November 1982 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > November 1982 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-59054 November 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MUSTAPA ALIBASA, ET AL.
203 Phil. 559:
203 Phil. 559:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-59054. November 2, 1982.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MUSTAPA ALIBASA alias "PHANKS", CMDR. JACK JAMMAN, ASST. CMDR. SEDICK, HARABING ISALON, YAKAN ISAH and YAKAN ITAK, Accused. MUSTAPA ALIBASA alias "PHANKS", Accused-Appellant.
The Solicitor General for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Patria Cajigal and Abdulwahid M. Alpha for the Accused-Appellant.
SYNOPSIS
Appellant Alibasa, together with five other persons who were still at large, were charged with the crime of kidnapping with ransom to which the former pleaded not guilty. The prosecution had barely started presenting its evidence when appellant, thru his counsel de oficio, moved for leave to change his plea to "guilty" which the trial court granted. Instead of requiring the prosecution to complete the presentation of its evidence, the trial court ordered appellant to take the witness stand, after which the court rendered judgment convicting him of the crime charged and sentencing him to death.
On automatic review, the Supreme Court, approving the recommendation of the Solicitor General, held that after a plea of guilty where a grave offense is charged, the taking of testimony is the prudent and proper course to follow for the purpose of establishing not only the guilt but also the precise degree of culpability of the defendant.
Judgment under review set aside and case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
On automatic review, the Supreme Court, approving the recommendation of the Solicitor General, held that after a plea of guilty where a grave offense is charged, the taking of testimony is the prudent and proper course to follow for the purpose of establishing not only the guilt but also the precise degree of culpability of the defendant.
Judgment under review set aside and case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
SYLLABUS
REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PLEAS; PLEA OF GUILTY; COURTS ARE DUTYBOUND TO RECEIVE EVIDENCE DESPITE A PLEA OF GUILTY WHERE A GRAVE OFFENSE IS CHARGED; RATIONAL; CASE AT BAR. — This court has consistently ruled that after a plea of guilty, where a grave offense is charged, the taking of testimony is the prudent and proper course to follow for the purpose of establishing not only the guilt but also the precise degree of culpability of the defendant. (People v. Villafuerte, 56 SCRA 219, and cases cited therein.) Considering that the appellant was charged with the capital offense of kidnapping with ransom, the trial court should have required the prosecution to present its evidence to prove the extent of his culpability.
D E C I S I O N
CONCEPCION, JR., J.:
In Criminal Case No. 454 of the Court of First Instance of Basilan, the accused-appellant together with Cmdr. Jack Jamman, Asst. Cmdr. Sedick, Harabing Isalon, Yakan Isah and Yakan Itak, were charged with the crime of kidnapping with ransom, allegedly committed, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That on or about the 26th day of November, 1980, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, viz., at Kabunabata, Municipality of Isabela, Province of Basilan, Philippines, the above named accused, who being members of a terrorist group and armed with assorted firearms, `conspiring and confederating together, aiding and assisting one with the other, by force and without authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, kidnap and carry away the person of Alejandro Guiroy to a far and secluded place of Tambulig, Municipality of Tuburan, Basilan Province, and kept under heavy guard from November 26, 1980, to January 23, 1981, to better secure the consent of the victim through fear to pay the ransom in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency. That the victim was released only on January 23, 1981, after having paid the ransom in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), Philippine Currency." 1
Except for appellant Alibasa, all the other accused have not been apprehended and remain at large up to the present.chanrobles law library : red
Upon arraignment, appellant Alibasa, pleaded not guilty, 2 and the case was, thereafter, set for trial on the merits.
After the prosecution had presented its first witness in the person of Thelma Andajao, appellant Alibasa, thru his counsel de oficio, moved for leave to change his plea of "not guilty" to "guilty." There being no objection on the part of the prosecuting fiscal, the court a quo granted the motion. Whereupon, appellant Alibasa was rearraigned and he entered a plea of guilty. 3
Instead of requiring the prosecution to complete the presentation of its evidence, the trial court ordered appellant Alibasa to take the witness stand, after which the Court rendered judgment convicting him of the crime of kidnapping with ransom, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations and in accordance with law and existing jurisprudence, this Court finds the accused Mustapa Alibasa alias "Phanks" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping with Ransom as defined and penalized under the provision of Article 267, last paragraph of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1084 approved June 15, 1954, and hereby sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH.
"This Court, however, in the furtherance of justice and considering the provisions of Section 106 of the Code of Mindanao and Sulu and the testimony of the accused himself taken in open court to the effect inter alia that he came to know of the P20,000.00 ransom only after he was captured, hereby strongly recommends that he be seriously considered for Executive Clemency.
"SO ORDERED." 4
Thereupon, this case was elevated to the court for automatic review.
After the appellant had filed his brief, 5 the Solicitor General filed a Memorandum in lieu of the appellee’s brief, 6 contending that the prosecution was not given an opportunity to prove its case against the appellant since it had barely started presenting its evidence when the appellant moved to change his plea from "not guilty" to "guilty" and recommends that the judgment under review be set aside and the case remanded to the lower court for completion of the trial thereof.
The recommendation of the Solicitor General is well taken.
Considering that the appellant was charged with the capital offense of kidnapping with ransom, the trial court should have required the prosecution to present its evidence to prove the extent of his culpability. This Court has consistently ruled that after a plea of guilty, where a grave offense is charged, the taking of testimony is the prudent and proper course to follow for the purpose of establishing not only the guilt but also the precise degree of culpability of the defendant. 7
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment under review dated November 16, 1981 is hereby SET ASIDE and the case REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, C.J., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee and De Castro, JJ., are on leave.
AQUINO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I dissent. There was no improvident plea in this case.
Footnote
1. Original Record, p. 1.
2. Id., p. 21 .
3. t.s.n., p. 28.
4. Original Record, pp. 60-61.
5. Rollo, p. 46.
6. Id., p. 60.
7. People v. Villafuerte, 56 SCRA 219, and cases therein cited.
"That on or about the 26th day of November, 1980, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, viz., at Kabunabata, Municipality of Isabela, Province of Basilan, Philippines, the above named accused, who being members of a terrorist group and armed with assorted firearms, `conspiring and confederating together, aiding and assisting one with the other, by force and without authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, kidnap and carry away the person of Alejandro Guiroy to a far and secluded place of Tambulig, Municipality of Tuburan, Basilan Province, and kept under heavy guard from November 26, 1980, to January 23, 1981, to better secure the consent of the victim through fear to pay the ransom in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency. That the victim was released only on January 23, 1981, after having paid the ransom in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), Philippine Currency." 1
Except for appellant Alibasa, all the other accused have not been apprehended and remain at large up to the present.chanrobles law library : red
Upon arraignment, appellant Alibasa, pleaded not guilty, 2 and the case was, thereafter, set for trial on the merits.
After the prosecution had presented its first witness in the person of Thelma Andajao, appellant Alibasa, thru his counsel de oficio, moved for leave to change his plea of "not guilty" to "guilty." There being no objection on the part of the prosecuting fiscal, the court a quo granted the motion. Whereupon, appellant Alibasa was rearraigned and he entered a plea of guilty. 3
Instead of requiring the prosecution to complete the presentation of its evidence, the trial court ordered appellant Alibasa to take the witness stand, after which the Court rendered judgment convicting him of the crime of kidnapping with ransom, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations and in accordance with law and existing jurisprudence, this Court finds the accused Mustapa Alibasa alias "Phanks" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Kidnapping with Ransom as defined and penalized under the provision of Article 267, last paragraph of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1084 approved June 15, 1954, and hereby sentences him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH.
"This Court, however, in the furtherance of justice and considering the provisions of Section 106 of the Code of Mindanao and Sulu and the testimony of the accused himself taken in open court to the effect inter alia that he came to know of the P20,000.00 ransom only after he was captured, hereby strongly recommends that he be seriously considered for Executive Clemency.
x x x
"SO ORDERED." 4
Thereupon, this case was elevated to the court for automatic review.
After the appellant had filed his brief, 5 the Solicitor General filed a Memorandum in lieu of the appellee’s brief, 6 contending that the prosecution was not given an opportunity to prove its case against the appellant since it had barely started presenting its evidence when the appellant moved to change his plea from "not guilty" to "guilty" and recommends that the judgment under review be set aside and the case remanded to the lower court for completion of the trial thereof.
The recommendation of the Solicitor General is well taken.
Considering that the appellant was charged with the capital offense of kidnapping with ransom, the trial court should have required the prosecution to present its evidence to prove the extent of his culpability. This Court has consistently ruled that after a plea of guilty, where a grave offense is charged, the taking of testimony is the prudent and proper course to follow for the purpose of establishing not only the guilt but also the precise degree of culpability of the defendant. 7
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment under review dated November 16, 1981 is hereby SET ASIDE and the case REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, C.J., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee and De Castro, JJ., are on leave.
Separate Opinions
AQUINO, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I dissent. There was no improvident plea in this case.
Footnote
1. Original Record, p. 1.
2. Id., p. 21 .
3. t.s.n., p. 28.
4. Original Record, pp. 60-61.
5. Rollo, p. 46.
6. Id., p. 60.
7. People v. Villafuerte, 56 SCRA 219, and cases therein cited.
