Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > April 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-14783 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL P. AMA, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-14783. April 29, 1961.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCIAL AMA Y PEREZ, ET AL., Defendants. MARCIAL AMA Y PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Honorio V. Garcia and Bernardo Abesamis, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; ARRAIGNMENT; PLEA OF GUILTY; DUTY OF COUNSEL TO INFORM ACCUSED OF REAL IMPORT OF THE CHARGE. — When an accused is arraigned in connection with a criminal charge the only duty of the court is to inform him of its nature and cause so that he may be able to comprehend it, as well as the circumstances attendant thereto. When the charge is of serious nature it becomes the imperative duty of his counsel not only to assist him during the reading of the information but also to explain to him the real import of the charge so that he may fully realize the gravity and consequences of his plea. It is not the duty of the court to apprise him of what the nature of the penalty to be meted out to him might if he would plead guilty to the charge, its duty being limited to have him informed of the nature and cause thereof.


D E C I S I O N


PER CURIAM:



On October 16, 1958, Marcial Ama y Perez, Ernesto de Jesus and Alejandro Ramos were charged with murder before the Court of First Instance of Rizal in an information the pertinent portions of which read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on or about the 27th day of August, 1958, in the New Bilibid Prison, municipality of Muntinlupa, province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, armed with deadly weapons to wit: sharp-pointed instruments, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab one Almario Bautista, thereby inflicting upon the latter stab wounds on the different parts of his body, and as a result of which, said Almario Bautista died instantaneously.

"That the accused are quasi-recidivist having committed the abovementioned felony while serving their respective sentences after having been convicted of final judgment.

"That the crime was committed in the presence of public authorities who were then engaged in the discharge of their duties."cralaw virtua1aw library

After the accused pleaded not guilty, upon arraignment, the trial court set the case for hearing on November 25, 1958. On the same date, however, De Jesus and Ramos moved for postponement on the ground that they were asking the fiscal to reinvestigate their case, which motion was granted. Marcial Ama y Perez, on the other hand, moved that he be permitted to withdraw his former plea of not guilty and substitute it for that of guilty. Granting said motion, the court directed that the information be read and explained again to him, after which Marcial Ama, with the assistance of his counsel de oficio, spontaneously and voluntarily pleaded guilty as charged.

Then, counsel for the accused moved that the minimum penalty be imposed in view of his plea of guilty, which motion was objected to by the prosecution, contending that since the special aggravating circumstance of quasirecidivism is present which cannot be offset by the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, the imposable penalty should be the maximum or death. And after the fiscal had submitted proof relative to the presence of the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information, the court rendered decision sentencing Marcial Ama y Perez to death penalty, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P6,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. Whereupon, the case was elevated to this Court for review pursuant to Section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court.

The main error assigned by counsel is that the lower court erred in allowing appellant to change his plea of not guilty to that of guilty without informing him that his plea cannot offset the aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism alleged in the information as to obviate the imposition of death penalty. According to defense counsel, had the trial court informed appellant that despite his plea of guilty he would still be sentenced to death, he would have chosen to go to trial no matter how slim might be his chance of being acquitted. Counsel further avers that the attorney who assisted appellant in the lower court committed an oversight in advising him to plead guilty overlooking the provisions of Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code on quasi-recidivism, while the lower court erred in sentencing him to death relying merely on his plea of guilty.

There is no merit in this appeal. When an accused is arraigned in connection with a criminal charge the only duty of the court is to inform him of its nature and cause so that he may be able to comprehend it, as well as the circumstances attendant thereto. 1 And when the charge is of a serious nature it becomes the imperative duty of his counsel not only to assist him during the reading of the information but also to explain to him the real import of the charge so that he may fully realize the gravity and consequences of his plea. But there is nothing in the law that imposes upon the court the duty to apprise him of what the nature of the penalty to be meted out to him might be if he would plead guilty to the charge, its duty being limited to have him informed of the nature and cause thereof. In the instant case, the lower court did just that. In fact, it did even more. Considering the gravity of the charge it asked the fiscal to produce the evidence in his possession relative to the aggravating circumstance alleged in the information so that appellant’s counsel may peruse it, and this was done without any objection on his part, and thereafter, the court rendered its decision. The error that counsel now imputes to the lower court is, therefore, untenable. Indeed, if appellant expressed his desire to plead guilty it is for no other reason than that his conscience persuaded him to do so, and so he has to suffer its consequences.

With regard to counsel’s contention that the lower court erred in convicting appellant merely on his plea of guilty without requiring the fiscal to produce evidence in support of the charge, suffice it to quote hereunder what we said in a recent case:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"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 appear on record that he had failed in his duty to advice 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 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 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 if 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., 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?’

x       x       x


"Undoubtedly, . . . 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." (People v. Yamson and Romero G.R. No. L-14189, October 25, 1960.)

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Section 1(b), Rule 111, Rules of Court.




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






April-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 439 April 12, 1961 - LEDESMA DE JESUS-PARAS v. QUINCIANO VAILOCES

  • G.R. No. L-14158 April 12, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14324 April 12, 1961 - IN RE: WILLIAM LI YAO v. NARCISA B. DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15705 April 15, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DY CHAY

  • G.R. No. L-15861 April 15, 1961 - LIM GIOK v. BATAAN CIGAR AND CIGARETTE FACTORY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-13325 April 20, 1961 - SANTIAGO GANCAYCO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-15102 April 20, 1961 - ALFREDO GARCHITORENA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15950 April 20, 1961 - GERVACIO DAUZ v. FELIPE ELEOSIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16235 April 20, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS MAGDALUYO

  • G.R. No. L-16473 April 20, 1961 - FELISA QUIJANO v. JACINTO TAMETA

  • G.R. No. L-16739 April 20, 1961 - VICENTE PENUELA, ET AL. v. ERNESTO HORNADA

  • G.R. No. L-16777 April 20, 1961 - QUINTIN CHAN v. JUAN B. ESPE

  • G.R. No. L-14711 April 22, 1961 - SMITH, BELL & CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE & MANILA RAILROAD CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-10367 April 25, 1961 - MARY MCD. BACHRACH v. PHILIPPINE TRUST CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12602 April 25, 1961 - LUIS PINEDA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12918 April 25, 1961 - SANTIAGO BALMONTE v. JULIAN MARCELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15123 April 25, 1961 - GENERAL SHIPPING CO., INC. v. SATURNINO C. PINOON

  • G.R. No. L-15957 April 25, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ESPIRITU

  • G.R. No. L-16051 April 25, 1961 - FERNANDO GOCHOCO, ET AL. v. CHANG HIOK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16733 April 25, 1961 - MANUELA MENDOZA ET AL. v. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD CO.

  • G.R. No. L-17046 April 25, 1961 - JUAN ADUAN, ET AL. v. PANTALEON ALBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11406 April 26, 1961 - MARIANO J. SANTOS v. ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-12822 April 26, 1961 - LIM BUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-12836 April 26, 1961 - MANILA TRADING AND SUPPLY CO. v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13143 April 26, 1961 - DEMETRIO CARPENA, ET AL. v. LUCIANO MANALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14756 April 26, 1961 - EMILIANO BALADJAY v. ZOILO CASTRILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15381 and 82 April 26, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA MAYDIN

  • G.R. No. L-15410 April 26, 1961 - MANUEL M. ANTONIO v. MAURO SAMONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15415 April 26, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO ABACITE, ET AL. .

  • G.R. No. L-15700 April 26, 1961 - CRESENCIA VDA. DE BAKIT v. VERONICO ASPERIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15872 April 26, 1961 - CITY OF MANILA v. ANTONIA EBAY

  • G.R. No. L-16234 April 26, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANITO FETALVERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16596 April 26, 1961 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. CITY OF DAGUPAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16659 April 26, 1961 - ALFREDO REYES v. JOSE PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. L-16878 April 26, 1961 - JUAN SANCHEZ v. OSCAR DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. L-16963 April 26, 1961 - ROXAS Y CIA v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12236 April 28, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRAULIO BERSALONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14793 April 28, 1961 - PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENT CHURCH v. JUANA MATEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15065 April 28, 1961 - CESAR D. MILITAR v. VENTURA TORCILLERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15139 April 28, 1961 - FELIX DE CASTRO, JR., ET AL. v. EMITERIO M. CASTAÑEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15877 April 28, 1961 - JOVENAL R. FERNANDEZ v. TAN TIONG TICK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15952 April 28, 1961 - SYBIL SAMSON, ET AL. v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-16355-56 April 28, 1961 - IGNACIO GONZALES v. JOSE M. SANTOS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16560 April 28, 1961 - TOMAS BENAZA, ET AL. v. ZOILO BONILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10763 April 29, 1961 - DELFIN YAMBAO v. ANGELINA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11084 April 29, 1961 - ALEJANDRO QUEMUEL, ET AL. v. ANGEL S. OLAES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11499 April 29, 1961 - IN RE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GO BON LEE

  • G.R. No. L-11639 April 29, 1961 - DANIEL DE LEON v. JOAQUIN HENSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11765 April 29, 1961 - DAMASO DESCUTIDO, ET AL. v. JACINTO BALTAZAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12888 April 29, 1961 - R. F. NAVARRO v. SUGAR PRODUCERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-13252 April 29, 1961 - CONSUELO TAN VDA. DE ZALDARRIAGA v. EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13515 April 29, 1961 - PAZ BACABAC v. VICENTE F. DELFIN, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13976 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO Z. OBALDO

  • G.R. No. L-13994 April 29, 1961 - VALERIO P. TRIA v. WENCESLAO A. LIRAG

  • G.R. No. L-14146 April 29, 1961 - NG LIAM KENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-14220 April 29, 1961 - DOMINGO E. LEONOR v. FRANCISCO SYCIP

  • G.R. No. L-14421 April 29, 1961 - GUAGUA ELECTRIC LIGHT PLANT COMPANY, INC. v. COLLE CTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14603 April 29, 1961 - RICARDO LACERNA, ET AL. v. AGATONA PAURILLO VDA. DE CORCINO

  • G.R. No. L-14712 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO CORTES

  • G.R. No. L-14783 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL P. AMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14871 April 29, 1961 - FLORENCIA M. GUANCO v. SEGUNDO MONTEBLANCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14969 April 29, 1961 - LAND TENURE ADMINISTRATION v. CEFERINO ASCUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15014 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-15171 April 29, 1961 - LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15225 April 29, 1961 - C. G. NAZARIO & SONS, INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15347 April 29, 1961 - GENERAL BUS CORPORATION, ET AL. v. GREGORIO CUNANAN

  • G.R. No. L-15386 April 29, 1961 - JOSE L. UY v. PACITA UY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15394 April 29, 1961 - CESARIO DE LEON, ET AL. v. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15445 April 29, 1961 - IN RE: FLORANTE C. TIMBOL v. JOSE C. CANO

  • G.R. Nos. L-15490-93 April 29, 1961 - CAMARINES SUR INDUSTRY CORPORATION v. JAIME T. BUENAFLOR

  • G.R. No. L-15506 April 29, 1961 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15515 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER M. PERETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15564 April 29, 1961 - PASCUAL STA. ANA v. EULALIO MENLA

  • G.R. No. L-15739 April 29, 1961 - EMILIANO LACSON, SR. v. JACINTO DELGADO

  • G.R. No. L-15768 April 29, 1961 - TALIM QUARRY COMPANY, INC., ET AL. v. GAVINO BARTOLA BERNARDO ABELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15775 April 29, 1961 - TAN YU CHIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15960 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN REGINALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15973 April 29, 1961 - PERPETUA GARGOLLO v. ALFREDO DUERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16071 April 29, 1961 - RUFINO O. ABUDA v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-16137 April 29, 1961 - VIRGINIA AMOR, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-16138 April 29, 1961 - DIOSDADO C. TY v. FIRST NATIONAL SURETY & ASSURANCE CO, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-16221 April 29, 1961 - RODOLFO GERONIMO v. MUNICIPALlTY OF CABA, LA UNION

  • G.R. No. L-16422 April 29, 1961 - JUSTINA C. SANTOS, ET AL. v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16448 April 29, 1961 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY v. HONESTO G. NICANDRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16509 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16535 April 29, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANTALEON ELPEDES

  • G.R. No. L-17015 April 29, 1961 - GEORGE H. EVANS, ETC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17114 April 29, 1961 - JULIA M. NEIBERT v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. L-17202 April 29, 1961 - BENGUET CONSOLIDATED, INC. v. COTO LABOR UNION (NLU), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17377 April 29, 1961 - FRANCISCO LAGUNILLA v. JUAN O. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18359 April 29, 1961 - CALIXTO DUQUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.