[ G.R. No. L-37014. April 06, 1984 ] 213 Phil. 553
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. L-37014. April 06, 1984 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL GAYOLA, ENRIQUE ARUTA, EDUARDO MURILLO, TENORIO AYUCAN, SALVADOR AYUCAN AND CRUZ ABRASADO, ACCUSED, TENORIO AYUCAN, SALVADOR AYUCAN AND CRUZ ABRASADO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
RELOVA, J.:
On automatic review is the death sentence imposed on Tenorio Ayucan, Salvador Ayucan and Cruz Abrasado by the then Court of First Instance of Bukidnon, Branch II, in Criminal Case No. 373, for the crime of robbery in band with triple homicide and rape, for which they are also ordered “to indemnify the heirs of Delfin Redito in the amount of twelve thousand (P12,000.00) pesos and his wife, Milagros Roa Redito it another sum of twelve thousand (P12,000.) pesos and also the heirs of Silvino Maglinto in the further amount of twelve thousand (P12,000.00) pesos, and to pay the proportionate amount of the costs.”
The amended information filed against the above-mentioned appellants and three others, namely: Manuel Gayola, Enrique Aruta and Eduardo Murillo, reads as follows:
“That on or about the 30th day of September 1971, in the afternoon, at Old Lilingayon, municipality of Valencia, province of Bukidnon, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, MANUEL GAYOLA, ENRIQUE ARUTA, EDUARDO MURILLO, TENORIO AYUCAN, SALVADOR AYUCAN and CRUZ ALRASADO, conspiring and confederating together, and mutually helping one another, all armed with bolos, with intent of gain, and by means of violence and intimidation against persons, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and criminally went to the house of Delfin Redito and once inside take, steal, rob and carry away a transistor radio, a pair of boots, a pair of pants, with a total value of ONE HUNDRED NINETY FIVE (P195.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, and by reason and on the occasion of said robbery, and in furtherance of their conspiracy, the above-named accused took turns and alternated in hacking and stabbing Delfin Redito and Silvino Maglinto, with the use of their bolos, hitting the victims on different parts of their bodies resulting to their instantaneous death. That by reason and on the occasion of said robbery, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, took turns in having sexual intercourse with Milagros Roa, after which, the above-named accused stabbed her to death.
“The crime was committed with the following aggravating circumstances:
That the crime was committed with evident premeditation;
That the wrong done in the commission of the crime was deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission;
That the crime was committed with insult and disregard due the deceased, Delfin Redito, who is an old man and Milagros Roa on account of her sex.
“Contrary to and in violation of Article 294, Paragraph 1, in relation to Article 14, Paragraph 3, 13, and 21 of the Revised Penal Code.” (pp. 3-4, Appellants’ Brief)
On April 13, 1972, all the accused were arraigned and the following incidents transpired before the trial court:
“FISCAL ARCADIO D. FABRIA:
Appearing for the prosecution, Your Honor, please.
ATTY. ISRAEL D. DAMASCO:
Appearing for all the accused. Your Honor. The accused are ready for arraignment.
COURT:
All right, arraign the accused.
(THE ACCUSED WERE ARRAIGNED)
MANUEL GAYOLA - ’not guilty'
ENRIQUE ARUTA - ’not guilty'
EDUARDO MURILLO - ’not guilty'
TENORIO AYUCAN – ‘guilty’
SALVADOR AYUCAN - ‘guilty’
CRUZ ABRASADO – ‘guilty’
(tsn., pp. 1-2, April 13, 1972 hearing)
After arraignment, the prosecution introduced the following witnesses: Patrolman Uldarico Balmoreda, Jr., Alejo Lukday, Godofredo Roa, Victor Palma, Antonio Vale, Roberto Torres, Municipal Judge Paterno F. Aurelio and Donato Abejuela. Their testimonies refer to matters which occurred after the alleged incident of September 30, 1971 when Delfin Redito and Silvino Maglinto were killed; Milagros Roa, sexually abused and then stabbed to death; a transistor radio, a pair of boots and a pair of pants, with a total value of P195.00, were lost.
The prosecution had no eye-witness or direct evidence to the alleged incident. It relied mainly on the extra-judicial confessions of defendants-appellants Tenorio Ayucan, Salvador Ayucan and Cruz Abrasado - all taken by police-investigator Uldarico Balmoreda, Jr., of the Valencia Police Department on November 19, 1971 and subscribed and sworn to before Municipal Judge Paterno F. Aurelio (Exhibits “A” and “A-1”; “B” and “B-1”; and “C” and “C-1”). Said confessions are in Visayan (Cebuano) dialect, signed by Salvador Ayucan, and thumbmarked by Tenorio Ayucan and Cruz Abrasado, respectively. Appellants were not assisted by counsel during the investigation.
During the trial of the case on August 14, 1972, the following incidents transpired:
“COURT: Will the defense present any evidence?
ATTY. DAMASCO: We are desirous of presenting the three accused, Your Honor.
COURT: O R D E R
In view of the desire of the defense to present their evidence, let the continuation of this case be set to August 21, 1972 at 9:00 in the morning.
SO ORDERED.
Done in open court at Malaybalay, Bukidnon, 14th day August 1972.
(SGD.) ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA
Judge”
(tsn, pp. 56-57, August 14, 1972 hearing)
Records do not show that defendants-appellants were able to adduce evidence. On September 29, 1972, the court a quo handed down its decision convicting them of the crime charged and sentencing them accordingly.
The case with respect to the other accused, namely: Manuel Gayola, Enrique Aruta and Eduardo Murillo, was dismissed by the court a quo on October 30, 1972, upon motion of the Fiscal.
Appellants assail the judgment of conviction on the ground that it was entered on an improper plea of guilty and insist that the lower court should not have considered the sworn statements because they were taken under circumstances which vitiated their free will. Further, they claim that there was a mistake in finding that the commission of the offense as attended by the aggravating circumstances of evidence premeditation, by a band and with insult of or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his age or sex; in not appreciating in their favor the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and the fact of their being natives of the province of Bukidnon, pursuant to Section 106 of the Administrative Code for Mindanao and Sulu.
Indeed, records do not show that the amended information was read to the appellants or that its contents were interpreted to them in the language or dialect they understood. The only participation of the trial judge in the taking of the pleas of guilty was his remark: “All right, arraign the accused.” It does not appear whether the trial judge asked defendants-appellants if they fully understood the meaning of their pleas and the nature of the punishment that may be imposed upon them as a consequence of their pleas of guilty, before sentencing them. Thus, speaking through the late Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro in People vs. Apduhan, Jr., 24 SCRA 798, this Court had occasion to advert the fact that “judges are duty bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty he understands fully the meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable conviction.”
In the case at bar, We are not satisfied that His Honor, the trial judge, had properly discharged such duty. When he said: “All right, arraign the accused,” appellants were not advised and appraised of the severity of the offense for which they were indicted and the possibility that the capital penalty might be imposed upon them despite a plea of guilty. There were no questions at all asked of the appellants by the lower court which would merit the approval by this Court that they completely understood the nature of the charges filed against them and the character of the punishment to be imposed upon them. And, despite their desire to present evidence, a decision was rendered without their having adduced any in their defense.
In all cases, especially those involving capital offenses, it is well-settled that:
“x x x (t)he court should be sure that the defendant fully understands the nature of the charges preferred against him and the character of the punishment to be imposed before sentencing him. While there is no law requiring it, yet, in every case under the plea of guilty, where the penalty may be death, it is advisable for the court to call witnesses for the purpose of establishing the guilt and the degree of culpability of the defendant (People vs. Solacito, 29 SCRA 64).”
Under the circumstances, We agree with the defense that the lower court was remiss in the performance of its duty in taking the pleas of guilty of herein defendants-appellants because what transpired below was not in accord with the guidelines set forth by this Court with respect to the taking of a plea of guilty involving capital offenses.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby SET ASIDE and the case remanded thereto for further proceedings in conformity with the views expressed in the case of People vs. Solacito, supra.
SO ORDERED.
Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., his concurrence is based not only on the highly-persuasive opinion of Justice Relova but on the fact that the case with respect to the other accused, namely: Manuel Gayola, Enrique Aruta and Eduardo Murillo, was dismissed by the Court a quo on October 30, 1972, upon motion of the Fiscal.
Teehankee, J., no part.
Aquino and Abad Santos, JJ., see dissent.