G.R. No. L-30039 - FEBRUARY 1972 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-30039February 8, 1972 People of the Philippines vs. Julio Valera, et al. G.R. Nos. L-23960-61February 12, 1972 Diwa Ng Pagkakaisa-Paflu vs. Filtex International Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-28607February 12, 1972 Shell Oil Workers' Union vs. Shell Company of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-33583February 12, 1972 Fe F. Bautista vs. Cipriano B. Primicias, Jr., et al. G.R. No. L-33692February 24, 1972 Sheik Achmad Bashier vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-20312February 26, 1972 San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. City of Cebu G.R. No. L-26418February 28, 1972 Emilio Llanes vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-27632February 28, 1972 Miguel Ocampo vs. Liberato S. Domingo, et al. G.R. No. L-27793February 28, 1972 Leticia Cipriano vs. Gregorio P. Marcelino, et al. G.R. No. L-28131February 28, 1972 Chan Kian vs. Arsenio Angsin G.R. No. L-28865February 28, 1972 Nicanor Napolis vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-31586February 28, 1972 Ernesto Yturr, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. A.C. No. 596February 29, 1972 Fidel Santos vs. Eduardo V. Villafuerte G.R. No. L-24387February 29, 1972 Ricardo P. Gorospe vs. Arturo Padua, et al. G.R. No. L-24526February 29, 1972 People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Flores, et al. G.R. No. L-26369February 29, 1972 Terminal Shipping Corp. vs. Juan L. Bocar G.R. No. L-26400February 29, 1972 Victoria Amigable vs. Nicolas Cuenca, et al. G.R. No. L-26473February 29, 1972 Republic vs. Pal-Fox Lumber Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-27728February 29, 1972 Philippine United Sales Company, et al. vs. Simeon M. Gopengco, et al. G.R. No. L-28147February 29, 1972 Amanda De La Paz vs. Mario De Guzman G.R. No. L-28172February 29, 1972 Aproniano Cano, et al. vs. Juana Sanchez De Camacho, et al. G.R. No. L-28589February 29, 1972 Rafael Zulueta, et al. vs. Pan American World Airways, Inc. G.R. No. L-28674-5February 29, 1972 Ulla Bahanuddin vs. Mario Hidalgo G.R. No. L-28748February 29, 1972 People of the Philippines vs. Charles Angcap G.R. No. L-29321February 29, 1972 In Re: Alejandro B. Pallugna, Jr.. Alejandro B. Pallugna, Jr. G.R. No. L-29492February 29, 1972 Bataan Hardwood Corporation, et al. vs. Dy Pac & Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-29504February 29, 1972 Compania Maritima vs. Compania Maritima Labor Union, et al. G.R. No. L-29557February 29, 1972 Alfredo D. Talosig vs. Juliana Pulanco Vda. De Nieba, et al G.R. No. L-29669February 29, 1972 Philex Mining Corp. vs. Luz M. Zaldivia, et al. G.R. No. L-29836February 29, 1972 People of the Philippines vs. Sixto A. Domondon, et al. G.R. No. L-30215February 29, 1972 Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. vs. Walfrido De Los Angele, et al. G.R. No. L-30889February 29, 1972 Varsity Hills, Inc., et al. vs. Pedro C. Navarro, et al. G.R. No. L-31024February 29, 1972 People of the Philippines vs. Rafael Estocada, et al. G.R. No. L-31260February 29, 1972 People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Catolico, et al. G.R. No. L-31335February 29, 1972 People of the Philippines vs. Pablo Reloj G.R. No. L-31566February 29, 1972 Rogelio O. Tiglao vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Concurring OpinionJustice Fernando Concurring OpinionJustice Barredo Dissenting OpinionJustice Zaldivar G.R. No. L-32682February 29, 1972 Fortunato Tuason vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-32979-81February 29, 1972 Napoleon Lechoco vs. Civil Aeronautic Board, et al. G.R. Nos. L-34161February 29, 1972 Eugene A. Tan, et al. vs. Diosdado P. Macapagal, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Julio Valera, et al. Diwa Ng Pagkakaisa-Paflu vs. Filtex International Corp., et al. Shell Oil Workers' Union vs. Shell Company of the Philippines, et al. Fe F. Bautista vs. Cipriano B. Primicias, Jr., et al. Sheik Achmad Bashier vs. Commission on Elections, et al. San Miguel Brewery, Inc. vs. City of Cebu Emilio Llanes vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Miguel Ocampo vs. Liberato S. Domingo, et al. Leticia Cipriano vs. Gregorio P. Marcelino, et al. Chan Kian vs. Arsenio Angsin Nicanor Napolis vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Ernesto Yturr, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Fidel Santos vs. Eduardo V. Villafuerte Ricardo P. Gorospe vs. Arturo Padua, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Bonifacio Flores, et al. Terminal Shipping Corp. vs. Juan L. Bocar Victoria Amigable vs. Nicolas Cuenca, et al. Republic vs. Pal-Fox Lumber Co., Inc., et al. Philippine United Sales Company, et al. vs. Simeon M. Gopengco, et al. Amanda De La Paz vs. Mario De Guzman Aproniano Cano, et al. vs. Juana Sanchez De Camacho, et al. Rafael Zulueta, et al. vs. Pan American World Airways, Inc. Ulla Bahanuddin vs. Mario Hidalgo People of the Philippines vs. Charles Angcap In Re: Alejandro B. Pallugna, Jr.. Alejandro B. Pallugna, Jr. Bataan Hardwood Corporation, et al. vs. Dy Pac & Co., Inc., et al. Compania Maritima vs. Compania Maritima Labor Union, et al. Alfredo D. Talosig vs. Juliana Pulanco Vda. De Nieba, et al Philex Mining Corp. vs. Luz M. Zaldivia, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Sixto A. Domondon, et al. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, et al. vs. Walfrido De Los Angele, et al. Varsity Hills, Inc., et al. vs. Pedro C. Navarro, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Rafael Estocada, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Catolico, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Pablo Reloj Rogelio O. Tiglao vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Concurring OpinionJustice Fernando Concurring OpinionJustice Barredo Dissenting OpinionJustice Zaldivar Fortunato Tuason vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Napoleon Lechoco vs. Civil Aeronautic Board, et al. Eugene A. Tan, et al. vs. Diosdado P. Macapagal, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-30039 February 8, 1972
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JULIO VALERA and ERNESTO IMPERIAL, defendants, ERNESTO IMPERIAL,defendant-appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Assistant Solicitor General Crispin V. Bautista and Solicitor Francisco J. Bautista for plaintiff-appellee.
Salvador H. Laurel as counsel de oficio for defendant-appellant.
REYES, J.B.L.,J.:
Automatic review of the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro, in its Criminal Case No. R-409-P, imposing the penalty of death upon accused-appellant Ernesto Imperial, on his plea of guilty to an information for robbery with double homicide.
The information filed with the courta quoon 23 September 1967 charged Julio Valera, alias Juan Madrid, and herein accused-appellant Ernesto Imperial for conspiratorially killing the spouses Marcial Jalotjot and Valeriana Hernandez and robbing them of cash and valuables amounting to P4,175.00, on 6 August 1967, in Sitio Putingtubig, Barrio of Lumangbayan, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. The information alleged seven (7) qualifying and aggravating circumstances, namely: treachery, superior strength, nocturnity, cruelty, craft, and dwelling, aside from recidivism. Appellant Imperial had previously entered a plea of not guilty but, later on, withdrew it and changed it to a plea of guilty, with the following circumstances surrounding both pleas, as recorded in the minutes of the proceedings in the trial court: .
14 March 1968 — Atty. Gumersindo Manalo was appointed "de oficiocounsel for the arraignment of the two accuse." Accused Valera and Imperial individually pleaded not guilty.1
2 April 1968 — Atty. Miguel Ansaldo Jr. prayed that he be relieved as counselde oficiofor Imperial; the court denied it, and retained him "until counselde parteof accused Imperial will appear on April 22, 1968, as per manifestation of said accused Imperial."2
24 April 1968 — Hearing postponed, on motion of counsel for Valera.3
2 July 1968 — Atty. Ansaldo, Jr., for accused Imperial, did not appear. Court ordered his arrest. Hearing postponed.4
3 July 1968 — Atty. Ansaldo, Jr. did not appear. Court appointed Atty. Luis Viloria as counselde oficiofor accused Imperial.ℒαwρhi৷Hearing postponed.5
16 July 1968 — Atty. Ansaldo, Jr. appeared for Imperial; he manifested that accused Imperial will withdraw his former plea of not guilty and to substitute the same to guilty. Imperial was arraigned anew and he pleaded guilty.6
Before appellant Imperial was arraigned, on 16 July 1968, counsel Ansaldo, Jr. informed the court that he had studied the record of the case and "found out that Ernesto Imperial has an admission of guilt"; that the "evidence against him is very strong"; wherefore, counsel had advised his client that to proceed to trial would be futile, and upon such advice appellant Imperial had intimated to counsel his wish to be re-arraigned and to change his former plea of not guilty to that of guilty.7The court, thereupon, stated that it wanted to satisfy itself of the correctness of Ansaldo's manifestation from the very lips of Imperial, and, accordingly, asked Imperial each facet of the manifestation and asked what he had to say on said manifestation. Imperial answered "That is true, Your Honor." When Imperial answered in the affirmative, the court observed that he was smiling.8Then the court inquired whether he was ready to be re-arraigned with the assistance of Attorney Ansaldo, to which the accused also replied in the affirmative. At this juncture, Attorney Ansaldo interposed that before accused Imperial should be re-arraigned, the aggravating circumstance of recidivism against him should be deleted from the information. The fiscal conformed, and the court granted the correction made and it was initialed by the fiscal upon the face of the information. On order of the court, the court's interpreter then read the information "in Tagalog dialect which the accused speaks and understand". Accused Imperial pleaded guilty.9
In the absence of an explanation why Attorney Ansaldo, Jr. asked to be relieved as counselde oficiojust as soon as he was so appointed by the trial court; why he failed to appear for the trial of the case on 2 July 1968, when the court ordered his arrest, and on 3 July 1968, when the court had to appoint another (the third) counselde oficio; and that when Ansaldo appeared on 16 July 1968 he informed the court that his client, upon his advice, wished to change his previous plea of not guilty to one of guilty, this Court is forced to conclude that counsel was not disposed to discharge his duties as counselde oficio; and it was naive for the courta quoto have proceeded to re-arraign the accused with a counsel of such disposition and expect that the rights of the accused would be amply protected. It is to be noted in Ansaldo's manifestation that he merely advised the accused of the futility of proceeding to trial but he did not advise him of the consequences of a change of plea. Without such advice, did the accused know the consequences of his changed plea? If he did, why did he smile (an odd reaction of a man facing death) when the accused affirmed the correctness of Ansaldo's manifestation? Was such a smile one in relief of conscience, or one in ignorance that his change of plea would not alter the penalty of death imposable upon him, since the single mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty could not off-set the seven (7) other aggravating circumstances alleged in the information? These questions impress upon Us a lingering doubt that the accused by himself, and without advice from counsel, actually knew the consequences of changing his plea from not guilty to that of guilty; and that doubt should be resolved in his favor. For as early asU.S. vs. Talbanos,6 Phil. 541, the admonition was made that in cases where the punishment to be inflicted is severe, the court must assure itself that the accused is fully aware of the implications of a plea of guilty; for, in the words of Justice Makalintal, in the recent case ofPeople vs. Flores,L-32692, 30 July 1971.10
The norm that should be followed where a plea of guilty is entered by the defendant, especially in cases where the capital penalty may be imposed, is that the court should be sure that defendant fully understood the nature of the charges preferred against him and the character of the punishment provided by law before it is imposed.
Under the circumstances, prudence dictated that the Court should take some evidence in order to be reasonably certain that no injustice was being done to the accused, as pointed out inPeople vs. Alincastre, et al.,L-29891, 30 August 1971,11and the cases cited therein.
WHEREFORE,the decision under review is set aside and the case ordered remanded to the courta quofor a new re-arraignment and for further proceedings conformable to this opinion. No pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
Footnotes