PEOPLE V. MADRAGA Buena, J. November 15, 2000 Automatic Review of the Decision of the RTC RATIO DECIDENDI: n a !

"ea of #ui"t$ for a ca!ita" offense, the accuse% ma$ on"$ as& the case to be reman%e% to the court of ori#in for further an% a!!ro!riate !rocee%in#s !ursuant to 'ec. (, Ru"e 11) of the New Ru"es on Crimina" *roce%ure, if in fact, the accuse% !"ea%e% #ui"t$ to the commission of a ca!ita" offense. A con%itiona" !"ea of #ui"t$, or one entere% sub+ect to the !rovision that a certain !ena"t$ be im!ose% u!on him, is e,uiva"ent to a !"ea of not #ui"t$ an% wou"%, therefore, re,uire a fu""-b"own tria" before +u%#ment ma$ be ren%ere%. QUICK FACTS: .a%ra#a char#e% for 2 counts of ra!e b$ his %au#hter. /e !"ea%e% #ui"t$ for the first count but %i% not state the necessar$ %etai"s of fi"iation that wou"% ,ua"if$ the ra!e to a ca!ita" offense. A"so, the it is consi%ere% a con%itiona" !"ea since the miti#atin# circumstances of !"ea of #ui"t$ an% %run&enness were raise%. FACTS: Ro%o"fo 0"in# .a%ra#a was char#e% with two counts of ra!e committe% a#ainst his own 1)$ear o"% %au#hter, 1e C. .a%ra#a. 0ne was committe% on .a$ 12, 1225 an% the other one on Au#ust 23, 122). At the arrai#nment, accuse%-a!!e""ant, with the assistance of Att$. Banico, entere% se!arate !"eas of not #ui"t$ for each case. Thereafter, the tria" !ro!er of the cases was set to November 14, 12, an% 20, 122). 0n November 14, 122), Att$. Banico move% that the$ be #iven time u! to December to ta"& with com!"ainant5s mother so that the accuse% wi"" !"ea% #ui"t$ to the first case, but wi"" see& for the %ismissa" of the secon% case. The com!"ainant5s mother, who was in Court, manifeste% that she %oes not a#ree to the !ro!osition. Tria" of the cases was re-set to December 2, ( 6 3, 122). 0n December 2, 122), counse" for the accuse% manifeste% that the accuse% was wi""in# to enter a !"ea of #ui"t$ to the crime of ra!e, which was committe% in the month of .a$, 1225, !rovi%e% that the other case be trie% on another %ate. Thereafter, the !rosecution !resente% its evi%ence which consiste% of the !rivate com!"ainant5s testimon$ an% the me%ica" certificate issue% b$ Dr. Ni"o Baran%ino. *rivate com!"ainant5s testimon$7 81e .a%ra#a, 1) $ears o"%, is the %au#hter of Ro%o"fo .a%ra#a, a tric$c"e %river. /er mother, 1"or%e"ina .a%ra#a, was in 'abah, .a"a$sia, wor&in# as a %omestic he"!er. 89hen her mother "eft for .a"a$sia, 1e an% her brothers an% sisters sta$e% with their #ran%father, :uis Cotamco 'r., at Ca""e Bisa$a. 0n the other han%, Ro%o"fo .a%ra#a remaine% at the fami"$ resi%ence in Basi"an. 8'ometime in Januar$ 1225, Ro%o"fo .a%ra#a too& his chi"%ren from their #ran%father. 8'ometime in .a$ 1225, at 12700 mi%ni#ht, Ro%o"fo .a%ra#a se;ua""$ abuse% 1e, in one of the rooms of the fami"$ resi%ence. 80n the thir% ni#ht after the ra!e, Ro%o"fo .a%ra#a re!eate% his bestia" act towar% her own

%au#hter an% %i% it ever$ ni#ht thereafter. 80n Au#ust 23, 122), 1"or%e"ina .a%ra#a arrive% from .a"a$sia. The !resence of her mother #ave 1e .a%ra#a enou#h coura#e to re!ort to her the se;ua" abuses committe% a#ainst her b$ her father. 81e .a%ra#a was brou#ht to the %octor, an% her me%ica" e;amination confirme% that she was se;ua""$ mo"este%. 1e .a%ra#a, re!orte% the matter to the !o"ice authorities The tria" court foun% .a%ra#a #ui"t$ of ra!e. The !"ea of #ui"t$ of the accuse% bein# offset b$ his bein# %run& %urin# the commission of the crime, which accor%in# to the com!"ainant, her father is not a habitua" %rin&er, cannot be ta&en into consi%eration in his favor. 1ree :e#a" Assistance <rou! fi"e% A!!e""ant=s Brief7 Accuse%-a!!e""ant was %enie% %ue !rocess. The !"ea of #ui"t is nu"" an% voi% as the tria" court vio"ate% 'ection (, Ru"e 11) of the 1245 Ru"es on Crimina" *roce%ure. A!!e""ant conten%s that he was i""e#a""$ arreste%, because there was no warrant of arrest issue% for his arrest. 9orse, a!!e""ant avers, his ri#ht to !re"iminar$ investi#ation was not observe%, a"thou#h there is no showin# that he waive% his ri#ht thereto. A!!e""ant further a""e#es that there was irre#u"arit$ in the fi"in# of the information in that a crimina" com!"aint was fi"e% on 'e!tember 10, 122). /owever, in the 0r%er of the Court %ate% 0ctober >, 122), it mentione% an information not attache% to the recor%s of the case. The tria" court %irecte% the !rosecution to submit the reso"ution which became the basis for the fi"in# of the a""e#e% information. A reso"ution %ate% 0ctober 4, 122) was submitte% b$ the !rosecution on 0ctober 1>, 122) in com!"iance with the 0r%er %ate% 0ctober >, 122). The reso"ution was issue% on"$ on 0ctober 4, 122), hence, a!!e""ant conc"u%es that the same cou"% not have been the basis for the a""e#e% information ?assumin# such information e;ists@ which was obvious"$ fi"e% ear"ier.

ISSUE: 90N the !"ea of #ui"t$ of the accuse% is va"i% DECISION: A!!e""ant <A :TB HELD: The contentions of 1:A< have no merit. n the recent case of *eo!"e vs. <a""eno, this Court he"% that an accuse%, as in this case, is esto!!e% from ,uestionin# an$ %efect in the manner of his arrest if he fai"s to move for the ,uashin# of the information before the tria" court, or if he vo"untari"$ submits himse"f to the +uris%iction of the court b$ enterin# a !"ea, an% b$ !artici!atin# in the tria". 9ith re#ar%s to the absence of !re"iminar$ investi#ation, this Court ru"e% in 'ancian#co, Jr. vs. *eo!"e an% cite% in :arrana#a vs. Court of A!!ea"s, that the absence of !re"iminar$ investi#ation %oes not affect the courts +uris%iction over the case. Nor %oes it im!air the va"i%it$ of the ?com!"aint@ or, otherwise, ren%er it %efective. The contention of the accuse% throu#h 1:A<, that the !"ea of #ui"t$ is voi% because the tria" +u%#e fai"e% to con%uct a searchin# in,uir$ into the vo"untariness an% fu"" com!rehension of the accuse%=s !"ea of #ui"t$ to the ca!ita" offense, wou"% have been correct were it not for the circumstance that accuse%-a!!e""ant %i% not, in fact, !"ea% #ui"t$ to a ca!ita" offense in the first !"ace. 0n this matter, Att$. Banico correct"$ !ointe% out that on"$ the first !ara#ra!h of the com!"aint mentions the a#e of the !rivate com!"ainant an% the re"ationshi! of the accuse% to

the !rivate com!"ainant. Therefore, sai% com!"aint char#es on"$ sim!"e ra!e un%er Art. ((5, for which the !ena"t$ is on"$ rec"usion !er!etua, an% not for ra!e un%er R.A. >)52, ,ua"ifie% b$ the circumstance that the offen%er is the father of the victim who is a minor, for which the !ena"t$ is %eath. n other wor%s, since the a!!e""ant %i% not !"ea% #ui"t$ to a ca!ita" offense, he cannot !ro!er"$ invo&e 'ec. (, Ru"e 11), an% *eo!"e vs. Cstomaca, to have this case reman%e% to the tria" court for com!"iance with sai% ru"e. Accuse%-a!!e""ant entere% a !"ea of #ui"t$, but it a!!ears from the recor%s of the !rocee%in#s before the court that the same was a con%itiona" !"ea, because a!!e""ants counse" ar#ue% that the miti#atin# circumstances of !"ea of #ui"t$ an% %run&enness shou"% be a!!reciate% in favor of the a!!e""ant. 'ai% counse" was a!!arent"$ unaware that the miti#atin# circumstances of !"ea of #ui"t$, an% the fact that the a!!e""ant was %run& when he committe% the crime, cannot be a!!reciate% in the "atters favor because a !"ea of #ui"t$ wou"% not, un%er an$ circumstance, affect or re%uce the %eath sentence. The a!!e""ant !"ea%e% u!on a char#e of sim!"e ra!e. The !ena"t$ for sim!"e ra!e un%er Art. ((5 of the Revise% *ena" Co%e is rec"usion !er!etua, a sin#"e in%ivisib"e !ena"t$. t a!!ears that sai% counse" is a"so not aware that un%er Artic"e )( of the Revise% *ena" Co%e, in a"" cases in which the "aw !rescribes a sin#"e in%ivisib"e !ena"t$, it sha"" be a!!"ie% b$ the courts re#ar%"ess of an$ miti#atin# or a##ravatin# circumstances that ma$ have atten%e% the commission of the %ee% e;ce!t where there is a !rivi"e#e% miti#atin# circumstance of minorit$ of the accuse% un%er Art. )4, an% when the crime committe% is not who""$ e;cusab"e un%er Art. )2 neither of which is the case here. 9hi"e the recor%s %o not show that a!!e""ant entere% his !"ea with the !roviso that a certain !ena"t$ be im!ose% u!on him, this can be inferre% from the ar#uments ma%e b$ his counse" %urin# the hearin# on December 2, 122), an% in the a!!e""ants brief fi"e% b$ sai% counse", as&in# that a!!e""ant be entit"e% to the benefit of the !"ea. 9e wou"%, thus, assume that a!!e""ant ma%e a con%itiona" !"ea because this assum!tion wou"% be more favorab"e to the accuse%. A con%itiona" !"ea of #ui"t$, or one entere% sub+ect to the !rovision that a certain !ena"t$ be im!ose% u!on him, is e,uiva"ent to a !"ea of not #ui"t$ an% wou"%, therefore, re,uire a fu""-b"own tria" before +u%#ment ma$ be ren%ere%. There was a fu"" b"own tria" con%ucte%. The !rosecution !resente% evi%ence to !rove the commission of the crime as char#e% in the Com!"aint. The victim testifie% an% was crosse;amine%. An e;amination of the victims testimon$ shows that she testifie% in a cate#orica", strai#htforwar%, s!ontaneous an% fran& manner, an% remaine% consistent. The Court fin%s the victims testimon$ to be natura" an% consistent with human nature an% the norma" course of thin#s. A ra!e victim who testifies in a cate#orica", strai#htforwar%, s!ontaneous an% fran& manner, an% remains consistent, is a cre%ib"e witness. A"thou#h no other evi%ence was !resente% b$ the !rosecution, in ra!e cases, the accuse% ma$ be convicte% so"e"$ on the testimon$ of the victim, !rovi%e% that such testimon$ is cre%ib"e, natura", convincin# an% consistent with human nature an% the norma" course of thin#s.The Court fin%s that the tria" court correct"$ foun% the a!!e""ant #ui"t$ be$on% reasonab"e %oubt of the crime of ra!e.