ChanRobles Virtual law Library




SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS





www.chanrobles.com

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-35969 May 16, 1980

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CELESTINO VILLACORES, ROMULO Lirio, Pedro DUCAY and ABIS GAMONGAN, Defendants-Appellants.

ANTONIO, J.:

Automatic review of the judgment of the Circuit Criminal Court, Pasig, Rizal, imposing the death penalty upon Celestino Villacores, 1 Romulo Lirio, Pedro Ducay and Abis Gamongan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In an Information filed by the Special Prosecutor on October 10, 1972, the afore-mentioned appellants were charged with Murder and Multiple Frustrated Murder, as follows: chanrobles virtual law library

That on or about May 4, 1972, at the NBP, Muntinlupa, Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above named accused while then confined at the said institution conspiring, confederating and helping one another did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with intent to kill with evident premeditation and treachery assault, attack and stab Prisoner ROMEO DOMINGO, No. 75132-P, thereby inflicting upon the latter multiple stab wounds in the different parts of the body such wounds necessarily produced his death and simultaneously inflicting upon RODOLFO ANDAYA, No. 47015-P, ANTONIO DE LA CRUZ, No, 50108-P and ARTURO ALICIA, No. 61739-P all sentenced prisoners in the same institution, stab wounds in the different parts of their bodies, performing all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of murder as a consequence thereof, but nevertheless did not produce it by reason of causes independent of their will, that is, by the timely and able defense offered by those injured and the equally, timely assistance of the Prison Guards which prevented their death.

Upon arraignment on October 27, 1972, the afore-mentioned four accused, with the assistance of counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty. The Court informed the appellants in Tagalog, a dialect known to them, of the consequences of their plea of guilty and that because of the nature of the crime, the imposable penalty is death. They, however, reiterated their plea of guilty and expressed their readiness to accept the penalty to be imposed upon them no matter how grave it may be. Hence, the trial court, in view of the voluntary and spontaneous confession of guilt made by the accused Celestino Villacores, Romulo Lirio, Pedro Ducay and Abis Gamongan, stated that it found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as charged in the Information and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of death; to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P12,000.00, jointly and severally; to pay jointly and severally P10,000.00 as moral damages and another P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and to pay their proportionate share of the costs. However, the trial court, "in consonance with the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in People v. Epifanio Flores," 2 ordered the Special Prosecutor "to present evidence to determine the degree of culpability of the accused." chanrobles virtual law library

Pursuant to the afore-mentioned Order, the Special Prosecutor presented evidence on October 28, 1972 and December 9, 1972. After the prosecution had rested its case, the trial court issued an Order, in effect affirming the prisoners' sentence of death and directed the Clerk of Court to forward the complete records of this case to the Supreme Court upon transcription of the stenographic notes taken by the stenographers within a reasonable period of time.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The counsel de oficio contends in his brief for appellants that the court a quo, in convicting the accused, failed to observe the necessary precaution to ensure that when the accused pleaded guilty, they really and truly understood and comprehended the meaning, full significance and consequences of their plea. He contended that although the court ordered the presentation of evidence to establish the guilt and degree of culpability of the accused, after he pronounced his judgment, the evidence presented "could not have fulfilled the function of establishing the guilt or degree of culpability of the accused. It merely confirms the judgment previously entered." The Solicitor General, in substance, concurs with the foregoing observation and recommends that the decision under review be vacated and the case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We find these contentions untenable. To preclude any doubt that there was mistake or misunderstanding on the part of the accused as to the nature of the charges to which they pleaded guilty, the court a quo precisely ordered the prosecution to present evidence "to determine the culpability of the accused." On October 28, 1972, the prosecution presented testimonial and documentary evidence to prove the guilt of the four accused.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

There is no question that the purpose of the presentation of evidence after the plea of guilty in capital offenses is to preclude any room for "reasonable doubt in the mind of either the trial court or this Court, on review, as to the possibility that there might have been some misunderstanding on the part of the accused as to the nature of the charges to which he pleaded guilty"; and to ascertain the circumstances attendant to the commission of the crime "which justify or require the exercise of a greater or less degree of severity in the imposition of the prescribed penalties." 3 We have suggested that the trial courts should adopt such procedure in People v. Busa, 4 for apart from the circumstance that such procedure may remove any doubt that the accused fully understood the consequences of his plea is the fact that the evidence take thereon is essential to the fulfillment by this Court of its duty of review of automatic appeals from death sentences.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Moreover, since there is no law prohibiting the taking of testimony after a plea of guilty, where a grave offense is charged, this Court has deemed such taking of testimony the prudent and proper course to follow for the purpose of establishing the guilt and the precise degree of culpability of the defendant. This procedure, when conscientiously applied and followed, will leave no room for doubt that there was mistake or misunderstanding on the part of the accused as to the nature of the charges to which he pleads guilty.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Further, the taking of testimony, notwithstanding a plea of guilty, is essential to the fulfillment by this Court of its duty of review of automatic appeals from death sentences. To illustrate this point, in U.S. vs. Jamad, the testimonies received by the trial court following the plea of guilty by the accused enabled this Court to modify the judgment by striking down the two aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation (premeditacion conocida), and abuse of confidence alleged in the information. This Court's findings showed that the accused could not have intended their inclusion in his plea of guilty. Surely, records which merely sketchily declare that the information was read to the accused and that the latter "freely, voluntarily and spontaneously entered the plea of guilty", do not tell the whole story. They deny us full opportunity to review the cases fairly and intelligently. 5

In the case at bar, it has been sufficiently established by the evidence that at about 11:30 o'clock in the morning of May 4, 1972 inside the New Bilibid Prisons, a prisoner, Romeo Domingo, who was on his way to Gate IV for a visit, was stabbed, while three (3) other prisoners, Arturo Alicia, Rodolfo Andaya and Antonio de la Cruz, members of the "Batang City Jail Gang", "Batang Cebu Gang", and "Sigue-Sigue Sputnik Gang", respectively, were similarly attacked and stabbed while they were in leg-irons, and stationed at the alley adjoining the control gate of the said penitentiary. Romeo Domingo died at the New Bilibid Prisons Hospital at about 8:10 p.m. on May 5, 1972. Tolentino Avelina of the Investigation Section of the National Penitentiary testified that he was one of those assigned to investigate the aforesaid incident. In that investigation, appellants admitted to him that because of rivalry among their gangs they attacked and stabbed the aforementioned victims. To this effect, appellant Celestino Villacores, 29 years of age, married, of Cabugao Ilocos Sur, declared before the investigator, thus:

1. T. - Kung gayon ay sabihin mong muli sa akin ang tunay mong pangalan at iba pang mga bagay-bagay na mapagkikilanian sa iyong pagkatao? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Celestino Villacores po, 29 na taong gulang, may asawa, dating naninirahan sa Lumagui, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur at sa kasalukuyan ay isa nang bilanggo dito sa Pambansang Piitan, matapos na mahatulan ng Hukumang Unang Dulungan ng Vigan, Ilocos Sur sa kasalanang "Homicide" chanrobles virtual law library

2. T. - Kailan ka pa nadala dito sa Pambansang Piitan? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Mula pa po noong 1965.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

3. T. - Saang brigada ka nakahimpil sa kasalukuyan? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Sa XIII-A po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

4. T. - May pangkat ka bang kinaaaniban? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Mayroon po, GIG, Genuine Ilocano Gang po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

5. T. - Sang-ayon sa report ng Officer of the Day ay isa ka sa apat na bilanggong nanaksak sa may pasilyong malapit sa Control noong Mayo 4, 1972, bandang alas 11:30 ng umaga. Ano ang masasabi mo tungkol dito? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Totoo po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

6. T. - Sino naman ang bilanggong sinaksak mo noon? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Si Andaya po iyong itinuro ko riyan kanina na may kadena noong saksakin ko. (Affiant is referring to pris Rodolfo Andaya).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

7. T. - Ilang beses mo siyang sinaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Isang beses lang po, pero nasangga niya ang kamay ko at tumalsik ang matalas ko at hindi ko siya natamaan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

8. T. - Maliban kay Rodolfo Andaya sinu-sino pa ang sinaksak mo noon? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Wala na po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

9. T. - Sa mga kasamahan mong nanaksak nakita mo ba kung sino ang sinaksak nila? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Hindi ko na po napansin.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

10. T. - Nasaan na ang matalas na ginamit mo noon sa pananaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Lumaglag po sa semento malapit sa lugar ni Andaya.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

11. T. - Sa aking mesa ay may apat na matalas. Maituturo mo ba sa akin kung alin riyan ang matalas mong ginamit sa pananaksak noong Mayo 4, 1972? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Iyan pong maliit sir, (Affiant pinpointed to one improvised deadly weapon, about 12-1/4 inches long and an inch wide with white piece of cloth tied at the handle).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

12. T. - Sinu-sino naman ang mga kasama mong nanaksak noon sa pasilyo noong Mayo 4, 1972? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Iyong tatlo po, sina Pedro Ducay, Abis Gamongan at saka si Romulo Lirio.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

13. T. - Iyong mga matalas na ipinanaksak nila kilala mo ba? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Hindi po, dahil hindi ko matandaan sa brigada lamang nila ipinakita sa akin.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

14. T. - Kailan ninyo binalak na manaksak sa may pasilyo? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Noong gabi ng Mayo 3, 1972 sa brigada namin sa XIII-A bandang alas 10:00 ng gabi humigit kumulang at kaming apat nina Lirio, Gamongan at Ducay ang nag-usap-usap. Si alias Boy Ricafort si Romulo Lirio po ang namuno sa usapan namin na manaksak kami.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

15. T. - Totoo ba na nag-away kayo nitong si Romulo Lirio noong gabi ng Mayo 3, 1972 bago kayo nag-usap-usap na manaksak sa pasilyo? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Totoo po dahil sa sinabi ko sa kanya na bakla siya at nagalit siya.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

16. T. - PapaanokayonakalabassaXIII-A? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Dumaan po kami sa butas ng XIII-A malapit sa building construction iyong brigadang katabi ng banda.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

17. T. - MgaanongoraskayolumabasngXIII-A? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Makarelyebo po ng pang-araw noong Mayo 4, 1972.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

18. T. - Bakit ninyo sinaksak iyong mga kastigado na nasa may pasilyo? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Dahil po sa kalaban namin sa pangkat ang mga nasa pasilyo nakastigado. (Exhibit "H")

Romulo Lirio, 24 years old, single, of Sto. Tomas, La Union, also admitted his criminal complicity, thus:

4. T. - May pangkat ka bang kinaaaniban? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Mayroon po,GIG Gang po(Genuine Ilocano Gang).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

5. T. - Sang-ayon sa report ng Officer of the Day ay isa ka sa apat na kapangkat mo sa GIG ang siyang nanaksak ng mga bilanggo sa may pasilyo malapit sa Control Gate noong bandang alas 11:30 ng umaga ng Mayo 4, 1972. Ano ang masasabi mo tungkol dito? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Totoo po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

6. T. - Sinu-sinu naman ang nasaksak mo nang umagang iyon ng Mayo 4, 1972? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Iyon pong dalawang kadenado iyon pong nandito kanina sa Tanggapang ito na itinuro ko sa inyo. (Affiant referred to prisoner Rodolfo Andaya and Arturo Alicia as the prisoners stabbed by him last May 4, 1972).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

7. T. - Ilang beses mong sinaksak itong si Rodolfo Andaya? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Maraming beses po pero hindi ko na po matanda daan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

8. T. - Saan-saang parte ng katawan mo tinamaan itong si Rodolfo Andaya? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Sa dibdib po at sa magkabilang baraso po at kamay.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

9. T. - Ano ang ginawa nitong si Andaya noong siya ay kasalukuyang sinasaksak mo na? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Tumayo po siya at saka nanangga po at pilit pong inaagaw ang matalas ko.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

10. T. - Itong si Arturo Alicia, ilang beses mo siyang sinaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Dalawang beses po sa dibdib niya at saka sa hita.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

11. T. - Ano ang ginawa nitong si Arturo Alicia nang siya ay sinaksak mo? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Tumayo po at gusto ring maagaw ang matalas ko pagkatapos ay tumakbo na ako pagkat may sumaksak sa baraso ko siya po iyong nakaupo sa upisinang ito ngayon (Affiant pinpointed pris. Antonio de la Cruz as the fellow who stabbed his right arm). At pagkatakbo ko ay isinurender ko na ang matalas ko kay Commander Tutaan at kay Mr. Muldong chanrobles virtual law library

12. T. - Sa aking mesa ay may apat na matalas, maituturo mo ba sa akin kung alin diyan ang matalas mong ipinanaksak kina Rodolfo Andaya at Arturo Alicia noong Mayo 4, 1972? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Opo sir, iyan po (Affiant pinpointed to one improvised deadly weapon single bladed, about 14-3/4 inches long with white cloth tied at the handle).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

13. T. - Ano itong mapulang mantsa sa dulo ng matalas mong ito? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Kalawang po at saka dugo po nang sinaksak ko at saka dugo ko.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

14. T. - Sinu-sino naman ang mga kasama mong nanaksak noon sa pasilyo? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Apat po kami sir, sina Celestino Villacores, Abis Gamongan, Pedro Ducay at saka ako.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

15. T. - Sinu-sino naman ang nakita mong nasaksak nitong tatlo mong kasama? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Hindi ko na nalaman dahil sa may sinasaksak ako ng mga oras na iyon ng Mayo 4, 1972.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

17. T. - Sino ang nag-utos sa inyo manaksak noon sa pasilyo?

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

S. - Wala po kami-kami po lamang ang nag-usap.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

18. T. - Kailan naman ninyo pinag usapang manaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Bandang alas 10:00 po humigit kumulang noong gabi ng Mayo 3, 1972 at doon po kami nag-usap sa loob ng aming brigada sa XIII-A at ang napagkasunduan namin ay ang mga kastigadong may kadena na nasa pasilyong malapit sa Control Gate ang aming sasaksakin. At si Celestino Villacores po ang namuno sa pananaksak naming ito.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

19. T. - Sino naman ang nagsimula sa inyo upang pagusapan ninyong manaksak ng kastigado na nasa pasilyo? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Si Villacores po, dahil nagkagalit kami ni Villacores sa loob ng brigada namin sa XIII-A noong bandang alas 9:00 ng gabi ng Mayo 3, 1972 pagkat sinabi niya na bakla ako at nagkasagutan kami hanggang sa hinamon ko siya nang saksakan. Ang sabi niya ay huwag tayong maglaban kalaban na lamang natin ang ating saksakin at sinabihan ni Villacores si Abis Gamongan na mananaksak kami at si Gamongan naman ay pinagsabihan si Pedro Ducay hanggang sa ng pumayag na sila ay nag-usap-usap na kami sa loob ng kubol namin sa XIII-A noong gabi ng Mayo 3, 1972.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

20. T. - Iyong mga matalas ng mga kasama mong nanaksak kilala mo? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Opo, iyan po ang matalas ni Celestino Villacores (Affiant pinpointed to one imp. deadly weapon about 12-1/2 inches long and an inch wide with white piece of cloth tied at the handle), iyan po naman ang matalas ni Pedro Ducay, (Affiant pinpointed to one improvised deadly weapon single bladed about 15-1/4 inches long and 3/4 of an inch wide with green plastic tied at the handle) at iyan po naman ang matalas ni Abis Gamongan, (Affiant pinpointed to one improvised deadly weapon about 15 inches long semi-cris type double bladed with white piece of cloth tied at the handle).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

21. T. - Papaano mo nakilala ang mga matalas nila na ginamit nila sa pananaksak ninyo sa may pasilyo noong Mayo 4, 1972? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Pagkat bago kami lumabas ng brigada noong umaga ng Mayo 4, 1972 para manaksak ay nakita ko na ang mga matalas nilang iyan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

22. T. - Papaano naman kayo nakalabas ng brigada XIII-A may calling ba kayo? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Wala po, dumaan po kami sa butas ng tagiliran ng XIII-A at nagtuloy kami sa building construction pagkatapos ay nagtuloy na kami sa pasilyo hanggang sa manaksak na kami.

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

24. T. - May isa pa akong katanungan, bakit ninyo sinaksak ang mga kastigado na nasa pasilyo? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - May atraso po sila sa pangkat naming GIG dahil sa sinaksak nila ng pangkat Sputnik itong si Esposo matagal na po noong 1971. (Exhibit "I")

Pedro Ducay, 29 years old, single, of San Manuel, Tarlac, also narrated his participation in the incident, thus:

5. T. - Sang-ayon sa report ng Officer of the Day ay isa ka sa mga bilanggong nanaksak doon sa may pasilyong malapit sa Control Gate noon bandang alas 11:30 ng umaga ng Mayo 4, 1972. Ano ang masasabi mo tungkol dito? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Totoo po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

6. T. - Sino namang bilanggo ang nasaksak mo? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Hindi ko po kilala, wala po sa tatlong bilanggong naririto kanina na kasama sa mga nasaksak ng aking kasamahan noong Mayo 4, 1972.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

7. T. - Ilang beses mong sinaksak iyong sinasabi mong nasaksak mo na hindi mo kilala? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Minsan lang po hindi ko po matiyak kung saang parte ng katawan ko siya tinamaan. (Affiant is referring to prisoner Romeo Domingo as testified by Antonio de la Cruz that Ducay stabbed Domingo).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

8. T. - Nasaan na ang matalas na ipinanaksak mo noon? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Naagaw po noong isang "Sputnik Gang" (Affiant is referring to prisoner Antonio de la Cruz which was pinpointed by him as the prisoner who was able to grab his weapon during this stabbing incident).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

9. T. - Sa aking mesa ay may apat na matalas maituturo mo ba sa akin kung naririyan ang matalas na ginamit mo noong Mayo 4, 1972? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Iyan po, (Declarant pinpointed to one improvised gle bladed weapon sharp pointed about 15- inches long and of an inch wide with a green color plastic wrapped at the handle).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

10. T. - Sa mga kasamahan mong nanaksak nakita mo ba kung sino ang nasaksak nila? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Hindi po, dahil kanya kanya kami ng sinasaksak ng mga oras na iyon.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

11. T. - Sang-ayon kay Antonio de la Cruz ay sinaksak mo rin siya at naagawan ka niya ng matalas ano ang masasabi mo tungkol dito? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Totoo po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

12. T. - Napaano na iyang sugat mo sa tatlong daliri mo sa kanang kamay? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Sinaksak po ni Antonio de la Cruz pagkaagaw niya ng matalas sa akin.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

13. T. - Sinu-sino ang mga kasama mong nanaksak noong Mayo 4, 1972 doon sa may pasilyo malapit sa Control Gate? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Sina Abis Gamongan po, si Romulo Lirio, si Celestino Villacores at saka ako po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

14. T. - Kailan ninyo binalak na manaksak sa may pasilyo? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Noong gabi po ng Mayo 3, 1972 sa loob ng XIII-A bandang alas 10:00 humigit-kumulang at kaming apat ang nag-usap-usap. At si Villacores and nagmungkahi na manaksak kami dahil sa api ang pangkat naming Genuine Ilocano Gang dahil sa lagi nang sinasaksak ng mga kalaban namin sa pangkat ang aming pangkat.

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

17. T. - Sino ang nagyaya sa iyong manaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Si Villacores noon din pong gabi ng Mayo 3, 1972.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

18. T. - Sino ang pinakapuno ninyong nagdala sa inyong kayo ay nanaksak na? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Si Villacores po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

19. T. - Papaano kayo nakalabas ng XIII-A? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Dumaan po sa butas ng anting brigada sa XIII-A.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

20. T. - Mga anong oras kayo dumaan sa butas ng inyong brigada? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Pasado alas 8:00 na po ng umaga ng Mayo 4, 1972.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

21. T. - Saan muna kayo nagtigil nang araw na iyon bago kayo nanaksak sa pasilyo ng araw na iyon? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Sa barberya po. (Exhibit "J" )

Primitive Arias, of the Investigation Section of the National Penitentiary, also testified that on May 8, 1972, he investigated Abis Gamongan, another prisoner who was also a member of the same gang. In that investigation, Abis Gamongan, 28 years old, single, of Kalinga-Apayao, also admitted that he assisted his companions, Romulo Lirio, Celestino Villacores, and Pedro Ducay in attacking and stabbing the afore-mentioned victims, thus:

2. T. - Kailan ka Idinating dito sa Bilibid? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Noon pa pong 1963.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

3. T. - Simula noong 1963, ikaw ba ay lumaya na? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Hindi pa po.

xxx xxx xxxchanrobles virtual law library

4. T. - Sa ngayon, saan ang iyong kinahihimpilang brigada? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Sa brigada XIII-A po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

5. T. - Noong ika-4 ng Mayo 1972, saan ang iyong brigada? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Sa brigada XIII-A rin po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

6. T. - Noong ika-4 ng Mayo na ang iyong brigada ay XIII-A, ikaw ba ay lumabas sa iyong brigada? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Opo, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

7. T. - Anong oras ka ng lumabas ng brigada mo? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Nakarilyebo na po ang pang otso-kuatrong guardiya.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

8. T. - Papaano ka nakalabas ng brigada mo? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Nag-akyat po ako sa kisame ng 13-A at pagkatapos ay doon sa butas na tagiliran ng 13-A ako lumabas.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

9. T. - Ilan kayong magkakasama noon? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Apat, po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

10. T. - Sinu-sino kayong apat? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Ako po, Ducay, Villacores at Lirio (Declarant referring to prisoners Pedro Ducay, No. 46744-P, Celestino Villacores, No. 50986-P, and Romulo Lirio, No. 69249-P, all present in this Office).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

11. T. - Ano ang dahilan at kayo ay nagpilit na makalabas ng inyong brigada? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Mananaksak po ang usapan namin.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

12. T. - Sino man ang pinag-usapan ninyong sasaksakin? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Yaon pong mga kadenado sa may pasilyo malapit sa Control Gate na aming kaaaway. (Declarant referring to UP prisoners Rodolfo Andaya, No. 47015-P, Arturo Alicia, No. 61939-P, Victor Bangayan, No. 71379-P & others).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

13. T. - Sang-ayon sa ulat ng O.D., noong ika-4 ng Mayo, 1972, humigit kumulang sa ganap na ika-11:30 ng umaga, ikaw ay kasama nina Romulo Lirio, Celestino Villacores at Pedro Ducay na nanaksak dito sa may pasilyo sa makalabas ng Control Gate, sa loob ng compound. Ano ang iyong masasabi rito? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Totoo po, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

14. T. - Sino naman ang iyong nasaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Hindi ko po kilala.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

15. T. - Yaong may mga kadena doon sa pasilyo, kilala mo ba sila? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Yaon pong dalawang may kadena na nasaksak ay kilala ko. (Declarant referring to prisoners Rodolfo Andaya and Arturo Alicia, both with leg-iron at the time of the incident).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

16. T. - Ilang ulit mong sinaksak yaong taong iyong nasaksak na sabi mo ay hindi mo kilala? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Isang beses lang po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

17. T. - Anong ayos noong taong iyong sinaksak ng saksakin mo? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Nakatayo po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

18 T. - Sa iyong palagay, saan mo tinamaan ng saksak yong taong iyong sinaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Sa may harap po, sa may dibdib.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

19. T. - Anong uri ng panaksak mong ginamit? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Double blade pong patalim na matulis na may taling sinirang kamiseta ang pinakahawakan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

20. T. - Sa mga patalim na naririto sa ibabaw ng mesa ko, alin diyan ang sa iyong ginamit na panaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Iyan pong double blade na iyan, matalim at matulis, may taling sinirang kamiseta sa pinakahawakan, cris type (Declarant pointing to an improvised double bladed weapon, sharp and pointed with a wrapped handle, cris type and more than a foot in length) chanrobles virtual law library

21. T. - Noong isaksak mo ang iyong patalim sa kita mo o pakiramdam, bumaon ba ng malalim sa katawan ng iyong sinaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Opo, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

22. T. - Sinasabi mong sa may dibdib mo tinamaan ang taong iyong nasaksak. Sa iyong kuro-kuro, namatay kaya ang taong iyong sinaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Malamang po sa mamatay.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

23. T. - Pagkasaksak mo sa taong iyong sinaksak, saan nagtakbo itong taong iyong nasaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Nagtakbo po sa may rehas ng harapan ng Control Gate.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

24. T. - Pagkatapos mong makapanaksak, ano ang iyong ginawa? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Nagtakbo po ako patungo sa may Kitchen at nasalubong ko si Inspector Robles at Guard Estupin kaya't ako ay pinadapa at kinuha ang patalim kong tangan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

25. T. - Yaong kasama mong sina Villacores, Ducay at Lirio, sila ba ay nakasaksak rin? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Sa pagkaalam ko ay nakasaksak rin sila po.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

26. T. - Kilala mo ba ang kani-kanilang nasaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Hindi po, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

27. T. - Ano ang suot o damit ng iyong nasaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Hindi ko na po napag-alam ang kanyang kasuotan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

28. T. - Ano ba ang iyong "gang"? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - GIG, po (Declarant referring to Genuine Ilocano Gang).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

29. T. - Papaano ninyo binalak nina Villacores, Ducay at Lirio ang inyong pananaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Sa brigada po ay nagkahiyaan sina Villacores at Lirio kaya't sila ay naghamunan ng saksakan, subalit kaysa sila ang magsaksakan dahil sa sila o kami ang isang pangkat ay minabuti na lang naniin ang manaksak ng iba at ang napagkasunduan na ang saksakin yaong nasa pasilyo nga.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

30. T. - Sino ang pinakapuno ng GIG? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Si Teryo Valera, po, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

31. T. - Sa pangyayaring ito, may kinalaman ba itong puno ng inyong pangkat? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Wala po, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

32. T. - Inaamin mo ba ang kasalanan mong pananaksak? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Opo, sir.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

33n T. - Ikaw ba ay sinaktan, tinakot, pinilit o pinangakuan ng pabuya upang magbigay ng salaysay? chanrobles virtual law library

S. - Hindi po, sir, (Exhibit "O").

The aforesaid extrajudicial confessions of appellants (Exhibits "H", "I", "J" and "O") were submitted as evidence and admitted without objection on the part of the appellants. In connection with the execution of the afore-mentioned extrajudicial admissions, appellants surrendered to the prison authorities the improvised sharp-pointed weapons which they used against the victims (Exhibits "B", "C", "D" and "E"). The afore-mentioned extrajudicial confessions are admissible in evidence. 6 chanrobles virtual law library

Dr. Mario C. Nalagan, Senior Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI who conducted the autopsy on Romeo Domingo, testified that the deceased sustained the following wounds: chanrobles virtual law library

Stab wounds: 1 - 3.0 cms. in size, edges clean cut, medial border sharp, lateral border contused, oriented upwards and medially located at the left upper chest anterior aspect 14 cms. from the anterior median line, 132 cms. from left heel. Directed backwards, downwards and medially thru the 4th intercostal space into the left thoraxic cavity perforating the upper lobe of lung, percardial sac and penetrating the left ventricle Depth 14 cms.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

2 - 3.0 cms. in size, edges clean cut, upper extremely sharp, lower extremity contused, oriented vertically and located at the left upper chest along the anterior line 18 cms. from the anterior median line, 134 cms. from left heel. Directed backwards, downwards and medially involving soft tissues, non-perforating. Depth 4 cms.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

3 - 2.3 cms. in size, edges clean cut, oriented horizontally, located at the left mesogastric region of the abdomen, 6 cms. from the anterior median line, 106 cms. left heel. Directed backwards, downwards and medially thru the anterior abdominal wall and penetrating the left psoas muscle. Depth 8 cms. (Exhibit "A")

He explained that Romeo Domingo sustained three (3) stab wounds, but it was the stab wound on the left chest (Wound No. 1 in Exhibits "A" and "A-2") which caused the death of the victim as it perforated the left chest, the upper lobe of the lung and the left ventricle of the heart. When shown the four (4) improvised weapons which the accused admitted having used in stabbing the victims, 7 he declared that the weapon, Exhibit "D", of appellant Villacores, on the basis of its size and configurations, could have been the weapon used in inflicting the three (3) stab wounds on the chest of the victim.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Dr. Zoraida Achazo Ocampo, physician of the New Bilibid Prisons, also testified that prisoners Rodolfo Andaya, Antonio de la Cruz and Arturo Alicia, all sustained stab wounds. According to her, Arturo Ancia sustained two (2) stab wounds - (a) one-inch wound at the middle third of the right thigh; and (b) another one-inch wound at the mid-scapular line 9th intercostal space; while Rodolfo Andaya suffered four (4) stab wounds - (a) the first was one-half inch x one-half inch to the left of the mid-sternum 4th intercostal space; (b) the second was a 2- inch stab wound at the forearm, mid portion right; (c) the third was a one-inch stab wound, V-shaped at the ddle forearm, left; and (d) the fourth was a one-inch stab wound on the left proximal third forearm, left; while Antonio de la Cruz sustained a one-half inch stab wound on the right index finger. Alicia was confined in the hospital for eight (8) days, while Andaya was hospitalized for five (5) days.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The afore-mentioned extrajudicial confessions of appellants Villacores, Lirio, Ducay and Gamongan (Exhibits "H", "I", "J" and "O"), as corroborated by the evidence of corpus delicti, depict the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime and demonstrate convincingly that the pleas of guilty made by appellants were not made inadvertently, but with full awareness of the precise nature of the charges and the possible consequences of their judicial admission of guilt. 8 They likewise confirm the existence of conspiracy, revealing that the stabbing was planned and agreed upon by the four accused on the night of May 3, 1972. Necessarily, therefore, they likewise establish the presence of evident premeditation. 9 Moreover, it can be gleaned from said confessions that the manner of attack employed by the accused was characterized by treachery, considering the element of surprise and the fact that some of the victims were in leg-irons and thus unable to defend themselves.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Considering the foregoing, it is evident that independently of the pleas of guilt entered by the herein appellants, the evidence for the prosecution would have been sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction. The trial court, therefore, was not remiss in ascertaining that the acceptance of the pleas of guilt satisfied all the requirements of the law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The only irregularity that may be imputed to the trial judge in the proceedings a quo was in prematurely sentencing the accused to suffer the penalty of death, prior to ordering the Special Prosecutor to present evidence to determine the degree of culpability of said accused. As this Court held in People v. Dumdum, Jr., et al. 10 chanrobles virtual law library

The evidence of the prosecution should be presented after the arraignment. The judgment should be rendered and promulgated after the fiscal has presented his evidence and after the trial court has ascertained that the defense is not presenting any evidence.

The irregularity, however, is not of sufficient consequence as to justify the setting aside of the judgment of conviction, in the face of the evidence presented by the prosecution which established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 11 chanrobles virtual law library

It appears appropriate, at this stage, to emphasize to trial judges that when an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense wherein the penalty of death is imposed, they should show clearly in their records that they have not accepted with alacrity his plea of guilty, but adopted the prudent and proper course consistent with the fundamental requirements of fairness and due process of taking testimony for the purpose of establishing the guilt and the precise degree of culpability of the defendants. 12 chanrobles virtual law library

Considering that the crime in the case at bar was committed by appellants while serving sentence for a felony for which they were convicted by final judgment, the penalty imposed upon them which is the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony is, therefore, in accordance with law. 13 Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code provides a special aggravating circumstance for quasi-recidivism by imposing the maximum of the penalty for the new offense, and it cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. 14chanrobles virtual law library

We cannot ignore however the contributory role played by the sub-human conditions in the penitentiary in the formation of gangs, such as this that preyed like wolf packs on the weak. This consideration and the fact that appellants were under detention for a long time impelled some members of this Court to vote for the imposition of a penalty next lower in degree.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the judgment under review is affirmed but for lack of necessary votes, the penalty imposed upon appellants is modified to reclusion perpetua with the accessories provided by law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, and De Castro, JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Melencio-Herrera, J., took no part.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

 chanrobles virtual law library

Separate Opinions

TEEHANKEE, J., concurring: chanrobles virtual law library

I concur. As stated in the Court's opinion, the accused's plea of guilty in open court with the assistance of counsel and the evidence for the prosecution nevertheless received by the trial court precisely to determine that the accused fully and truly understood the significance and consequence of their guilty plea, sufficiently sustain the judgment of conviction.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

I write this brief opinion to maintain my dissent in the cases of Magtoto vs. Manguerra (63 SCRA 4, 27) as against the obiter dictum in the main opinion that the extra-judicial confessions taken before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution from the accused who were not assisted by counsel nor informed of their right to counsel and to remain silent were admissible in evidence. The Magtoto ruling should be subjected to reexamination in an appropriate case, in the light of the compelling reasons given in their respective dissents therein by the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro and then Senior Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Fernando.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As stated in my own dissent therein: "(T)here is no room for interpretation and the plain mandate of the Constitution expressly adopting the exclusionary rule as the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against such confessions obtained in violation of one's constitutional rights by outlawing their admission and thereby removing the incentive on the part of state and police officers to disregard such rights (in the same manner that the exclusionary rule bars admission of illegally seized evidence) should be strictly enforced," and "(T)he outlawing of all such confessions is plain, unqualified and without distinction whether the invalid confession be obtained before or after the effectivity of the Constitution."

MAKASIAR, J., dissenting: chanrobles virtual law library

I dissent. I concur with the view of the Solicitor General that there was an improvident plea of guilty in this case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

For a valid plea of guilty to a capital offense, the entire information must be read and interpreted to the accused in the language and dialect with which he is familiar, including the meaning of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances alleged. The accused herein are Ilocanos who belong to the GIG band which had a standing feud with the other gangs in the national penitentiary. The information alleges murder, attempted murder, evident premeditation, and treachery. These terms were not explained to the accused in Ilocano. That the accused did not understand the meaning of these terms and the consequences of their plea of guilty, is demonstrated by their confessions submitted in evidence. Their confessions uniformly state that they agreed to stab (manaksak), not to kill, the inmates in leg irons about 10 o'clock in the night of May 3, 1972. They committed the crime about 11:30 the following morning of May 4, 1972, scarely 13-1/2 hours later. To my mind, there is no sufficient showing of evident premeditation during that period of 13-1/2hours; because, after they agreed to assault or injure (manaksak) the members of the rival groups who were in leg irons, they must certainly have slept after 10 o'clock that night until about 6 o'clock the following morning. There is not even any showing that upon waking up in the morning of May 4, 1972 until 11:30 that same morning, they meditated and reflected on the consequences of their intended action and after such reflection they persisted in their resolve to commit the crime.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Because their agreement was merely to stab (manaksak), which does not necessarily include killing, the appellants, with respect to the death of Romeo Domingo, are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to inflict so grave an act as that committed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

There is no treachery because the assault was made about 11:30 in the morning at the construction site within the Bilibid compound where the prisoners in leg irons were working and near the control gate where there was a guard. And it must be presumed also that the prisoners in chains at the construction site were also guarded. Thus there was no employment of the means and utilization of circumstances to insure the successful execution of the crime. As a matter of fact, only one of the three victims died about 8:30 in the evening of that same day, May 4, about ten hours from the attack at 11:30 that morning. And not only were the two who were injured able to parry or evade the blows; but also one of them was able to wrest the bladed weapon from one of the assailants who fled thereafter. Another prisoner in leg irons came to the rescue of one of the victims and was likewise able to stab one of the assailants who also fled.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In the absence of the qualifying or aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery and the presence of the mitigating circumstance of damage exceeding intent, the crimes committed would be merely homicide and multiple frustrated homicide, the corresponding penalties for which should be imposed in the minimum period.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

However, because the plea of guilty was improvidently made, the case should therefore be remanded for appropriate proceedings.

Fernando, C.J., concurs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

 chanrobles virtual law library

Separate Opinions

TEEHANKEE, J., concurring: chanrobles virtual law library

I concur. As stated in the Court's opinion, the accused's plea of guilty in open court with the assistance of counsel and the evidence for the prosecution nevertheless received by the trial court precisely to determine that the accused fully and truly understood the significance and consequence of their guilty plea, sufficiently sustain the judgment of conviction.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

I write this brief opinion to maintain my dissent in the cases of Magtoto vs. Manguerra (63 SCRA 4, 27) as against the obiter dictum in the main opinion that the extra-judicial confessions taken before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution from the accused who were not assisted by counsel nor informed of their right to counsel and to remain silent were admissible in evidence. The Magtoto ruling should be subjected to reexamination in an appropriate case, in the light of the compelling reasons given in their respective dissents therein by the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro and then Senior Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Fernando.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As stated in my own dissent therein: "(T)here is no room for interpretation and the plain mandate of the Constitution expressly adopting the exclusionary rule as the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against such confessions obtained in violation of one's constitutional rights by outlawing their admission and thereby removing the incentive on the part of state and police officers to disregard such rights (in the same manner that the exclusionary rule bars admission of illegally seized evidence) should be strictly enforced," and "(T)he outlawing of all such confessions is plain, unqualified and without distinction whether the invalid confession be obtained before or after the effectivity of the Constitution."

MAKASIAR, J., dissenting: chanrobles virtual law library

I dissent. I concur with the view of the Solicitor General that there was an improvident plea of guilty in this case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

For a valid plea of guilty to a capital offense, the entire information must be read and interpreted to the accused in the language and dialect with which he is familiar, including the meaning of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances alleged. The accused herein are Ilocanos who belong to the GIG band which had a standing feud with the other gangs in the national penitentiary. The information alleges murder, attempted murder, evident premeditation, and treachery. These terms were not explained to the accused in Ilocano. That the accused did not understand the meaning of these terms and the consequences of their plea of guilty, is demonstrated by their confessions submitted in evidence. Their confessions uniformly state that they agreed to stab (manaksak), not to kill, the inmates in leg irons about 10 o'clock in the night of May 3, 1972. They committed the crime about 11:30 the following morning of May 4, 1972, scarely 13-1/2 hours later. To my mind, there is no sufficient showing of evident premeditation during that period of 13-1/2hours; because, after they agreed to assault or injure (manaksak) the members of the rival groups who were in leg irons, they must certainly have slept after 10 o'clock that night until about 6 o'clock the following morning. There is not even any showing that upon waking up in the morning of May 4, 1972 until 11:30 that same morning, they meditated and reflected on the consequences of their intended action and after such reflection they persisted in their resolve to commit the crime.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Because their agreement was merely to stab (manaksak), which does not necessarily include killing, the appellants, with respect to the death of Romeo Domingo, are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to inflict so grave an act as that committed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

There is no treachery because the assault was made about 11:30 in the morning at the construction site within the Bilibid compound where the prisoners in leg irons were working and near the control gate where there was a guard. And it must be presumed also that the prisoners in chains at the construction site were also guarded. Thus there was no employment of the means and utilization of circumstances to insure the successful execution of the crime. As a matter of fact, only one of the three victims died about 8:30 in the evening of that same day, May 4, about ten hours from the attack at 11:30 that morning. And not only were the two who were injured able to parry or evade the blows; but also one of them was able to wrest the bladed weapon from one of the assailants who fled thereafter. Another prisoner in leg irons came to the rescue of one of the victims and was likewise able to stab one of the assailants who also fled.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In the absence of the qualifying or aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery and the presence of the mitigating circumstance of damage exceeding intent, the crimes committed would be merely homicide and multiple frustrated homicide, the corresponding penalties for which should be imposed in the minimum period.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

However, because the plea of guilty was improvidently made, the case should therefore be remanded for appropriate proceedings.

Fernando, C.J., concurs.

Separate Opinions

TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:

I concur. As stated in the Court's opinion, the accused's plea of guilty in open court with the assistance of counsel and the evidence for the prosecution nevertheless received by the trial court precisely to determine that the accused fully and truly understood the significance and consequence of their guilty plea, sufficiently sustain the judgment of conviction.chanrobles virtual law library

I write this brief opinion to maintain my dissent in the cases of Magtoto vs. Manguerra (63 SCRA 4, 27) as against the obiter dictum in the main opinion that the extra-judicial confessions taken before the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution from the accused who were not assisted by counsel nor informed of their right to counsel and to remain silent were admissible in evidence. The Magtoto ruling should be subjected to reexamination in an appropriate case, in the light of the compelling reasons given in their respective dissents therein by the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro and then Senior Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Fernando.chanrobles virtual law library

As stated in my own dissent therein: "(T)here is no room for interpretation and the plain mandate of the Constitution expressly adopting the exclusionary rule as the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against such confessions obtained in violation of one's constitutional rights by outlawing their admission and thereby removing the incentive on the part of state and police officers to disregard such rights (in the same manner that the exclusionary rule bars admission of illegally seized evidence) should be strictly enforced," and "(T)he outlawing of all such confessions is plain, unqualified and without distinction whether the invalid confession be obtained before or after the effectivity of the Constitution."

MAKASIAR, J., dissenting:

I dissent. I concur with the view of the Solicitor General that there was an improvident plea of guilty in this case.chanrobles virtual law library

For a valid plea of guilty to a capital offense, the entire information must be read and interpreted to the accused in the language and dialect with which he is familiar, including the meaning of the qualifying and aggravating circumstances alleged. The accused herein are Ilocanos who belong to the GIG band which had a standing feud with the other gangs in the national penitentiary. The information alleges murder, attempted murder, evident premeditation, and treachery. These terms were not explained to the accused in Ilocano. That the accused did not understand the meaning of these terms and the consequences of their plea of guilty, is demonstrated by their confessions submitted in evidence. Their confessions uniformly state that they agreed to stab (manaksak), not to kill, the inmates in leg irons about 10 o'clock in the night of May 3, 1972. They committed the crime about 11:30 the following morning of May 4, 1972, scarely 13-1/2 hours later. To my mind, there is no sufficient showing of evident premeditation during that period of 13-1/2hours; because, after they agreed to assault or injure (manaksak) the members of the rival groups who were in leg irons, they must certainly have slept after 10 o'clock that night until about 6 o'clock the following morning. There is not even any showing that upon waking up in the morning of May 4, 1972 until 11:30 that same morning, they meditated and reflected on the consequences of their intended action and after such reflection they persisted in their resolve to commit the crime.chanrobles virtual law library

Because their agreement was merely to stab (manaksak), which does not necessarily include killing, the appellants, with respect to the death of Romeo Domingo, are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to inflict so grave an act as that committed.chanrobles virtual law library

There is no treachery because the assault was made about 11:30 in the morning at the construction site within the Bilibid compound where the prisoners in leg irons were working and near the control gate where there was a guard. And it must be presumed also that the prisoners in chains at the construction site were also guarded. Thus there was no employment of the means and utilization of circumstances to insure the successful execution of the crime. As a matter of fact, only one of the three victims died about 8:30 in the evening of that same day, May 4, about ten hours from the attack at 11:30 that morning. And not only were the two who were injured able to parry or evade the blows; but also one of them was able to wrest the bladed weapon from one of the assailants who fled thereafter. Another prisoner in leg irons came to the rescue of one of the victims and was likewise able to stab one of the assailants who also fled.chanrobles virtual law library

In the absence of the qualifying or aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery and the presence of the mitigating circumstance of damage exceeding intent, the crimes committed would be merely homicide and multiple frustrated homicide, the corresponding penalties for which should be imposed in the minimum period.chanrobles virtual law library

However, because the plea of guilty was improvidently made, the case should therefore be remanded for appropriate proceedings.

Fernando, C.J., concurs.


Endnotes:


1 In his sworn statement (Exhibit "H"), however, the name of this accused appears as CELESTINO VILLACORES.chanrobles virtual law library

2 L-32692, July 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 230.chanrobles virtual law library

3 United States v. Jamad, No. 12678, Dec. 15, 1917, 37 Phil. 305, 316-317.chanrobles virtual law library

4 L-32047, June 25, 1973, 51 SCRA 317.

5 Ibid, at pp. 320-321.chanrobles virtual law library

6 In Clemente Magtoto v. Judge Miguel M. Manguerra, et al., L-37201-02; Maximo Simeon, et al. v. Hon. Onofre Villaluz, L-37424; and People v. Judge Asaali S. Isnani, L-38929, all promulgated on March 3, 1975, 63 SCRA 4, and People v. Porfirio Dumdun Jr., et al., G. R. No. L-35279, promulgated July 30, 1979, this Court ruled that confessions obtained during custodial investigation from an accused without the assistance of counsel prior to the effectivity of the New Constitution on January 17, 1973, are admissible in evidence.chanrobles virtual law library

7 Exhibit "B" - weapon of Romulo Lirio, single blade, 15-3/4 inches long, Exhibit "C" - weapon of Pedro Ducay, 15- inches long and 3/4 inch in width, single blade, with green plastic handle; Exhibit "D" - weapon of Celestino Villacores, 12-1/2 inches long, one inch in width, single blade, with handle covered by a piece of white cloth; and Exhibit "E" - Weapon of Abis Gamongan, 15 inches in length, 3/4 inch in width, double blade, semi-cris type.chanrobles virtual law library

8 People v. Reyes, et al., L-19894, May 27, 1966, 17 SCRA 279; People v. Abrera, et al., L-20038, July 28, 1966, 17 SCRA 771, citing People v. Bantagan, No. 33045, Aug. 15, 1930, 54 Phil. 834, 841; People v. Narciso, L-24484, May 28, 1968, 23 SCRA 844.chanrobles virtual law library

9 U.S. v. Cornejo, No. 9773, Nov. 20, 1914, 28 Phil. 457; People v. Timbang, No. 48326, Aug. 6, 1943, 74 Phil. 295.chanrobles virtual law library

10 L-35279, promulgated on July 30, 1979.chanrobles virtual law library

11 Ibid.

12 Cf. People v. Aquino, L-2730, Feb. 27, 1950, 55 Phil. 604; People v. Aguilar, L-30932, Jan. 29, 1971, 37 SCRA 115; People v. Estebia, L-26868, July 29, 1971, 40 SCRA 90; People v. Flores, L-32692, July 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 230; People v. Alincastre, L-29891, Aug. 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 391; People v. Espina, L-33028, June 30, 1972, 45 SCRA 614; People v. Simeon, L-33730, Sept. 28, 1972, 47 SCRA 129; People v. Matias, L-35384, Nov. 28, 1973, 48 SCRA 181; People v. Daeng, L-34091, Jan. 30, 1973, 49 SCRA 221; People v. Ricalde, L-34673, Jan. 30, 1973, 49 SCRA 228; People v. Villafuerte, L-32036, July 31, 1973, 52 SCRA 204; People v. Saligan, L-35792, Nov. 29, 1973, 54 SCRA 190; and People v. Lacson, L-33060, Feb. 25, 1974, 55 SCRA 589:

13 Art. 160, Revised Penal Code; People v. Ala, L-15633, Aug. 31, 1960, 109 Phil. 390.chanrobles virtual law library

14 People v. Santos, et al., L-12448, Jan. 1959, 105, Phil. 40.



























chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

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