View full case

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO GUMIMBA Y MORADANTE

FACTS:

Appellant Rogelio Gumimba and co-accused Ronie Abapo were charged with the crime of rape with homicide of an eight-year-old child. Witnesses testified that appellant confessed to raping and killing his niece, and repeated his confession during an investigation. Appellant later changed his plea from not guilty to guilty. The prosecution presented evidence, including the testimony of a physician who conducted the autopsy on the victim's body and found evidence of rape. Appellant also testified against his co-accused. The defense presented alibi witnesses and argued that there was no evidence to establish Abapo's guilt. The RTC found appellant guilty and sentenced him to death, while acquitting Abapo. The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the appellant's conviction with a modification to the damages awarded to the victim's heirs.

The trial court failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the voluntariness of appellant's guilty plea, but found independent evidence to sustain the conviction. The crime of rape with homicide is punishable by death. The trial court did not strictly observe the requirements for a plea of guilty to a capital offense. It failed to ascertain important details from the accused and did not rule out coercion or duress during the investigations.

The Court conducted an inquiry to ensure that the accused made the plea freely and voluntarily. The defense counsel was asked about any intimidation or duress on the accused and whether the meaning and consequences of a guilty plea were fully explained. Information about the accused's background was sought to assess his capacity to make an informed plea. The Court emphasized the importance of informing the accused about the penalty and clarifying any mistaken impressions. The Court also ensured that the accused understood the crime and its elements. The questions were required to be in a language known to the accused. The trial judge also had the duty to satisfy himself of the accused's guilt. The accused changed his plea and the prosecution presented evidence to prove the gravity of the crime. The accused was called to the witness stand and questioned by both prosecution and defense.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the court erred in allowing the prosecution to present evidence to prove the gravity of the crime.

  2. Whether the court erred in allowing the accused to testify and give a second testimony.

  3. Whether the appellant's earlier plea of guilty was improvident.

  4. Whether the appellant's change of plea to not guilty was voluntary and made with full comprehension.

  5. Whether the trial court erred in relying on appellant's second testimony, which implicated his co-accused, despite finding it unworthy of credence.

  6. Whether the testimonies of the witnesses Magallano and Arañas regarding appellant's confession are admissible as evidence.

  7. Whether the appellant's assertion of an impossible crime is valid based on his conjecture that the victim was already dead when he attacked her.

  8. Whether the penalty of death can be imposed considering the passage of R.A. No. 9346.

  9. Whether the civil liability of the appellant should be modified.

RULING:

  1. No, the court did not err in allowing the prosecution to present evidence to prove the gravity of the crime. The court correctly ruled that evidence should be presented to ensure justice for the victim.

  2. No, the court did not err in allowing the accused to testify and give a second testimony. The accused's second testimony, which constitutes another judicial confession, cured the deficiencies of his earlier plea of guilty.

  3. The appellant's earlier plea of guilty was deemed improvident because his subsequent testimony contradicted his previous plea. The court found the appellant's testimony to be more credible and reliable as it provided a detailed account of the events, including his participation in the rape and killing of the victim.

  4. The appellant's change of plea to not guilty was made voluntarily and with full comprehension. His testimony demonstrated his understanding of the charges against him and his decision to withdraw his previous guilty plea.

  5. The trial court did not err in relying on appellant's second testimony to establish his guilt. Even though the second testimony implicated his co-accused, there is no evidence to discredit its use as a basis for establishing appellant's guilt. Appellant's plea of guilty is not the sole basis for his conviction, as there is sufficient and credible evidence to prove his commission of the offense charged.

  6. The testimonies of witnesses Magallano and Arañas regarding appellant's confession are admissible as evidence. While they cannot serve as proof of an extrajudicial confession because it was not in writing, they are considered independently relevant statements. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statements, the fact that the statements were made is relevant, and their truth or falsity is immaterial. The testimonies are admissible as corroborative evidence and are not barred by the hearsay rule.

  7. The appellant's assertion of an impossible crime is not valid. His claim that the victim was already dead when he attacked her contradicts his judicial confession, and his speculation on the cause of death is unfounded. The Court found the appellant guilty based on the circumstances and testimonies presented during the trial.

  8. The penalty of death cannot be imposed due to the passage of R.A. No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of death penalty in the Philippines. Therefore, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

  9. The civil liability of the appellant is modified in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. He is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the following amounts: P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as temperate damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An accused's plea of guilty can be disregarded if there is evidence to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  • A second testimony given consciously by the accused can cure the deficiencies of an earlier plea of guilty.

  • A plea of guilty may be considered improvident if subsequent evidence contradicts the plea.

  • A change of plea to not guilty must be voluntary and with full comprehension of the charges against the accused.

  • Convictions based on a guilty plea are set aside only if the plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If there is sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused, the conviction must be sustained.

  • The hearsay rule does not apply to independently relevant statements. Such statements are admissible as evidence, and their truth or falsity is immaterial.

  • The testimony of a prosecution witness should be given full faith and credit if there is no evidence of dubious reason or improper motive for the witness to falsely implicate the accused.

  • The assertion of an impossible crime requires more than mere conjecture or speculation.

  • The penalty of death cannot be imposed in the Philippines due to the passage of R.A. No. 9346.

  • The civil liability of a convicted person may be modified based on prevailing jurisprudence.