ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
October-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137841 October 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 117512 October 2, 2001 - REBECCA ALA-MARTIN v. HON. JUSTO M. SULTAN

  • G.R. No. 120098 October 2, 2001 - RUBY L. TSAI v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS EVER TEXTILE MILLS

  • G.R. No. 124037 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 126592 October 2, 2001 - ROMEO G. DAVID v. JUDGE TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129900 October 2, 2001 - JANE CARAS y SOLITARIO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133000 October 2, 2001 - PATRICIA NATCHER petitioner v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND THE HEIRS OF GRACIANO DEL ROSARIO-LETICIA DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 133895 October 2, 2001 - ZENAIDA M. SANTOS v. CALIXTO SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135522-23 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMORSOLO G. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 137777 October 2, 2001 - THE PRESIDENTIAL AD-HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE, ET AL. v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138322 October 2, 2001 - GRACE J. GARCIA v. REDERICK A. RECIO

  • G.R. No. 138929 October 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO DEL MUNDO

  • G.R. No. 139050 October 2, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and AGFHA

  • G.R. No. 142877 October 2, 2001 - JINKIE CHRISTIE A. DE JESUS and JACQUELINE A. DE JESUS v. THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT JUAN GAMBOA DIZON

  • G.R. No. 125081 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REMEDIOS PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 128195 October 3, 2001 - ELIZABETH LEE and PACITA YULEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. Nos. 128514 & 143856-61 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NILO LEONES

  • G.R. Nos. 142602-05 October 3, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BONIFACIO ARIOLA

  • A.M. No. 01-6-192-MCTC October 5, 2001 - Request To Designate Another Judge To Try And Decide Criminal Case No. 3713

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1610 October 5, 2001 - ATTY. EDGAR H. TALINGDAN v. JUDGE HENEDINO P. EDUARTE

  • G.R. No. 124498 October 5, 2001 - EDDIE B. SABANDAL v. HON. FELIPE S. TONGCO Presiding Judge

  • G.R. No. 127441 October 5, 2001 - DOROTEO TOBES @ DOTING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 130499 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PAMFILO QUIMSON @ "NOEL QUIMSON

  • G.R. No. 130962 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE REAPOR y SAN JUAN

  • G.R. No. 131040 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL FRAMIO SABAGALA

  • G.R. No. 132044 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO @ Tony EVANGELISTA Y BINAY

  • G.R. No. 132718 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE CASTILLON III and JOHN DOE

  • G.R. Nos. 135452-53 October 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO M. ALCOREZA

  • G.R. No. 139760 October 5, 2001 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 144189 October 5, 2001 - R & M GENERAL MERCHANDISE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121948 October 8, 2001 - PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. BENEDICTO FABURADA

  • G.R. No. 123075 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO L. NUELAN

  • G.R. No. 129926 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLE M. ZATE

  • G.R. No. 137599 October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILBERT BAULITE and LIBERATO BAULITE

  • G.R. No. 138941 October 8, 2001 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY v. TANTUCO ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. No. 141297 October 8, 2001 - DOMINGO R. MANALO v. COURT OF APPEALS (Special Twelfth Division) and PAIC SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK

  • A.M. No. 01-9-246-MCTC October 9, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON

  • G.R. No. 138886 October 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SP01 WILFREDO LEAÑO SP01 FERDINAND MARZAN SPO1 RUBEN B. AGUSTIN SP02 RODEL T. MADERAL * SP02 ALEXANDER S. MICU and SP04 EMILIO M. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 141182 October 9, 2001 - HEIRS OF PEDRO CUETO Represented by ASUNCION CUETO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER FIRST DIVISION) and CONSOLACION COMPUESTO

  • A.M. No. 99-12-03-SC October 10, 2001 - RE: INITIAL REPORTS ON THE GRENADE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT ABOUT 6:40 A.M. ON DECEMBER 6, 1999

  • G.R. No. 129313 October 10, 2001 - SPOUSES MA. CRISTINA D. TIRONA and OSCAR TIRONA v. HON. FLORO P. ALEJO as Presiding Judge

  • G.R. Nos. 135679 & 137375 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. 136258 October 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS FELICIANO

  • A.M. No. 2001-9-SC October 11, 2001 - DOROTEO IGOY v. GILBERT SORIANO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1485 October 11, 2001 - TEOFILO C. SANTOS v. JUDGE FELICIANO V. BUENAVENTURA

  • G.R. No. 80796 & 132885 October 11, 2001 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES NORTE v. PROVINCE OF QUEZON

  • G.R. No. 118387 October 11, 2001 - MARCELO LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS and HON. LORENZO B. VENERACION and HON. JAIME T. HAMOY

  • G.R. Nos. 123913-14 October 11,2001

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO CALLOS

  • G.R. No. 130415 October 11, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALVIN YRAT y BUGAHOD and RAUL JIMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130562 October 11, 2001 - Brigida Conculada v. Hon. Court Of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 112526 October 12, 2001 - STA. ROSA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 122710 October 12, 2001 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS and REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION

  • G.R. Nos. 134769-71 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BATION

  • G.R. No. 137843 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO S. AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 139904 October 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 136470 October 16, 2001 - VENANCIO R. NAVA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 140794 October 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO T. AGLIDAY

  • A.M. No. P-00-7-323-RTJ October 17, 2001 - RE: RELEASE BY JUDGE MANUEL T. MURO, RTC, BRANCH 54 MANILA, OF AN ACCUSED IN A NON-BAILABLE OFFENSE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1419 October 17, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MAGDALENA G. MAGNO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 & AM RTJ-98-1411 October 17, 2001 - ATTY. CESAR B. MERIS v. JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA

  • G.R. No. 123137 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL

  • G.R. No. 124513 October 17, 2001 - ROBERTO ERQUIAGA v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127540 October 17, 2001 - EUGENIO DOMINGO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 127830 October 17, 2001 - MANOLET LAVIDES v. ERNESTO B. PRE

  • G.R. No. 129069 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO R. RECTO

  • G.R. No. 129236 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO G. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 129389 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TEODORICO UBALDO

  • G.R. Nos. 132673-75 October 17, 200

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR C. GOMEZ

  • G.R. No. 136291 October 17, 2001 - LETICIA M. MAGSINO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 136869 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DENNIS MAZO

  • G.R. No. 141673 October 17, 2001 - MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY/AUGUSTO B. SUNICO v. NLRC (Third Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142726 October 17, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIO ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 143190 October 17, 2001 - ANTONIO P. BELICENA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

  • G.R. No. 143990 October 17, 2001 - MARIA L. ANIDO v. FILOMENO NEGADO and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 121039-45 October 18, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAYOR ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 132869 October 18, 2001 - GREGORIO DE VERA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 143486 October 18, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO DUMAGAY TUADA

  • G.R. No. 144735 October 18, 2001 - YU BUN GUAN v. ELVIRA ONG

  • G.R. No. 116285 October 19, 2001 - ANTONIO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS and the .C.C.P

  • G.R. Nos. 121201-02 October 19, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellee v. GIO CONCORCIO @ JUN

  • G.R. No. 129995 October 19, 2001 - THE PROVINCE OF BATAAN v. HON. PEDRO VILLAFUERTE

  • G.R. No. 130730 October 19, 2001 - HERNANDO GENER v. GREGORIO DE LEON and ZENAIDA FAUSTINO

  • G.R. No. 133002 October 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTOY GALLO @ PALALAM

  • G.R. No. 137904 October 19, 2001 - PURIFICACION M. VDA. DE URBANO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS)

  • A.M. No. 99-12-497-RTC October 23, 2001 - REQUEST OF JUDGE FRANCISCO L. CALINGIN

  • G.R. No. 121267 October 23, 2001 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124036 October 23, 2001 - FIDELINO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124295 October 23, 2001 - JUDGE RENATO A. FUENTES v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO

  • G.R. No. 125193 October 23, 2001 - MANUEL BARTOCILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 130846 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROGELIO PAMILAR y REVOLIO

  • G.R. No. 131841 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RUBEN VILLARMOSA

  • G.R. No. 132373 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. TIRSO ARCAY @ "TISOY" and TEODORO CLEMEN @ "BOY

  • G.R. No. 134740 October 23, 2001 - IRENE V. CRUZ v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 135481 October 23, 2001 - LIGAYA S. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136105 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANTONIO PAREDES y SAUQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 136337 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NELSON CABUNTOG

  • G.R. No. 139114 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMAN LACAP Y CAILLES

  • G.R. No. 139274 October 23, 2001 - QUEZON PROVINCE v. HON. ABELIO M. MARTE

  • G.R. No. 139329 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ERLINDO MAKILANG

  • G.R. Nos. 140934-35 October 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONDE RAPISORA y ESTRADA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1634 October 25, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. 102367 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABUNDIO ALBARIDO and BENEDICTO IGDOY

  • G.R. No. 126359 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. CARLITO OLIVA

  • G.R. No. 127465 October 25, 2001 - SPOUSES NICETAS DELOS SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 133102 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DINDO AMOGIS y CRINCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 134449-50 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PEDRO HERNANDEZ y PALMA

  • G.R. No. 135813 October 25, 2001 - FERNANDO SANTOS v. Spouses ARSENIO and NIEVES REYES

  • G.R. No. 135822 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PIO DACARA y NACIONAL

  • G.R. Nos. 137494-95 October 25, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOTERO REYES alias "TURING"

  • G.R. Nos. 142741-43 October 25, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROMEO MANAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-01-1474 October 26, 2001 - ANTONIO C. REYES v. JOSEFINA F. DELIM

  • G.R. No. 120548 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSELITO ESCARDA

  • G.R. Nos. 121492 & 124325 October 26, 2001 - BAN HUA UY FLORES v. JOHNNY K.H. UY

  • G.R. No. 132169 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SANICO NUEVO @ "SANY

  • G.R. No. 133741-42 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LINO VILLARUEL

  • G.R. No. 134802 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO Z. DIZON

  • G.R. No. 135920 October 26, 2001 - ENCARNACION ET AL. v. SEVERINA REALTY CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 140719 October 26, 2001 - NICOLAS UY DE BARON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 140912 October 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO DIAZ Y SEVILLETA

  • G.R. No. 141540 October 26, 2001 - EDUARDO TAN v. FLORITA MUECO and ROLANDO MUECO

  • G.R. No. 143231 October 26, 2001 - ALBERTO LIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 144237 October 26, 2001 - WINSTON C. RACOMA v. MA. ANTONIA B. F. BOMA

  • G.R. Nos. 146319 & 146342 October 26, 2001 - BENJAMIN E. CAWALING v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 146593 October 26, 2001 - UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ROBERTO V. ONGPIN

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 123075   October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO L. NUELAN

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 123075. October 8, 2001.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO NUELAN y LUDOVICE, Accused-Appellant.

    D E C I S I O N


    PARDO, J.:


    The case before the Court is an automatic review of the decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court, Camarines Norte, at Daet convicting accused Pedro Nuelan y Ludovice of three (3) counts of rape committed against his daughter, thirteen-year old Margie L. Nuelan, and sentencing him to death for each count, and to pay the offended party in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages, plus costs.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    On March 7, 1994, thirteen-year-old Margie L. Nuelan, assisted by her mother Lily Nuelan, filed with the Municipal Trial Court, Paracale, Camarines Norte a criminal complaint against her father, Accused Pedro Nuelan y Ludovice charging him with three (3) counts of rape. After preliminary investigation, on March 23, 1994, the court found probable cause against the accused and issued a warrant for his arrest without bail. 2 On the same day, March 23, 1994, the court transferred custody of the accused to the Municipal Jail Warden, Paracale, Camarines Norte. 3

    On April 14, 1994, provincial prosecutor of Camarines Norte Pascualita Duran-Cereno filed with the Regional Trial Court, Camarines Norte three (3) informations 4 against the accused for rape, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Criminal Case No. 8209

    "That on or about 9:00 o’clock in the morning of January 1, 1994 at Purok IV, Barangay Gumaus, municipality of Paracale, province of Camarines Norte and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused urged with bestial lust and by means of force and intimidation unlawfully, feloniously, and criminally, did then and there, commit sexual intercourse with his own daughter, Margie L. Nuelan, a girl of 13 years old against the will of said Margie L. Nuelan to her damage and prejudice.

    CONTRARY TO LAW." 5

    Criminal Case No. 8210

    "That on or about 11:00 o’clock in the evening of February 27, 1994 at Purok IV, Barangay Gumaus, municipality of Paracale, province of Camarines Norte and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused urged with bestial lust and by means of force and intimidation unlawfully, feloniously, and criminally, did then and there, commit sexual intercourse with his own daughter, Margie L. Nuelan, a girl of 13 years old against the will of said Margie L. Nuelan to her damage and prejudice.

    "CONTRARY TO LAW." 6

    Criminal Case No. 8211

    "That on or about midnight of March 4, 1994 at Purok IV, Barangay Gumaus, municipality of Paracale, province of Camarines Norte and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused urged by bestial lust and by means of force and intimidation unlawfully, feloniously, and criminally, did then and there commit sexual intercourse with his own daughter, Margie L. Nuelan, a girl of 13 years old against the will of Margie L. Nuelan to her damage and prejudice.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "CONTRARY TO LAW." 7

    On June 1, 1994, the accused, with the assistance of counsel de oficio Atty. Camillus Ayo pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. 8 On August 15, 1994, the accused entered into plea-bargaining. With the consent of the prosecution, the offended party and her mother, the trial court dropped Criminal Case No. 8209 on condition that the accused would plead guilty to Criminal Cases Nos. 8210 and 8211. 9 The trial court ordered the re-arraignment of the accused and the prosecution to present evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt with respect to Criminal Cases Nos. 8210 and 8211. 10 Upon re-arraignment on the same occasion, the accused assisted by his counsel pleaded guilty to the charges in Criminal Cases Nos. 8210 and 8211. Thereafter, Margie L. Nuelan and her elder sister, Agnes L. Nuelan, 11 testified for the prosecution. 12

    On August 17, 1994, after a searching inquiry on the voluntariness of the plea, the trial court found that accused did not fully comprehend the consequences of the plea of guilty. The accused thought that the two cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 8209 and 8210) were only for attempted rape, which he was willing to admit. The trial court allowed the accused to withdraw the improvident plea of guilt to Criminal Cases Nos. 8210 and 8211, and ordered the reinstatement of Criminal Case No. 8209. 13 It ordered the recall of prosecution witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused with respect to Criminal Case No. 8209. 14

    The prosecution presented Margie L. Nuelan, Agnes L. Nuelan and Dr. Virginia Barrameda-Mazo as witnesses, while the defense presented the accused himself.

    On July 25, 1995, the trial court rendered a consolidated decision, 15 the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "WHEREFORE, finding PEDRO NUELAN y LUDOVICE guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape charged against him in Criminal Cases Nos. 8209, 8210 and 8211 which is defined and punished under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659, and in the absence of any mitigating circumstances he is hereby sentenced as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. In Criminal Case No. 8209 — to suffer the DEATH penalty;

    2. In Criminal Case No. 8210 — to suffer the DEATH penalty; and

    3. In Criminal Case No. 8211 — to suffer the DEATH penalty;

    to pay the offended party the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS in moral damages and to pay the costs." 16

    Hence, this automatic review of the death sentences. 17

    On January 1, 1994, at around nine o’clock in the morning (9:00 a. m.), thirteen-year-old Margie Nuelan was cooking in their house located at Gumaus, Paracale, Camarines Norte. At that time, her younger siblings 18 were playing outside the house. Suddenly, the accused grabbed her and dragged her inside the room. Then, he removed her shorts and panty, as well as his pants and brief. The accused pushed her down, separated her legs, inserted his penis in her vagina and stayed there for about five (5) minutes. Margie cried and struggled, trying to free herself, but did not cry for help because her father threatened to kill her. 19

    On February 27, 1994, the accused repeated the rape. At around eleven o’clock in the evening (11:00 p. m.), Accused approached Margie while she was sleeping in the sala of their house. When she saw him, Margie ran to the bedroom and proceeded to the kitchen. Accused ran after her and when he caught her, he removed both their undergarments. He forcibly separated her legs, laid on top of her and inserted his penis in her vagina. All she could do was to struggle and cry. Accused threatened to kill her if she shouted for help. 20

    On March 4, 1994, Accused again took advantage of his daughter. At around twelve o’clock midnight (12:00 m.n.) while Margie was sleeping beside her younger siblings in the sala of the house, the accused undressed her, removed his undergarments, forcibly separated her legs and inserted his penis in her vagina. She struggled and cried. She could not cry for help since accused threatened to kill her. He even boxed her. During this time, Agnes, Margie’s elder sister, was inside the bedroom. 21

    On March 5, 1994, at around six o’clock in the morning (6:00 a. m.), Agnes asked Margie why she was crying during the night. After Agnes’ persistent inquiry, Margie confessed the bestial acts she suffered at the hands of their father. Agnes immediately relayed the incidents to their eldest brother, Gilbert. They accompanied Margie to the Jose Panganiban Hospital for medical examination, but no medical certificate was issued. 22

    On March 7, 1994, Margie went to Talobalib Hospital to be reexamined. Dr. Virginia Barrameda-Mazo examined Margie and issued a medical certificate with the following findings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. Multiple Linear Abrasions, about 2.5 cm in length, just above the wrists area, medial aspect, L.;chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    2. Linear abrasion, tendon of achiles (sic) area, R.

    3. Healed hymenal Tear, 12:00, 4:00, 6:00, and 8:00 position;

    4. The examining finger can go in and out of the introitus and vaginal canal with ease and without any pain experienced on the part of the patient;

    5. Gaping labia minora, and introitus is very visible on a lithotomy position.

    NOTE: Vaginal Smear for presence of sperm — result negative (done after 3 days).

    Above findings revealed that patient is no longer virgin. Slight physical injuries has been inflicted to the patient." 23

    Dr. Mazo testified that the hymenal lacerations could have been caused by sexual intercourse with deep penetration. She explained that the healed hymenal lacerations could have been inflicted on the dates 24 charged in the informations.25cralaw:red

    Accused Pedro Nuelan testified in his behalf. He stated that he had five (5) children 26 with his wife Lily. He denied the charges of rape committed on January 1, 1994 and February 27, 1994 and interposed the defense of alibi. At around nine o’clock in the morning of January 1, 1994, Accused testified that he was working at his friend’s house. 27 However, he claimed that he was having a drinking spree with his friends during the same period. 28 On February 27, 1994, at around eleven o’clock in the evening, Accused asserted that he was on night duty in a mining company where he worked, located about three (3) kilometers from their house. 29

    As to the rape committed on March 4, 1994, Accused admitted that he committed the crime because he was dead drunk at that time. He asked forgiveness from his family and regretted what he had done. He asked his family for help and to have the case dismissed, but the court did not allow it. 30

    In his sole assignment of error, Accused averred that the trial court erred in not appreciating the mitigating circumstances to reduce the death penalty imposed on him. Accused contended that the trial court gravely erred in failing to immediately inquire into the voluntariness of his plea of guilty in Criminal Cases Nos. 8210 31 and 8211. 32

    We find the contention meritorious.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Court observes that the manner by which the trial court, during the re-arraignment, conducted the inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the accused-appellant’s plea of guilty leaves much to be desired. 33 The trial court did not impress on the accused the full comprehension of the consequences of his plea of guilty. 34 Rule 116, Section 3 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure is explicit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Section 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense, reception of evidence. — When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the courts shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Under the formulation, three (3) things are enjoined on the trial court after a plea of guilty to a capital offense has been entered by the accused:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. The court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea;

    "2. The court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and

    "3. The court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires." 35

    This rule is mandatory. 36

    When accused-appellant was re-arraigned on August 15, 1994, the trial court failed to observe the required procedure of conducting a searching inquiry, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Atty. Intia, is your client ready for re-arraignment?

    "INTERPRETER:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    According to the accused, Your Honor, as he is to make his change of plea but if he is going to sentence life imprisonment, he prefers death sentence.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    But it depends upon the number of mitigating circumstances when the crime was committed.

    "ATTY. INTIA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    We submit this matter to the discretion of the Honorable Court.

    "COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    No. It is for the accused to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. This is a very serious offense, in fact I will require the Fiscal to prove.

    "ATTY. INTIA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    In view of the manifestation of the accused that he doesn’t want to be sentenced life imprisonment, instead death penalty, I think he is not in his right mind, Your Honor. I cannot give in to the request of the accused because of what he said. But as counsel, it is my duty to convey his wishes, Your Honor.

    "PROS. RAMOS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The duty of the counsel is to inform his client of the consequences.

    "ATTY. INTIA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I informed him already.

    "PROS. RAMOS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    So let him decide. The court cannot decide on that, whether he will plead guilty or not.

    "ATTY. INTIA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    But even the accused entered a plea of guilty, the court will order a hearing.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "PROS. RAMOS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Precisely.

    "COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases of capital offense. The prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt even if the accused entered a plea of guilty.

    "PROS. RAMOS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    But the primary witness has already testified, Your Honor, and he wish to change his plea of guilty, it is of no use anymore.

    "ATTY. INTIA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Your Honor please, I have already talked to the accused and he is willing to enter a plea of guilty to the last charge, in criminal case No. 8211, Your Honor. But the other two (2) remaining cases, Your Honor, he said he cannot admit. Only the criminal case no. 8211.

    "PROS. RAMOS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    We are willing to drop the first case, Criminal Case No. 8209, provided that he will enter a plea of guilty to remaining cases.

    "ATTY. INTIA:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    After presentation of the accused, he is now willing to enter a plea of guilty to Criminal Cases No. 8210 and 8211, Your Honor.

    "PROS. RAMOS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Your Honor, I am willing to drop the first case, with the consent of the offended party and her mother, Your Honor please, in Court today.

    "COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    With the consent of the prosecutor, the offended party and her mother in Criminal Case No. 8209 is considered DROPPED, and the accused is allowed to enter a plea of guilty to Criminal Cases No. 8210 and 8211.

    Alright, arraign the accused.

    We will proceed to the hearing of these cases.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "INTERPRETER:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The accused, assisted by his counsel Atty. Leo Intia, when re-arraigned, entered a plea of guilty to the charge in criminal cases No. 8210 and 8211." 37

    The plea of guilty that the accused-appellant improvidently entered is null and void. 38 The plea of guilt must be based on a free and informed will of the accused. Thus, the searching inquiry of the trial court must be focused on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea, and (2) the full comprehension of the consequences of the plea. 39

    On August 17, 1995, or two (2) days after the improvident plea was entered, it became apparent that accused did not fully comprehend what crimes he pleaded guilty to, as well as the consequences of his plea of guilty. Hence, counsel of accused moved for the withdrawal of the improvident plea. 40 Accused was willing to admit his guilt in Criminal Cases Nos. 8210 and 8211 because he thought the indictment were for attempted rape. Particularly, the proceedings on August 17, 1994, went as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Alright. Actually, there are three cases filed against you by your daughter Margie Nuelan?

    "A: Yes, Your Honor.

    "Q: And the first case was dropped because there was a plea bargaining the previous day, that was on August 15, 1994, wherein it was agreed by you and your counsel together with the fiscal and the offended party and her mother that that one case will be dropped and you will plead guilty to the other cases?

    "A: There was only one rape incident, your honor. The other rape cases were attempted only.

    "Q: But last Monday, August 15, you entered a plea of guilty to Crim. Cases Nos. 8210 and 8211 filed by your daughter Margie Nuelan which according to Information was committed on February 27, 1994 and March 4, 1994?

    "A: That is correct, your honor." 41

    x       x       x


    "COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Why did you say that you are amenable only to enter a plea of guilty to one case of rape because the other two (2) cases were only attempted?chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "A: I admit your honor, that the two (2) cases were attempts only but the last one (1) really did happen. The last one was consummated.

    "Q: So, you do not understand what you did last Monday August 15, when you entered a plea of guilty to two (2) consummated rape-not only attempted?

    "A: The reason, your honor, that I admitted that on Monday was because I wanted these cases to be finished immediately that’s why I admitted that last Monday even if that really did not happen, and besides, there is nobody to prove my innocence. There is no one who can disprove the accusations against me.

    "Q: But if you really committed one consummated rape and if you said you had committed two (2) attempted rapes, why did you enter a plea of guilty to the two (2) cases of consummated rape?

    "A: Because I wanted, your honor, that the penalty to be imposed on me be death penalty.

    "Q: So, you do not understand what you had done last Monday when you entered a plea of guilty to two (2) criminal cases of rape?

    "A: I only admitted it, your honor, even if it did not happen." 42

    The Court has carefully considered the inquiry that the trial court conducted. We find that it fell short of what was expected. A "searching inquiry" means more than informing cursorily the accused that he faces a jail term but also, the exact length of imprisonment under the law and the certainty that he will serve at the national penitentiary or a penal colony. Not infrequently indeed, an accused pleads guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment, or upon bad advice or because of promises of the authorities or parties of a lighter penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty of the judge to see to it that the accused does not labor under these mistaken impressions. 43

    In every case where the accused enters a plea of guilty to a capital offense, especially where he is ignorant with little or no education, the proper and prudent course to follow is to take such evidence as are available and necessary in support of the material allegations of the information, including the aggravating circumstances therein enumerated, not only to satisfy the trial judge himself but also to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether the accused really and truly understood and comprehended the meaning, full significance and consequences of his plea. 44

    After the accused withdrew the plea of guilty, the trial court did not re-arraign Accused-Appellant. Re-arraignment is necessary. It was evident that the accused misunderstood that the two (2) informations were indictments for attempted rapes.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    When life is at stake, we can not lean on the presumption that the accused understood his plea. We must be sure. 45 We cannot anchor our judgment on mere speculations and conjectures. 46

    The retaking of the accused’s plea is necessary. Arraignment is a formal procedure in a criminal prosecution "to afford an accused due process." 47 An arraignment is the means of implementing the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 48 Actual arraignment is an element of due process. 49 It is imperative that the accused is thus made fully aware of possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him. 50 Procedural due process requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be informed as to why he was indicted and what penal offense he has to face, to be convicted only on a showing that his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt with full opportunity to disprove the evidence against him. 51

    On August 17, 1995, the trial court issued an order reading:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It appearing from the searching inquiry upon the above named accused that he did not fully comprehend the consequences of his previous plea of guilty, the motion for withdrawal of the improvement plea of guilt, interposed by counsel for the accused is hereby GRANTED.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "Consequently, considering that the dropping of Crim. Case No. 8209 was subject to the condition that accused would enter a plea of guilty to the remaining two (2) criminal cases and that the same was part of the plea bargaining, said Crim. Case No. 8209 is hereby ordered REINSTATED, and the prosecution is allowed to present additional evidence and to recall the two (2) prosecution witnesses already presented to testify insofar as Crim. Case No. 82089 is concerned.

    "By agreement of the parties, let the foregoing cases be scheduled for hearing on August 25, 1994 at 8:30 in the morning.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    "SO ORDERED." 52

    Accused did not fully comprehend the consequences of a plea of guilty, or even what crimes he was pleading guilty to. Hence, the necessity of a re-arraignment and retaking of his plea. Judges must be more vigilant and "extra-solicitous" to ensure that the accused fully understood the nature and consequences of his plea of guilty, 53 otherwise the conviction would be set aside and the case remanded to the trial court for new arraignment. 54

    The importance of the court’s obligation cannot be overemphasized. One cannot dispel the possibility that the accused may have been led to believe that due to his voluntary plea of guilt, he may be sentenced to the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua and not death. Thus, there is a need for the trial court to take the necessary measures to see that the accused truly comprehended the meaning, full significance, and consequences of his plea. The failure of the trial court to perform its obligation is a ground to remand the case for rearraignment. 55

    Consequently, we remand the case to the court of origin for the proper re-arraignment of the accused before the capital punishment may be imposed. The judgment of conviction was void in the absence of a valid plea. There is no philosophy of punishment that allows the State to kill without any semblance of fairness and justice. 56

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court in Criminal Cases Nos. 8209, 8210 and 8211, convicting accused Pedro Nuelan y Ludovice of three (3) counts of rape committed against his daughter, Margie L. Nuelan, and sentencing him in each case to death is SET ASIDE.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Let the cases be remanded to the trial court for re-arraignment and further proceedings.

    Costs de oficio.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr. and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

    Kapunan and Panganiban, J., on official leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. In Criminal Cases Nos. 8209, 8210 and 8211, Decision, dated July 24, 1994, Judge Augusto T. Parcero, presiding.

    2. Original Record of Criminal Case No. 8209, pp. 10-11.

    3. Ibid., p. 15.

    4. Criminal Cases Nos. 8209, 8210 and 8211, Rollo, pp. 10-12.

    5. Rollo, p. 10.

    6. Ibid., p. 11.

    7. Rollo, p. 12.

    8. Ibid., p. 20.

    9. TSN, August 15, 1994, p. 6.

    10. Ibid., pp. 7-8.

    11. Sixteen (16) years old, second to the oldest child of accused Pedro Nuelan.

    12. TSN, pp. 8-43

    13. The reinstatement of the case is extremely doubtful. Having been dismissed after plea, to revive the case may be barred by the rule against double jeopardy.

    14. Original Record of Criminal Case No. 8209, p. 40.

    15. Rollo, pp. 19-33.

    16. Ibid., p. 33.

    17. On August 6, 1996, we accepted this case (Rollo, p. 37).

    18. Eulalia, six (6) years old, and Leo, four (4) years old, TSN, June 6, 1995, p. 3.

    19. TSN, August 15, 1994, pp. 10-12.

    20. Ibid., pp. 12-15.

    21. TSN, August 15, 1994, pp. 17-19.

    22. Ibid., pp. 33-36.

    23. Original Record, Criminal Case No. 8209, p. 5.

    24. January 1, February 27 and March 4, 1994.

    25. TSN, January 21, 1995, p. 7.

    26. Gilbert — 20 years old, Agnes — 14 years old, Margie — 14 years old, Eulalia — 6 years old and Leo — 4 years old.

    27. TSN, June 6, 1995, p. 4.

    28. Ibid., p. 5.

    29. Ibid., pp. 6-8.

    30. Ibid., p. 7.

    31. Rape committed on February 27, 1994.

    32. Rape committed on March 4, 1994.

    33. People v. Lakindanum, 364 Phil. 69, 74 [1999]; People v. Petalcorin, 180 SCRA 685, 692 [1989].

    34. People v. Petalcorin, supra, Note 33.

    35. People v. Bello, 316 SCRA 804, 811 [1999]; People v. Camay, 152 SCRA 401, 403 [1987].

    36. People v. de Luna, 174 SCRA 204 [1990].

    37. TSN, August 15, 1994, pp. 4-7.

    38. People v. Lakindanum, supra, Note 33; People v. Alicando, 321 Phil. 656 [1995].

    39. People v. Alicando, supra, Note 38.

    40. Regional Trial Court Records, p. 40.

    41. Regional Trial Court Decision, Rollo, p. 21, quoting from TSN, August 17, 1994, p. 6.

    42. Regional Trial Court Decision, Rollo, pp. 21-22, quoting from TSN, August 17, 1994, pp. 9-11 [Emphasis supplied].

    43. People v. Dayot, 187 SCRA 637 [1990].

    44. People v. Sevilleno, 365 Phil. 63, 73 [1999]; People v. Villacores, 97 SCRA 567, 573 [1980].

    45. People v. Alicando, supra, Note 38.

    46. People v. Bello, supra, Note 35, p. 813 [1999].

    47. Borja v. Mendoza, 77 SCRA 422, 428 [1977].

    48. Section 14 (2), 1987 Constitution; Borja v. Mendoza, supra, Note 47, p. 425.

    49. Nolasco v. Enrile, 139 SCRA 502, 512-513 [1985].

    50. Borja v. Mendoza, supra, Note 47, p. 426.

    51. Herrera, Remedial Law, Book IV, 1992 Edition, pp. 355-356.

    52. Regional Trial Court Records, p. 40.

    53. People v. Lakindanum, supra, Note 33; People v. de Guia, 177 SCRA 112, 124 [1989].

    54. People v. de Guia, supra, Note 53; People v. Alicando, supra, Note 38.

    55. People v. Abapo, 329 SCRA 513, 522-523 [2000].

    56. People v. Alicando, supra, Note 38.

    G.R. No. 123075   October 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO L. NUELAN


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED