PEOPLE v CEREDON
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding accused-
FACTS:
On September 18th, 2000, victim AAA revealed to DDD (her
sister), Giselle (friend), and Teresa (teacher) that she was raped
by her brother, the appellant, Elmer Ceredon. Together, they
went to the barangay captain who told them to report to the
police.
Policemen were dispatched and brought the appellant to the
station.
The victim accused the appellant of raping her 10 times during
the second confrontation. The appellant then admitted that he
raped his sister 10 ties and asked for forgiveness. The victim,
however, could no longer forgive him as her heart has hardened
like stone.
The appellant was indicted for 10 counts of rape (1995 x5, 1996
x2, 1998 x2, 2000 x1).
The trial court convicted appellant on all ten counts of rape,
sentencing him to suffer the death penalty in each of the 10
criminal Informations.
Appellant contends that the Informations against him do not
sufficiently charge the offenses committed because the exact
dates were not alleged. He added that he was convicted by his
plea of guilty.
ISSUE/S:
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on an
improvident plea of guilty?
Assuming arguendo that there was no improvident plea of
guilty, whether or not the trial court erred in convicting accused-
appellant considering that said Informations failed to
sufficiently establish the dates of the crimes with particularity?
Assuming arguendo that there was no improvident plea of
guilty, whether or not the trial court gravely erred in imposing
the death penalty upon the accused-appellant?
Assuming further that the prosecution has sufficiently
established the dates of the crimes, whether or not the trial court
erred in imposing the death penalty as the qualifying
circumstance that the accused is her brother was not properly
alleged?
RULING:
The rule where the accused desires to plead guilty to a capital
offense, the court is to observe the following: it must make
investigate the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of the accused’s plea, they must require the
prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt, and the court
must ask the accused if he would want to present evidence on
his behalf. Since there is no concrete rule on how a trial judge
may go about the matter of a proper “searching inquiry”
regarding the rule above, it is incumbent upon a trial judge to
determine and be convinced that the plea of the guilty was
voluntarily made and its consequences were fully comprehended
by the accused.
However, appellant was not convicted because of his plea of
guilty, but on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. The
trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Convictions based on
pleas of guilt to capital offenses have been set aside because of
their improvidence. This is also the case when such plea is the
only basis for a judgment.
course of the trial, especially his arraignment. However, he
chose to remain silent and never lifted a finger to question the
Information. He is deemed to have waived whatever objections
he had and now cannot seek affirmative relief. Furthermore,
objections to the Information’s form cannot be made for the first
time on appeal.

The trial court explained that the victim was only 10 years old in
1995 and 11 in 1996. It was natural for her not to remember the
dates, especially when they were horrifying and negative times.

The date or time of rape need not be alleged with precision. It is

enough for the Information/Complaint to state that the crime was
done at a near possible time. Failure to allege the exact date does
not render the Information defective, much less void.

An Information is valid if it distinctly states the elements of the

offense and the constitutive acts or omissions. The exact date is
not an essential element of it.

Thus, in rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered

is the occurrence of the rape, not the time. The date or time is
not a material ingredient, because the gravamen of the crime is
carnal knowledge of a woman through force and
intimidation. Since the precise time has no substantial bearing
on its commission, the date or time need not be stated with
absolute accuracy. It is sufficient that the complaint or
information states tha the crime as been committed at any time
as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.

It was already too late for appellant to question the sufficiency

of the Information. He had all the time to raise this during the