ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1996 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 91935 March 4, 1996 - RODOLFO QUIAMBAO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106043 March 4, 1996 - CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109645 March 4, 1996 - ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. TIRSO VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115365 March 4, 1996 - ESMENIO MADLOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118126 March 4, 1996 - TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-921 March 5, 1996 - AMPARO A. LACHICA v. ROLANDO A. FLORDELIZA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1009 March 5, 1996 - ALBERTO NALDOZA v. JUAN LAVILLES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 111501 March 5, 1996 - PHIL. FUJI XEROX CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 113930 March 5, 1996 - PAUL G. ROBERTS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115548 March 5, 1996 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1039 March 6, 1996 - FE ALBANO MADRID v. RAYMUNDO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. Nos. 112858-59 March 6, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RALPHY ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120193 March 6, 1996 - LUIS MALALUAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. CBD-174 March 7, 1996 - GIOVANI M. IGUAL v. ROLANDO S. JAVIER

  • G.R. No. 66555 March 7, 1996 - LEONCIO MEJARES, ET AL. v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95353-54 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO PAT

  • G.R. No. 109390 March 7, 1996 - JGB and ASSOCIATES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112445 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS V. PATROLLA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 113710 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND V. JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116011 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RHODESA B. SILAN

  • G.R. No. 117650 March 7, 1996 - SULPICIO LINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120905 March 7, 1996 - RENATO U. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95260 March 8, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO C. PRADO

  • G.R. No. 110983 March 8, 1996 - REYNALDO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2024 March 11, 1996 - SALVADOR T. CASTILLO v. PABLO M. TAGUINES

  • G.R. No. 108625 March 11, 1996 - ALLIANCE OF DEMOCRATIC FREE LABOR ORGANIZATION v. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113194 March 11, 1996 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119381 March 11, 1996 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. JOSE BRILLANTES

  • G.R. No. 96882 March 12, 1996 - EUTIQUIANO PAGARA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109800 March 12, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO N. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 114388 March 12, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO TRILLES, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-4-156 March 13, 1996 - IN RE: FERNANDO P. AGDAMAG

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1344 March 13, 1996 - VERONICA GONZALES v. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

  • G.R. No. 101332 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARO BERNAL

  • G.R. No. 101699 March 13, 1996 - BENJAMIN A. SANTOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104088-89 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE JAIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 108743 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNALDO B. DONES

  • G.R. No. 112193 March 13, 1996 - JOSE E. ARUEGO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112546 March 13, 1996 - NORTH DAVAO MINING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119073 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 120223 March 13, 1996 - RAMON Y. ALBA v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101070 March 14, 1996 - BALAYAN COLLEGES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102062 March 14, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104685 March 14, 1996 - SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119706 March 14, 1996 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73592 March 15, 1996 - JOSE CUENCO BORROMEO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94494 March 15, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO C. LAPURA

  • G.R. No. 103695 March 15, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105819 March 15, 1996 - MARILYN L. BERNARDO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106229-30 March 15, 1996 - LEOVIGILDO ROSALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108001 March 15, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111651 March 15, 1996 - OSMALIK S. BUSTAMANTE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115106 March 15, 1996 - ROBERTO L. DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114988 March 18, 1996 - CATALINO BONTIA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 117667 March 18, 1996 - INLAND TRAILWAYS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-5-42-MTC March 20, 1996 - QUERY OF JUDGE DANILO M. TENERIFE

  • G.R. No. 102360 March 20, 1996 - ROSITA DOMINGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111656 March 20, 1996 - MANUEL MANAHAN, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116665 March 20, 1996 - MELQUIADES D. AZCUNA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-1-07-RTC March 21, 1996 - JDF ANOMALY IN THE RTC OF LIGAO, ALBAY

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-10-06-SCC March 27, 1996 - IN RE: DEMASIRA M. BAUTE

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1071 March 28, 1996 - ELIZABETH ASUMBRADO v. FRANCISCO R. MACUNO

  • G.R. No. 104386 March 28, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR L. LEVISTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121424 March 28, 1996 - IN RE: MAURO P. MAGTIBAY v. VICENTE VINARAO

  • G.R. No. 90215 March 29, 1996 - ERNESTO ZALDARRIAGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94594 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO REDULOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96178-79 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ESMAQUILAN

  • G.R. No. 97785 March 29, 1996 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 99259-60 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO D. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 103525 March 29, 1996 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104296 March 29, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 106083-84 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUINTIN T. GARRAEZ

  • G.R. No. 106600 March 29, 1996 - COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109312 March 29, 1996 - PLACIDO MIRANDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109614-15 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRONICO GREGORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112346 March 29, 1996 - EVELYN YONAHA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112457-58 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CARTUANO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112678 March 29, 1996 - EDUARDO M . ESPEJO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112708-09 March 29, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112718 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VLADIMIR L. CANUZO

  • G.R. Nos. 113519-20 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO F. PANLILIO

  • G.R. Nos. 114263-64 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN JENN PORRAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115988 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO V. LIAN

  • G.R. No. 116734 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY B. LAURENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116792 March 29, 1996 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117055 March 29, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 117618 March 29, 1996 - VIRGINIA MALINAO v. LUISITO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118509 March 29, 1996 - LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118870 March 29, 1996 - NERISSA Z. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119193 March 29, 1996 - NEMENCIO GALVEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120715 March 29, 1996 - FERNANDO R. SAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121527 March 29, 1996 - MARCELO L. ONGSITCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 119073   March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO DIAZ

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 119073. March 13, 1996.]

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALBERTO DIAZ, Accused-Appellant.

    The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

    Public Attorney’s Office for Accused-Appellant.


    SYLLABUS


    REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PROCEDURE TO BE OBSERVED WHEN THE ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY TO A CAPITAL OFFENSE; NOT COMPLIED IN CASE AT BAR. — Our criminal rules of procedure strictly provide the step procedure to be followed by courts in cases punishable by death. Obviously, the reason for this strictness is to assure that the State makes no mistake in taking life except the life of the guilty. Unfortunately, it seems that the trial court was unaware of the proper procedure to follow in cases where an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense. For nowhere in the records does it appear that the trial court informed accused of his right to present evidence, if he so desires. In fact, Accused categorically avowed that he did not know his PAO lawyer could represent and defend him in his case if he chooses to go to trial. This was admitted by accused when he testified. Neither did the court require the prosecution to present evidence proving the guilt of accused and his precise degree of culpability. Most of the questions propounded by the trial court, the prosecutor and the defense counsel sought only to inquire about the voluntariness of accused’s plea and his comprehension of the consequences thereof. After accused affirmed that he was aware of the gravity of his offense and the penalty therefor, and confirmed that he pleaded out of his own volition, the trial court immediately proceeded to render judgment convicting him of the crime charged. Except for the Information reciting the elements of the crime of Rape, and the plea of guilt, no evidence, testimonial or documentary, was adduced by the prosecution to prove the detailed events leading to the filing of said Information against accused. Aside from accused, no other witnesses were called to testify in contravention of Section 3, Rule 116 of the New Rules on Criminal Procedure which has done away with the old practice of convicting an accused based solely on his judicial admission of guilt. It is high time for members of the trial bench to familiarize themselves with the new rule for its non-observance is delaying the speedy administration of justice in capital offenses with great unfairness to the victims.


    D E C I S I O N


    PUNO, J.:


    In an Information, dated November 16, 1994, 1 appellant ALBERTO DIAZ was charged with the heinous crime of RAPE 2 for having carnal knowledge with his 14-year old daughter, complainant DORILEEN DIAZ, against the latter’s will. The Information reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That on or about the 24th day of September 1994, in the early morning, in the Poblacion of the Municipality of Rizal, Province of Palawan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with lewd design and by using force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one DORILEEN V. DIAZ, his daughter, against her will, to her damage and prejudice.

    "CONTRARY TO LAW."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Arraignment and pre-trial was set on January 13, 1995. Accused was assisted by Atty. Lucia Judy Solinap, of the Public Attorney’s Office, Department of Justice. Prior to actual arraignment, Atty. Solinap manifested in open court that during her interview with accused, the latter intimated to her that he would enter a plea of GUILTY to avoid expenses of litigation. 3

    After said manifestation, Accused was arraigned in Tagalog. He pleaded guilty. The trial court then directed the prosecution to put accused on the stand to determine whether he fully comprehended the legal consequences of his plea.

    Accused, a 41-year old farmer, testified that he understood the Information that was read to him. He admitted raping his daughter twice and affirmed that his plea of guilt was voluntary. He claimed he was aware of the gravity of the offense he committed and that, as a consequence, he would be meted the death penalty. Accused also testified that he was arrested on October 3, 1994 and has been detained for five (5) months. During his detention, he has been eating and sleeping well and appeared to be in full control of his senses at the time of his arraignment.

    Convinced that accused understood the consequences of his plea and on the sole basis of accused’s admission that he committed the crime, the trial court proceeded to render a Decision 4 against accused, imposing on him the penalty of death, pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659.

    Accused did not appeal his conviction. Nonetheless, the case was elevated to this Court on automatic review.

    In his Brief, 5 accused maintains that the trial court erred in immediately rendering a decision convicting him of the offense charged without requiring the prosecution to first prove his guilt and the precise degree of his culpability, as required under the Rules on Criminal Procedure. The Solicitor General fully agreed with accused’s position and interposed no objection to the remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings. 6

    We find merit in the submission of the Solicitor General.

    Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure mandates:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. — When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In People v. Camay, 7 we outlined the mandatory procedure to be followed by trial courts after an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

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

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

    "3. The court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.

    "The amended rule is a capsulization of the provisions of the old rule and pertinent jurisprudence. We had several occasions to issue the caveat that even if the trial court is satisfied that the plea of guilty was entered with full knowledge and meaning of its consequences, the Court must still require the introduction of evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt and the degree of culpability of the defendant. This is the proper norm to be followed not only to satisfy the trial judge but also to aid the Court in determining whether or not the accused really and truly comprehended the meaning, full significance, and consequences of his plea."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Moreover, in People v. Alicando, 8 we ruled." . . that under the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, a conviction in capital offenses cannot rest alone on a plea of guilt. Section 3 of Rule 116 requires that after a free and intelligent plea of guilt, the trial court must require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant and the precise degree of his culpability beyond reasonable doubt. This rule modifies prior jurisprudence that a plea of guilt even in capital offenses is sufficient to sustain a conviction charged in the information without need of further proof. The change is salutary for it enhances one of the goals of the criminal process which is to minimize erroneous conviction. We share the stance that ‘it is a fundamental value determination of our system that it is far worse to convict an innocent person than let a guilty man go free.’"

    In the case at bar, the records reveal that the proceedings conducted by the trial court after accused’s arraignment fell short of the requirements mandated by law. At the outset, we note that the trial court directed the prosecution to put accused on the stand for the sole purpose of inquiring whether accused fully comprehended the legal consequences of his plea of guilt. The proceedings transpired as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "INTERPRETER:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The accused pleaded Guilty, your Honor.

    "COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Enter a plea of Guilty. Place him on the witness stand to determine whether he realize the significance of that plea of Guilty.

    x       x       x


    (After accused was placed under oath . . .)

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (to Prosecutor Guayco)

    Propound questions, Fiscal.

    x       x       x


    PROSECUTOR GUAYCO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (to accused Diaz)

    x       x       x


    Q Did you really understand what was read to you as the charged (sic) (w)hen you pleaded guilty, Mr. Witness?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q Your plea of Guilty, Mr. Witness, is spontaneous, voluntary and you were not force(d) to admit crime charged against you?

    A Voluntary, sir.

    Q Do you understand, Mr. Witness, that with your plea of Guilty, you will be sentenced to suffer the penalty of death?

    A Yes, sir.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (to accused)

    Q And inspite of that you insist in (sic) your plea of Guilty?

    A I could not do anything, your Honor.

    x       x       x


    PROSECUTOR GUAYCO:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (to Court)

    I have no more question, your Honor.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (to Atty. Solinap)

    Question, counsel.

    ATTY. SOLINAP:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (to accused Diaz)

    Q Did you really understand the consequence of your plea of guilty to the charged (sic) against you?

    A I do not know, ma’am.

    Q But a while ago you said you understood the reading of the Information against you?

    A Yes, ma’am.

    Q Then you said you understood the reading of the Information against you?

    A Yes, ma’am.

    Q Has anybody intimidated you in this case?

    A Nobody, ma’am.

    Q Are you aware that with your plea of Guilty to this case, you will be punished to death and then your child will become fatherless and your wife will have no husband?

    A That is what they want, ma’am.

    Q To reiterate, are you really insisting in your plea of Guilty to the accusation against you?

    A I am pleading Guilty, ma’am.

    x       x       x


    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (to accused Diaz)

    Q Now, you entered a plea of Guilty because sincerely you know that you committed the crime of rape charged against you by your daughter?

    A Yes, your Honor.

    Q So because of that because you ravished your daughter by raping her, you are suppose to accept whatever penalty the Court may impose upon you according to law?

    Q I could not do anything but accept, your Honor.

    x       x       x


    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (to accused)

    Q . . . (I)s it correct that in the affidavit of your daughter, you started to ravish her since she was only eight years old?

    A No, your Honor.

    Q How many times have you raped her?

    A Two times, your Honor.

    x       x       x


    ATTY. SOLINAP:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    (to accused)

    x       x       x


    Q Again, Mr. Witness, you are willing to take the consequences penalty of death?

    A Sa kanila po ang desisyon.

    Q When you mentioned "sa kanila," what do you mean?

    A To my family who filed against me, ma’am." 9

    In the aforequoted portions of the transcript, Accused testified that he understood the Information read to him and knew he would be sentenced to death upon conviction. Upon further questioning, however, he vacillated and stated that he did not understand the consequences of his plea. Moreover, Accused, more than once, stated that "he could not do anything" but plead guilty and accept the consequences of his plea. Despite this tone and expression of resignation, the trial court proceeded on some other points and failed to inform accused of his options and rights, i.e., (1) he could choose to plead "not guilty," in which case, they would go on trial, with both the prosecution and the defense presenting their respective evidence; that throughout the trial, he would still retain the free services of his PAO lawyer, OR; (2) he may choose to plead guilty, whereupon, the prosecution would still be required to present evidence to prove his guilt and degree of culpability beyond reasonable doubt; documentary evidence would be adduced and other witnesses shall be called to testify; and, he would still be entitled to avail of the free legal services of his PAO lawyer. The transcripts of the proceedings, however, clearly reveal that at no time did the trial court explain to accused the above options, as accused thought "he could not do anything" but enter a plea of guilty.

    Our criminal rules of procedure strictly provide the step by step procedure to be followed by courts in cases punishable by death. Obviously, the reason for this strictness is to assure that the State makes no mistake in taking life except the life of the guilty. Unfortunately, it seems that the trial court was unaware of the proper procedure to follow in cases where an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense. For nowhere in the records does it appear that the trial court informed accused of his right to present evidence, if he so desires. In fact, Accused categorically avowed that he did not know his PAO lawyer could represent and defend him in his case if he chooses to go to trial. This was admitted by accused when he testified, thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    "Q Are you aware that under our law, the prosecution (is required) to present evidence and do you accept whatever testimony your child or your spouse would give in this case against you?

    A I am expecting it from them, ma’am.

    Q Are you aware that this representation could defend you in your case?

    A I do not know, ma’am."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Neither did the court require the prosecution to present evidence proving the guilt of accused and his precise degree of culpability. Most of the questions propounded by the trial court, the prosecutor and the defense counsel sought only to inquire about the voluntariness of accused’s plea and his comprehension of the consequences thereof. After accused affirmed that he was aware of the gravity of his offense and the penalty therefor, and confirmed that he pleaded out of his own volition, the trial court immediately proceeded to render judgment convicting him of the crime charged. Except for the Information reciting the elements of the crime of Rape, and the plea of guilt, no evidence, testimonial or documentary, was adduced by the prosecution to prove the detailed events leading to the filing of said Information against accused. Aside from accused, no other witnesses were called to testify in contravention of section 3, Rule 116 of the New Rules on Criminal Procedure which has done away with the old practice of convicting an accused based solely on his judicial admission of guilt. 10 It is high time for members of the trial bench to familiarize themselves with the new rule for its non-observance is delaying the speedy administration of justice in capital offenses with great unfairness to the victims.

    IN VIEW WHEREOF, the appealed Decision in Criminal Case No. 12088, convicting accused ALBERTO DIAZ of the crime of Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and the case is REMANDED to the trial court which is directed to comply strictly with section 3, Rule 116 and the various decisions of this Court on the matter. No costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr. and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, p. 3.

    2. Criminal Case No. 12088, RTC of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City, Branch 49, presided by Judge Eustaquio Gacott, Jr.

    3. TSN, January 13, 1995, p. 3.

    4. id., pp. 6-9.

    5. id., pp. 24-31 filed by the Public Attorney’s Office, Department of Justice.

    6. See Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Appellee’s Brief, Rollo, pp. 46-56.

    7. G.R. No. L-51306, July 29, 1987, 152 SCRA 401.

    8. G.R. No. 117487, December 12, 1995.

    9. TSN, supra, pp. 4-11.

    10. People v. Albert, G.R. No. 114001, December 11, 1995; People v. Camay, supra.

    G.R. No. 119073   March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO DIAZ




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED