Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

CASES FOR RULE 116 SECTIONS 1 3 Cases for Section 3: **Conducting of searching inquiry People v Sevileno

Facts: Accused admitted to the raping and killing of a 9 year child. He pleaded guilty of the crime charged against him. When this case was called for the presentation of evidence for the accused, counsel for the accused manifested that he had no evidence to present in favor of the accused except the plea of GUILTY made in open court. In view thereof, the above-entitled case is hereby submitted for decision based on the evidence presented by the prosecution without the accused presenting evidence in his behalf except the plea of GUILTY which is admitted by the prosecution. So, the accused was sentenced to death. ISSUE: whether or not the judge committed grave abuse of discretion? ; Whether or not in convicting the accused

and imposing upon him the penalty of death as it failed to observe the required procedure for cases where the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense when arraigned.
HELD / Reason :Hence, the judge committed grave abuse of discretion when he did not do searching inquiry upon the plead of guilty of the accused on a capital offense. Instead the judge only asked two questions. For only a clear, definite and unconditional plea of guilt must be accepted by the trial courts and there is no such rule that says upon the plead of guilt by the accused he will automatically be convicted. So, Convicting the accused PAULINO SEVILLENO Y VILLANUEVA alias Tamayo of Rape with Homicide and

sentencing him to DEATH is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and the case is REMANDED to the court of origin for the proper arraignment and trial of the accused until terminated.

Showing of the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the plea of guilty done by the accused
People Vs. Alicando (251 SCRA 293; G.R. No. 117487 ; December 2, 1995) Facts: Appellant was charged with the crime of rape with homicide of Khazie Mae Penecilla, a minor, four years of age, choking her with his right hand. The incident happened after appellant drank liquor. A neighbor, Leopoldo Santiago found the victims body and the parents and police were informed. Appellant was living in his uncle's house some five arm's length from Penecilla's house. Appellant was arrested and interrogated by PO3 Danilo Tan. He verbally confessed his guilt without the assistance of counsel. On the basis of his uncounselled verbal confession and follow up interrogations, the police came to know and recovered from appellant's house, Khazie Mae's green slippers, a pair of gold earrings, a buri mat, a stained pillow and a stained T-shirt all of which were presented as evidence for the prosecution. He was arraigned with the assistance of Atty. Rogelio Antiquiera of the PAO. Appellant pleaded guilty. The RTC convicted him. Hence an automatic review for the imposition of death penalty. Issue: Whether or Not the death penalty proper. Held: No. The records do not reveal that the Information against the appellant was read in the language or dialect known to him. The Information against the appellant is written in the English language. It is unknown whether the appellant knows the English language. Neither is it known what dialect is understood by the appellant. Nor is there any showing that the Information couched in English was translated to the appellant in his own dialect before his plea of guilt. The RTC violated section 1(a) of Rule 116, the rule implementing the constitutional right of the appellant to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. It also denied appellant his constitutional right to due process of law. It is urged that we must presume that the arraignment of the appellant was regularly conducted. When life is at stake, we cannot lean on this rebuttable presumption. There could be no presumption. The court must be sure. The trial court violated section 3 of Rule 116 when it accepted the plea of guilt of the appellant. Said section requires that the court shall conduct a searching inquiry 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. The trial court simply inquired if appellant had physical marks of maltreatment. It did not ask the appellant when he was arrested, who arrested him, how and where he was interrogated, whether he was medically examined before and after his interrogation, etc. It limited its efforts trying to discover late body marks of maltreatment as if involuntariness is caused by physical abuse alone. Further, there are physical evidence to prove Khazie was raped. These consists of a pillow with bloodstains in its center 14 and the T-shirt 15 of the accused colored white with bloodstains on its bottom. These physical evidence are evidence of the highest order. They strongly corroborate the testimony of Luisa Rebada that the victim was raped.These are inadmissible evidence for they were gathered by PO3 Danilo Tan of the Iloilo City PNP as a result of custodial interrogation where appellant verbally confessed to the crime without the benefit of counsel.

Effect of Improvident Plea / not adhering to Rule 116, Sec 3 . People Vs GumiMBA