People vs.

Feliciano Ulit (2004)

Summary Cases:

● The PEOPLE vs Feliciano Ulit

Subject: Aside from the improvident plea of guilt, the court should have ample proof to predicate the
accused’s conviction; Testimony of the victim not hearsay evidence; To qualify rape, minority and
relationship must concur

Facts:

Lucelle Serrano filed four informations against her uncle Feliciano Ulit for having carnal knowledge with
her. She testified that one evening, she was awakened when she felt someone kissing her on the cheek.
When she opened her eyes, she saw her uncle Feliciano armed with a balisong. He poked the weapon
on the left side of her neck and warned her that if she told her parents, he would kill her. He removed her
panties and undressed himself and mounted on her. He successfully had carnal knowledge with her.
From then on, he would kiss her whenever her parents were out of the house. This incident happened in
three other instances.

Believing that Feliciano had been abusing their daughter, Lucelle’s parents brought her to the Barangay
Chairman. Lucelle told the barangay chairman that Feliciano sexually abused her. A complaint was
therefore filed against him.

Feliciano was brought to the barangay hall. The Sinumpaang Salaysay was prepared in the Office of the
Barangay Chairman in which Feliciano admitted that he raped Lucelle despite her resistance, and that
he threatened to kill her and her family if she divulged the incidents to her parents. Feliciano signed his
statement in the presence of the barangay chairman and the barangay tanods. From there, he was
brought to the police station where a complaint for rape and acts of lasciviousness was filed against him.
A police from the Women’s Desk took the sworn statements of Lucelle. She conducted the custodial
investigation of Feliciano who was without counsel during which the latter admitted having raped her.
When the case was called for trial, he manifested that he was changing his plea from “not guilty” to
“guilty”.

The lower court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for two counts of acts of lasciviousness and
statutory rape, sentencing him to suffer death penalty. The case was brought to the court for automatic
appeal. Feliciano, for his part did not appeal the case but only pleads that he be spared the death
penalty.

Held:
| Page 1 of 4
Aside from the improvident plea of guilt, the court should have ample proof to predicate the
accused’s conviction

1. As a rule, the Court has set aside convictions based on pleas of guilty in capital offenses because of
its improvidence, and when such plea is the sole basis of the condemnatory judgment. However, where
the trial court receives, independently of his plea of guilty, evidence to determine whether the accused
committed the crimes charged and the precise degree of his criminal culpability, he may still be
convicted if there is ample proof on record, not contingent on the plea of guilty, on which to predicate
conviction.

2. In this case, the prosecution had already rested its case when Feliciano decided to change his plea. In
fact, the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion that the evidence it had presented be considered
proof of the degree of culpability of Feliciano.

Testimony of the victim not hearsay evidence

3. A hearsay evidence is meant that kind of evidence which does not derive its value solely from the
credence to be attributed to the witness herself but rests solely in part on the veracity and competence of
some persons from whom the witness has received the information. It signifies all evidence which is not
founded upon the personal knowledge of the witness from whom it is elicited, and which, consequently,
is not subject to cross-examination. The basis for the exclusion appears to lie in the fact that such
testimony is not subject to the test which can ordinarily be applied for the ascertainment of truth of
testimony, since the declarant is not present and available for cross-examination.

4. In criminal cases, the admission of hearsay evidence would be a violation of the constitutional
provision while the accused shall enjoy the right to confront and cross-examine the witness testifying
against him. Generally, the affidavits of persons who are not presented to testify on the truth of the
contents thereof are hearsay evidence. Such affidavit must be formally offered in evidence and accepted
by the court; otherwise, it shall not be considered by the court for the simple reason that it shall consider
such evidence formally offered and accepted.

5. In this case, Lucelle testified on and affirmed the truth of the contents of her sworn statement. She
narrated how and when Feliciano raped and subjected her to lascivious acts. She was even
cross-examined by Feliciano’s counsel and answered clarificatory questions.

To qualify rape, minority and relationship must concur

| Page 2 of 4
6. Art. 335 states that the death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed and the
victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent
of the victim.

7. This provision requires that the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship must concur in
order to qualify the crime of rape and warrant the imposition of the death penalty. These circumstances
must be specifically alleged in the information and must be established with certainty. In this case, the
information established that Feliciano is an uncle and a relative by consanguinity within the third civil
degree. The same is specific enough to satisfy the special circumstance of relationship.

8. The same cannot however be said with respect to the age of the victim. The court has already set out
certain guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or a qualifying circumstance:

a. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of
the certificate of live birth of such party.

b. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal
certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.

c. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or
otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a member of
the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting
pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule
130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances:

1. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that
she is less than 7 years old;

2. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that
she is less than 12 years old;

3. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that
she is less than 18 years old.

d. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's
mother or relatives concerning the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided
| Page 3 of 4
 that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.

e. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of
the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.

f. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.

9. In this case, no birth certificate or any similar authentic document was presented and offered in
evidence to prove Lucelle’s age. While she testified that she was 11 years old when she was twice raped,
the same will not suffice. He was only found guilty of two counts of rape and was sentenced to the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.

| Page 4 of 4