79] [People v Ulit]

131799-901| 23 February 2004 | Arraignment| Callejo, Sr.| 

Petitioner: The People of the Philippines

Respondents: Feliciano Ulit y Tampoy

1. Office of the City Prosecutor - qualified rape 

3. RTC - guilty of 2 counts of statutory rape- death
 and 2 counts of acts of lasciviousness-from eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor in
its medium period, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty (20) days of reclusion temporal in
its medium period, as maximum
3. Sc- reclusion perpetua

Recit-Ready:  

Upon sworn statement ofComplaint of the victim Lucelle Serrano,an 11 year old girl, Four informations were  filed
against her uncle Feliciano Ulit, a brother of her mother’s mother her relative by consanguinity within the third civil
degree, two counts of rape and two counts of acts of lascioviousness while armed by knife by means of force,
violence and intimidation. The appellant entered his plea of guilty to the crime charge .The rtc sentenced him to
suffer death penalty

Issue: 

Whether or not the trial court erred in sentencing the accused with a death penalty despite his admission of guilt?
(Yes)

Held: 

Yes. the prosecution failed to prove the age of the victim by any means set forth like no birth certificate and similar
documents, and considering that the relationship of uncle and niece is not covered by any of the relationships
mentioned in Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, ( when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant,
descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the
offender.") The relationship of uncle and niece is not covered by any of the relationships mentioned.as amended,
the appellant can only be convicted of rape in its aggravated form, the imposable penalty for which is reclusion
perpetua to death.

There being no modifying circumstances attendant to the commission of the crimes, the appellant should be
sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua for each count of rape, conformably to Article 69 of the Revised Penal
Code.
As to the appellants plea of guilty was imprudently made
the trial court should conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea as mandated by Section 6, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. 
In People vs. Camay,
 this Court enumerated the following duties of the trial court under the rule:

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

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

3. The court must require the prosecution to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.
the trial court failed to make a searching inquiry into the appellant’s voluntariness and full comprehension of his
plea of guilty.

First. The trial court did not ask the appellant his reasons for changing his plea from not guilty to that of guilty and
the cogent circumstances that led him to decide to do so.
Second. It appears in the information filed by the Public Prosecutor that the appellant opted not to avail himself of
his right to a regular preliminary investigation and refused to execute a waiver. however the trial court did not ask
the appellant whether he was assisted by counsel when he was -brought to the office of the Pu-lic Prosecutor for
inquest investigation
Third. The Trial court also failed to ascertain from the appellant whether he was assisted -by counsel when he
executed his Sinumpaang Salaysay while detained at the -barangay hall. 
Fourth. The trial courtfailed to ask the appellant why he was pleading guilty to a rape committed in november 1996
when in his Sinumpaang Salaysay he confessed to having raped the victim only in february 1997 and march 2
1997
fifth. the court did not discuss the elements of the crime and aggravating circumstances in clear terms.
Sixth. it was not explained to him that his conviction carries with it civil liability. 
Seventh. Neither did the trial court inquire from the appellant's counsel whether the meaning and the
consequences of a guilty plea were explained to the appellant in a language or dialect known to and understood
by him.
Eight. The trial court failed to delve into and ascertain from the appellant his age educational attainment and
socioeconomic status.
Ninth. The trial court failed to ask the appellant to narrate the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident of
qualified rape.
Tenth. !the appellant was not asked if he desired to adduce evidence.