ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

G.R. No. 129299; 15 November 2000; 344 SCRA 628 – PEOPLE v. MADRAGA
BUENA

Madraga was sentenced to death for the rape of his minor daughter, for which he pleaded guilty. Upon automatic review,
he questioned the absence of a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of his plea. The Court held
that he could not invoke that rule because (contrary to the ruling of the trial court) he did not actually plead guilty to a capital
offense. First, he gave a conditional plea of guilt, equivalent to plea of not guilty, because he submitted such plea subject
to the appreciation of mitigating circumstances. Second, the circumstances that would have qualified his crime to be a
capital offense were not alleged properly in the complaint, and so he could only be convicted of simple rape.

DOCTRINE
Where the accused did not plead guilty to a capital offense, he cannot properly invoke Sec. 3, Rule 116 requiring
the court to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the accused’s plea of guilty.
A conditional plea of guilty, or one entered subject to the provision that a certain penalty be imposed upon him, is
equivalent to a plea of not guilty and would require a full-blown trial before judgment may be rendered.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Rodolfo Oling Madraga (Rodolfo), accused-appellant
Fe Madraga (Fe), Rodolfo’s daughter, his victim

FACTS
1. CRIME: Rape, 2 counts (19 May 1995, 24 August 1996)
2. COMPLAINT:
a. Par. 1: The undersigned complainant, a minor of 16 years of age, under oath, accuses her father, Rodolfo Oling
Madraga, of the crime of Rape, committed as follows:
b. Par. 2: All the details constituting the crime. [Condensed version: Rape by sexual intercourse, committed under
the influence of liquor and by means of force and intimidation against complainant who was then sleeping.]
3. PLEA upon ARRAIGNMENT: Not guilty. Counsel moved to be given more time before trial to talk with Fe’s mother,
so Rodolfo would plead guilty to the first case but seek dismissal of the second Motion granted.
4. TRIAL:
a. Fe’s testimony: When her mother left for Malaysia, she and her siblings stayed with their grandfather while
Rodolfo stayed at their family residence. He then took them from their grandfather and forced them to stay at
their house. He then raped his daughter in one of the rooms, did it again the third night after, and did it every
night thereafter. Fe reported the rapes to her mother when the latter returned from Malaysia. They went to the
doctor, who confirmed that she was molested, and they went to the police.
b. Her medical certificate confirming molestation was presented in evidence.
5. RTC: Madraga guilty of RAPE against 16 y/o daughter. Sentenced to DEATH. (NOTE: It was mentioned that his plea
of guilty was offset by his intoxication which was admitted to be not habitual, but that it cannot be taken into consideration
in his favor. Death penalty is mandatory in this case.) Hence the automatic review at the SC level.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. W/N Madraga was denied due process – NO [not the important issue, but just in case]
a. Illegally arrested because there was no warrant issued for his arrest?
i. SC: He is already estopped from questioning any defect in his arrest because he failed to move for the
quashing of the info and he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court.
b. Right to preliminary investigation not observed although not waived?
i. SC: The absence of PI does not affect the court’s jurisdiction or the validity of the complaint.
c. Irregularity in the filing of the information?
i. Complaint was filed Sept. 10, 1996. The order of the court (dated October 7) mentioned an information
not attached to the records of the case. The basis of the information was a resolution dated October 8
(and submitted October 17
2. W/N the case should be remanded for failure of the judge to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness
and full comprehension of Madraga’s plea of guilty (Sec. 3, Rule 116) – NO
The contention would have been correct had Madraga pleaded guilty to a capital offense. However, he
pleaded guilty to a complaint that charged only simple rape. This was simple rape under Art. 335 of the RPC
punishable by RP, and not rape under RA 7659 qualified by relationship punishable by death.
1
 For the rape to be punishable by death, the info/complaint. must allege the qualifying circumstances of relationship
and minority. Here, these circumstances were mentioned in the complaint but only in the opening statement (par. 1) of
the complaint. They should have been stated in the “cause of the accusation” (par. 2). The omission is prejudicial to the
right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the charge against him.
Madraga’s plea was actually a conditional plea of guilty; his counsel had argued that 1) the plea of guilty and 2)
non-habitual intoxication should be appreciated in his favor. (Counsel was mistaken; a plea of guilt would not affect a
death sentence.)
ANYWAY, he really pleaded guilty to simple rape, punishable by RP, and even in this case it would be applied
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances (single indivisible penalty rule, Art. 63 RPC). We shall
assume he made a conditional plea because this would be favorable to him. This would be equivalent to a plea
of not guilty and would require a full-blown trial before judgment may be rendered.
QUESTION: Was a full-blown trial conducted? YES, and the evidence was sufficient to convict him.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
RTC decision AFFIRMED insofar as it finds Madraga guilty of rape, and is MODIFIED as follows: penalty is reduced to RP,
accused must pay victim P50k indemnity and P50k moral damages.