Rule 129, Section 1, the court must take judicial notice of the geographic divisions of the Philippines. AAA’s sworn statement and the prosecutor’s resolution expressly located the acts in Barangay Antongalon and Ochoa Avenue, both within Butuan City. The Informations repeated those allegations. The CA correctly found that proof of venue was satisfied and that mandatory judicial notice confirmed Butuan City jurisdiction.

Analysis on Guilty Plea

Although the trial court failed to conduct the prescribed “searching inquiry” on voluntariness and full comprehension of the plea, the CA and Supreme Court held that the conviction rested not solely on the plea but on ample and credible evidence—victim’s consistent testimony, medical findings of healed laceration, family and police corroboration. Under People v. Mira, an improvident plea does not require remand if independent evidence supports guilt. Due process was vindicated by the evidence, and the plea’s improvidence did not

...continue reading

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