Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > October 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14189 October 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIO YAMSON, ET AL.

109 Phil 793:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14189. October 25, 1960.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EUTIQUIO YAMSON and PRIMO ROMERO, Defendants-Appellants.

Ricardo D. Galano for Appellants.

Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor C. D. Quiason for Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PLEA OF GUILTY; ADMISSION OF ALL MATERIAL ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT. — A plea of guilty is an admission of all the material facts alleged in the complaint (U.S. v. Barba, 29 Phil., 206; U.S. v. Santiago, 35 Phil., 20).

2. ID.; ID.; WHEN SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN CONVICTION. — A plea of guilty when formally entered in arraignment, is sufficient to sustain a conviction for any offense charged in the information, without the necessity of requiring additional evidence, since by so doing, the accused himself has supplied the necessary proof (People v. Valencia, 59 Phil., 42; People v. Palupe, 69 Phil., 702).


D E C I S I O N


PER CURIAM:


For killing a co-inmate in the Bilibid Prisons at Muntinglupa, Rizal, Eutiquio Yamson and Primo Romero were charged before the Court of First Instance of Rizal with the crime of Murder in an information which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 28th day of February, 1958, in the municipality of Muntinlupa, province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, who are convicts confined in the New Bilibid Prisons by virtue of final judgments rendered against them, at night time, circumstance deliberately sought to insure success in the commission of the crime, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping and aiding one another, with evident premeditation and treachery, armed with deadly weapons, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously kill Maximo Reyes, also a convict confined in the same institution, by stabbing him with improvised weapons, pointed and/or sharpened, thereby inflicting upon him multiple stab wounds which directly caused his death;

That the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism is present in the commission of the crime in that the crime was committed after the accused have been convicted by final judgments and while they were serving the said judgments in the New Bilibid Prisons.

Contrary to law with the following aggravating circumstances:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. That the crime was committed with insult to public authorities;

2. That the crime was committed by armed men or persons who insure or afford impunity;

3. Use of superior strength or means was employed to weaken the defense;

4. Cruelty;

5. That the crime was committed where public authorities were engaged in the discharge of their duties."cralaw virtua1aw library

At their arraignment on March 15, 1958, Atty. Jose Atienza, counsel de oficio of the appellants, moved to withdraw his appearance and the appellants manifested their desire to secure the assistance of their own counsel. The trial court reset the arraignment to April 16, 1958 in the morning, but enjoined Atty. Atienza to continue to appear for them until the appearance of the new counsel. The arraignment for April 16, 1958, was transferred to April 21, 1958, on which date both accused, with the assistance of Atty. Atienza, entered a plea of guilty.

On May 31, 1958, the trial court rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime as charged in the information, which also alleges that the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism is present together with five other aggravating circumstances. There is only one mitigating circumstance present, that is the plea of guilty, but since this is not enough to offset the above aggravating circumstances, the Court hereby sentences the accused to suffer the maximum penalty provided by law which is death and to indemnify the heirs of the offended party in the sum of P3,000.00 and to pay his corresponding share of the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view of the penalty imposed the case was automatically elevated to this Court, for review. Counsel de oficio, Atty. Ricardo D. Gallano, raised eight (8) errors which pose only the propriety and correctness of taking into consideration the aggravating circumstances described in the information and the imposition of the death penalty. The arguments of counsel center on the assumption that the aggravating circumstances did not attend the commission of the offense and that no evidence was adduced to prove them. Counsel further discourses on the alleged improvidence of the plea of guilty on the part of the appellants, with veiled insinuation that said appellants were not fully informed of the consequences of this plea.

We are fully convinced that before the appellants entered their plea of guilty, they were apprised of the import and consequences thereof. They did not plead, without the assistance of counsel. Counsel de oficio was all the time at hand. The presumption of regularity and faithfulness in the performance of official functions, on the part of counsel de oficio, has not been overcome. No evidence appears on record that he had failed in his duty to advise the appellants of what to do. It would be creating a dangerous precedent to say now that the advice to plead guilty by the appointed counsel de oficio was improvident. The period embraced from April 21, 1958, date of arraignment, and May 31, 1958, date of promulgation of the sentence, could have given the appellants or counsel, ample time to move, or complain if their plea of guilty was improvidently given.

The issues raised by counsel in his brief were already answered by us in a number of cases. In U.S. v. Barba, 29 Phil., 206, and U.S. v. Santiago, 35 Phil., 20, it was held that a plea of guilty is an admission of all the material facts alleged in the complaint or information. In the subsequent cases, we ruled that a plea of guilty when formally entered in arraignment is sufficient to sustain a conviction for any offense charged in the information, without the necessity of requiring additional evidence, since by so pleading, the defendant himself has supplied the necessary proof (People v. Valencia, 59 Phil., 42; People v. Palupe, 69 Phil., 702.) It matters not even of the offense is capital for the admission (plea of guilty) covers both the crime as well as its attendant circumstances (People v. Acosta, 98 Phil., 642; 52 Off. Gaz. [4] 1930). The allegation that the defendants did not get any practical benefit in pleading guilty to the crime charged, is not a plausible argument to dub the plea of guilty, as improvidently made. As well observed by the Solicitor General, "The matter of pleading guilty to a charge is not a game. An accused pleads guilty because he believes that he is guilty. The advantages that he may get by so pleading are mere secondary considerations. Using the very argument of appellants that their plea of guilty did not improve their situation we ask, what advantage would appellant achieve by undergoing a trial?"

The excuse that they might not have understood the import of their plea of guilty, as the aggravating circumstances were described in the information in the technical language of the law, is untenable, to say the least. They were assisted by counsel and the presumption is that said counsel informed them of the possible aftermaths of their plea.

It is alleged that the trial court should have required additional evidence after the plea of guilty, to show the existence of the aggravating circumstances described in the information. In answer it would be well to reproduce hereunder, the pronouncements of this Court, regarding the suggested practice of calling witnesses or presenting evidence, in support of the accused’s plea of guilty.

". . . (1) The essence of the plea of guilty in a criminal trial is that the accused, on arraignment, admits his guilt freely, voluntarily, and with full knowledge of the consequences and meaning of his act, and with a clear understanding of the precise nature of the crime or crimes charged in the complaint or information.

(2) Such a plea of guilty, when formally entered on arraignment, is sufficient to sustain a conviction of any offense charged in the information, even a capital offense, without the introduction of further evidence, the defendant having himself supplied the necessary proof.

(3) There is nothing in the law in this jurisdiction which forbids the introduction of evidence as to the guilt of the accused, and the circumstances attendant upon the commission of the crime, after the entry of a plea of ‘guilty.’

(4) Having in mind the danger of the entry of improvident pleas of ‘guilty’ in criminal cases, the prudent and advisable course, especially in cases where in grave crimes are charged, is to take additional evidence as to the guilt of the accused and the circumstances attendant upon the commission of the crime.

(5) The better practice would indicate that, when practicable, such additional evidence should be sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction independently of the plea of guilty, or at least to have no room for reasonable doubt in the mind of either the trial or the appellate court as to the possibility of a misunderstanding on the part of the accused as to the precise nature of the charges to which he pleaded guilty.

(6) Notwithstanding what has been said it lies in the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge whether he will take evidence or not in any case wherein he is satisfied that a plea of ‘guilty’ has been entered by the accused, with full knowledge of the meaning and consequences of his act.

(7) But in the event that no evidence is taken, this court, if, called upon to review the proceedings had in the court below, may reverse and send back for a new trial, if, on the whole record, a reasonable doubt arises as to whether the accused did in fact enter the plea of ‘guilty’ with full knowledge of the meaning and consequences of the act. . . ." (U.S. v. Jamad, 37 Phil., 305-318.)

Undoubtedly, the better practice in serious cases like the one at bar, is already stated in the above quoted pronouncements, but the trial judge must have been fully satisfied that the appellants entered the plea of guilty, with full knowledge of the meaning and consequences of their act, more so when, as in this case, the lives of the appellants were involved. The record does not reveal that appellants or counsel ever complained or protested at the time of arraignment that they did not understand the information and the effect of their plea of guilty.

Conceding for the purposes of argument that the aggravating circumstances of use of superior strength or means employed to weaken the defense is absorbed by or inherent in treachery, the situation would not alter, because there would still be five aggravating circumstances, offset by one mitigating circumstance of the plea of guilty.

Conformably with the foregoing, we find the judgment appealed from to be in accordance with the evidence and the law. The same should be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-15709 October 19, 1960 - IN RE: DAMASO CAJEFE, ET AL. v. HON. FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 743

  • G.R. Nos. L-12483 & L-12896-96 October 22, 1960 - NICOLAS JAVIER, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE DE LEON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 751

  • G.R. No. L-15477 October 22, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO MEDRANO, SR.

    109 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-14111 October 24, 1960 - NARRA v. TERESA R. DE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 764

  • G.R. No. L-14524 October 24, 1960 - FELIX MOLINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. L-14625 October 24, 1960 - IN RE: EULOGIO ON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 772

  • G.R. No. L-15192 October 24, 1960 - PNB v. TEOFILO RAMIREZ:, ET AL.

    109 Phil 775

  • G.R. No. L-15275 October 24, 1960 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO., INC.

    109 Phil 780

  • G.R. No. L-16006 October 24, 1960 - PERFECTO R. FRANCHE, ET AL. v. HON. PEDRO C. HERNAEZ, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-11766 October 25, 1960 - SOCORRO MATUBIS v. ZOILO PRAXEDES

    109 Phil 789

  • G.R. No. L-14189 October 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIO YAMSON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. L-15233 October 25, 1960 - JUAN L. CLEMENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-15326 October 25, 1960 - SEVERINO SAMSON v. DIONISIO DINGLASA

    109 Phil 803

  • G.R. No. L-15502 October 25, 1960 - AH NAM v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. L-16038 October 25, 1960 - AJAX INT’L. CORP. v. ORENCIO A. SEGURITAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 810

  • G.R. No. L-16404 October 25, 1960 - SAMPAGUITA PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-16429 October 25, 1960 - ALEJANDRO ABAO v. HON. MARIANO R. VlRTUCIO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-14079 October 26, 1960 - METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. v. EDUVIGES OLEDAN NIRZA

    109 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-14157 October 26, 1960 - NEGROS OCCIDENTAL MUNICIPALITIES v. IGNATIUS HENRY BEZORE, ET AL.

    109 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-14724 October 26, 1960 - VICTORINO MARIBOJOC v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 833

  • G.R. Nos. L-14973-74 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN CASUMPANG

    109 Phil 837

  • G.R. Nos. L-15214-15 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE C. CRUZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. L-11302 October 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. AGUILAR, ET AL.

    109 Phil 847

  • G.R. No. L-12659 October 28, 1960 - ABELARDO LANDINGIN v. PAULO GACAD

    109 Phil 851

  • G.R. No. L-14866 October 28, 1960 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. L-15573 October 28, 1960 - RELIANCE SURETY & INS. CO. INC. v. LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-17144 October 28, 1960 - SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR. v. SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-8178 October 31, 1960 - JUANITA KAPUNAN, ET AL. v. ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL.

    109 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11536 October 31, 1960 - TOMAS B. VILLAMIN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 896

  • G.R. No. L-11745 October 31, 1960 - ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRlAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. L-11892 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKAN LABAK, ET AL.

    109 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11991 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFIRIO TAÑO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-12226 October 31, 1960 - DAMASO DISCANSO, ET AL. v. FELICISIMO GATMAYTAN

    109 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-12401 October 31, 1960 - MARCELO STEEL CORP. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    109 Phil 921

  • G.R. No. L-12565 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO HERAS v. CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY

    109 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-13260 October 31, 1960 - LINO P. BERNARDO v. EUFEMIA PASCUAL, ET AL.

    109 Phil 936

  • G.R. No. L-13370 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: CHAN CHEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    109 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-13666 October 31, 1960 - FORTUNATO LAYAGUE, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION PEREZ DE ULGASAN

    109 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. L-13677 October 31, 1960 - HUGH M. HAM v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 949

  • G.R. No. L-13875 October 31, 1960 - DANIEL EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-13891 October 31, 1960 - JOAQUIN ULPIENDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. L-13900 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS ABLAO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 976

  • G.R. No. L-14174 October 31, 1960 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.

    109 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. L-14362 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANI ACANTO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 993

  • G.R. No. L-14393 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CANTILAN LUMBER COMPANY

    109 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-14474 October 31, 1960 - ONESIMA D. BELEN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-14598 October 31, 1960 - MARIANO ACOSTA, ET AL. v. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1017

  • G.R. No. L-14827 October 31, 1960 - CHUA YENG v. MICHAELA ROMA

    109 Phil 1022

  • G.R. No. L-14902 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    109 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. 15086 October 31, 1960 - NARRA v. FELIX M. MAKASIAR, ETC., ET AL.

    109 Phil 1030

  • G.R. No. L-15178 October 31, 1960 - ROSENDA FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. CATALINO V. FERNANDEZ

    109 Phil 1033

  • G.R. No. L-15234 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO PIMENTEL v. JOSEFINA GOMEZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 1036

  • G.R. No. L-15253 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: ODORE LEWIN v. EMILIO GALANG

    109 Phil 1041

  • G.R. Nos. L-15328-29 October 31, 1960 - RUBEN L. VALERO v. TERESITA L. PARPANA

    109 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-15391 October 31, 1960 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS v. DR. LUIS N. ALANDY

    109 Phil 1058

  • G.R. No. L-15397 October 31, 1960 - FELIPE B. OLLADA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

    109 Phil 1072

  • G.R. No. L-15434 October 31, 1960 - DIONISIO NAGRAMPA v. JULIA MARGATE NAGRAMPA

    109 Phil 1077

  • G.R. No. L-15459 October 31, 1960 - UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1081

  • G.R. No. L-15594 October 31, 1960 - RODOLFO CANO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    109 Phil 1086

  • G.R. No. L-15643 October 31, 1960 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CORP. v. ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

    109 Phil 1093

  • G.R. No. L-15695 October 31, 1960 - MATILDE GAERLAN v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO

    109 Phil 1100

  • G.R. No. L-15697 October 31, 1960 - MARIA SALUD ANGELES v. PEDRO GUEVARA

    109 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-15707 October 31, 1960 - JESUS GUARIÑA v. AGUEDA GUARIÑA-CASAS

    109 Phil 1111

  • G.R. No. L-15745 October 31, 1960 - MIGUEL TOLENTINO v. CEFERINO INCIONG

    109 Phil 1116

  • G.R. No. L-15842 October 31, 1960 - DOÑA NENA MARQUEZ v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN

    109 Phil 1121

  • G.R. No. L-15926 October 31, 1960 - BERNABE RELLIN v. AMBROSIO CABlGAS

    109 Phil 1128

  • G.R. No. L-16029 October 31, 1960 - STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. LORETO PAZ

    109 Phil 1132

  • G.R. No. L-16098 October 31, 1960 - ANDREA OLARTE v. DIOSDADO ENRIQUEZ

    109 Phil 1137

  • G.R. No. L-16160 October 31, 1960 - MAGDALENA SANGALANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    109 Phil 1140

  • G.R. Nos. L-16292-94, L-16309 & L-16317-18 October 31, 1960 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR., CO. v. YARD CREW UNION

    109 Phil 1143

  • G.R. No. L-16672 October 31, 1960 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ

    109 Phil 1152