People versus Baluyot

8/18/2019 People versus Baluyot

1/6

G.R. No. L-32752-3 January 31, 1977

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.MIGUEL !LU"OT y #UL!", P! LO PIN$! y N!R$! an% !NTONIO !LINJ!RI y N!&!L, a'(a) TON"

!LU"OT, defendants-appellants.

Feliciano Belmonte, Jr., Counsel de oficio for appellants.

Acting Solicitor General Hector C. Fule, Assistant Solicitor General Jaime M. Lantin and Solicitor Reynato S.uno for appellee.

M!*!SI!R, J:

This is an automatic review of the decision rendered on October 7, 1970 by the Circuit Criminal Court of theifth !udicial "istrict holdin# sessions in $alolos %ulacan &!ud#e 'belardo $. "ayrit, presidin#(, convictin# the

defendants $i#uel %aluyot y "ulay, )ablo )inca y *arca and 'ntonio %alin+ari y *aval, alias Tony %aluyot, ofthe crime of robbery with homicide and sentencin# each and all of them to death, with the other accessories ofthe law to proportionately indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of )1 ,000.00 to correspondin#ly paythe said heirs by way of moral and e emplary dama#es in the amount of ) 0,000.00, proportionately andsimilarly, to proportionately pay the costs of these proceedin#s./

The information under which the aforenamed defendants were char#ed reads as follows

The undersi#ned )rovincial iscal accuses $i#uel %aluyot y "ulay )ablo )inca y *arca and 'ntonio %alin+ari y *aval, alias Tony %aluyot of the crime of robbery with homicide, penali edunder the provisions of 'rt. 92, para#raph 1 of the 3evised )enal Code, Committed as

follows

That on or about the 4th day of 'u#ust 1970, in the $unicipality of $alolos, )rovince of%ulacan, )hilippines, and within the +urisdiction of this 5onorable Court, the said accused$i#uel %aluyot y "ulay, )ablo )inca y *arca and 'ntonio %alin+ari y *aval, alias Tony %aluyot,conspirin# and confederatin# to#ether and mutually helpin# one another, did then and therewillfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of #ain and by means of force, violence andintimidation, ta6e and rob money from erry 8ureta alias $arcelino Carceles y 'basola, thendrivin# a ta i mar6ed ' 3:'*; with plate *o. 12-97, 20-T< =70 &T20 s?49(, to thedama#e and pre+udice of the said erry 8ureta alias $arcelino Carceles y 'basola thatsimultaneously, on the occasion of or durin# the commission of robbery, to enable them tota6e, steal and carry away the said money, the said accused, in furtherance of theirconspiracy, with intent to 6ill, with treachery and evident premeditation and armed with adeadly weapon &da##er( fan-nife did attac6, assault and stab the said erry 8ureta alias$arcelino Carceles y 'basola, hittin# him in the nec6, thereby inflictin# serious wounds &stabwounds which directly caused the death of said erry 8ureta alias $arcelino Carceles y

'basola.

That in the commission of this crime, the followin# a##ravatin# circumstances were present,to wit &1( ni#httime, &. ( craft and > abuse of superior stren#th./


2/6

@pon arrai#nment on 8eptember =, 1970, all the accused, assisted by attorney de oficio , 'tty. Oscar Torres,pleaded not #uilty to the information. The followin# day A 8eptember 9 Awhen the case was called for trial,the prosecution started presentin# its evidence. The accused were assisted by the same attorney de officio ,

'tty. Oscar Torres, who manifested that he was appearin# as counsel for the accused in that dayBs trial only.The prosecution thereupon called, as its first witness, "r. 3icardo . ;van#elists, a medicole#al officer of the)rovincial 5ospital of $alolos, %ulacan. 'mon# other thin#s, "r. ;van#elista dentified the post-mortem

findin#s on the deceased $arcelino Carceles y 'basola alias erry 8urete &; h. ', p. 2 t.s.n., 8eptember 9,1970-%acani( and the dia#ram he prepared in connection with the said post-mortem findin#s &; h '- 1, dem.(.

Trial was continued the followin# day, 8eptember >0, 1970. The accused were this time assisted by anothercounsel de oficio, 'tty. odofredo :insan#an. 't this hearin#, the prosecution called on its second witness, one"emocrito $endo a. a corporal of the police force of $alolos, %ulacan. 'mon# other thin#s, Corporal $endo a

dentified the first accused $i#uel %aluyot and the statement #iven by the latter to the police &; h. %, p. ,t.s.n., 8ept. >0, 1970, dem.(. The same witness also dentified the third accused 'ntonio %alin+ari y *aval, aliasTony %aluyot, and the statement #iven by said accused to the police &; h. C. p. >, t.s.n., dem.(. The lastwitness presented by the prosecution on this day was uillermo 3. Cru , patrolman of the $alolos )olice

orce. 'mon# other thin#s, this witness dentified the second accused )ablo )inca y *arca and the statement#iven the police &; h. ", p. 9 t.s.n., dem(.

Thereafter. the continuation of the trial was reset for October 7, 1970. 't this hearin#, the accused wereassisted by another counsel de oficio , 'tty. ;duardo illafuerte, who was appointed by the trial court after theaccused informed it that. they had no lawyer. Then the trial court as6ed the new counsel de oficio what hispleasure was, and the latter reDuested that he be #iven a few minutes within which to confer with the accused.The trial court #ave him twenty & 0( minutes within which to /consumate/ his conference. 'ccordin#ly, when thesession was resumed, 'tty. illafuerte manifested that /after conferrin# with the accused, they intimated . . .their desire to withdraw their former plea of not #uilty and to substitute in lieu thereof the plea of #uilty to theoffense char#ed./

Eithout inDuirin# from the prosecution what its stand was on the motion of counsel for the accused, the trialcourt, addressin# itself to all the accused said

CO@3T

Fou have heard the manifestations of counsel. To you now affirm the truthfulness andcorrectness of the manifestation Of counsel to the effect that you now desire to withdraw yourformer plea of not #uilty and to substitute the same with that of #uilty to the offense char#edG

H A $i#uel %aluyot y "ulayG

' A Fes, your 5onor.

H A )ablo )inca y *arca


H A 'ntonio %alin+ari y *avalG


H A 're you now ready to hear your sentenceG


3/6


'lri#ht &pp. ->, t.s.n., October 7, 1970, )lacido(.

Then and there, and without much ado, the trial court dictated in open court its decision under review, thedispositive portion of which reads as follows

n view of the fore#oin# considerations. the Court declares the accused @ :TF beyondreasonable doubt of the crime char#ed in the information &'rt. 92, )ar. &1(, 3evised )enalCode( and in view of the attendance of the lone miti#atin# circumstance of voluntary plea of#uilty to the offense char#ed and the presence of three &>11, #eneric a##ravatin#circumstances one of which was necessarily offset by the lone miti#atin# circumstance of thesaid voluntary plea of uilty, as prescribed in 'rt. 42 of the 3evised )enal Code, the Court isconstrained to impose upon each of the accused the ";'T5 );*':TF, with the otheraccessories of the law to proportionately indemnify the heirs by the victim in the amount of)1 ,000.00 to correspondin#ly pay the said heirs by way of moral and e emplary dama#es inthe amount of ) 0,000.00, proportionately and similarly, to proportionately pay the costs ofthese proceedin#s ...

%efore this CO@3T, the accused are represented by duly desi#nated counsel de oficio , 'tty. eliciano%elmonte, !r. n the brief he filed on "ecember 4, 197 , counsel assi#ned only one error, to wit /The trial courterred in convictin# the accused appellants and imposin# the supreme penalty on the basis alone of their plea of #uilty to the information and the a##ravatin# circumstances alle#ed therein without the court ascertainin#whether or not there was evidence to support the e istence of such a##ravatin# circumstances/, and prayed for /the remand of the case for further trial in the lower court./

On $arch =, 197>, 'ctin# 8olicitor eneral 5ector . ule, 'ssistant 8olicitor eneral !aime $. :antin and8olicitor 3eynato 8. )uno, filed a manifestation, which has been considered as appelleeBs brief, virtually +oinin#the cause of the defendants-appellants by enumeratin# in one pa#e a lon# chain of cases previously decidedby this CO@3T, and prayin# that the decision under review be vacated and the case remanded to the lowercourt for further proceedin#s.

E; have painsta6in#ly reviewed the record of this case and E; find both the lone error assi#ned by appellantsand the manifestation of the 8olicitor eneral well-ta6en.

5ence, E; set aside the decision of the trial court.

To start with, the court a !uo did not even ascertain for itself whether the accused completely understood theprecise nature of the char#e and the meanin# of the a##ravatin# circumstances of ni#httime, craft and abuse of superior stren#th as havin# attended the commission of the crime, so as to obviate any doubt as to thepossibility that they have misunderstood the nature and #ravity of the char#e to which they were pleadin# #uilty.The trial court did not conduct a dialo#ue with the accused on their educational attainment, especiallyconsiderin# that a cursory perusal of their si#natures on the statements they #ave to the $alolos )olice orce&; hs. ', % and C( tends to show that they have very little or scanty education. $oreover, from the transcript,E; have noted that after the arrai#nment, trial was held on three dates and on each day the accused wereassisted by three &>( different counsel de oficio . n the hearin# of October 7, 1970 A the day the decision under review was rendered A the counsel de oficio who assisted the accused was desi#nated by the trial court onlyafter the case was called for trial, i.e., after the accused had informed the trial court that they did not have alawyer. @nder these circumstances, it is not unreasonable to assume that said counsel de oficio proceeded totrial without first fully investi#atin# the facts of the case and that his interview with the accused, even if it lasted


4/6

for twenty & 0( minutes as the record insinuates, was not, and could not have been sufficient to enable him toacDuire a fairly #ood #rasp, much less a comprehensive 6nowled#e, of the relevant facts of the case.

ncidentally, under the 3ules of this Court, whenever an attorney de officio is employed or assi#ned by the courtto defend the accused at the trial, he shall be #iven a reasonable time to consult with the accused and preparehis defense before proceedin# further in the case, which shall not be less than two & ( days in case of trial&8ee. I, 3ule 114, 3evised 3ules of Court( . The record, incidentally, does not show the e istence of a /#ood

cause/ to +ustify the trial court in shortenin# the trial fi ed by the 3ules.

The court a !uo cannot plead i#norance of the prevailin# in+unction directed towards trial +ud#es to e ercisepatience and circumspection in e plainin# to the accused not only the nature and meanin# of the accusationand the full import of their plea of #uilty but also the meanin# A in laymanBs lan#ua#e A of the a##ravatin#circumstances that attended the commission of the crime, because not very lon# before the rendition of thedecision under review, this CO@3T in three &>( cases &)eople vs. 'pduhan, 2 8C3' 79=, 'u#ust >0, 194=)eople vs. 'rpa, 7 8C3', 10>7, 'pril I, 1949 and )eople vs. 8olacito, 9 8C3' 41, 'u#ust I, 1949( hadalready enunciated its lon#-settled rule on the matter. 's a matter of fact, in the 'rpa case, E; had occasion toreiterate the said rule of practice, recommended since the early cases of @8 vs. Talbanos &4 )hil. I21, I2>,Oct. 9, 1904( and @8 vs. 3ota &9 )hil. 2 4, "ec. 1, 1907(, and thereafter set out in 8ee. I, 3ule 11= of the3evised 3ules of Court, which provides

)lea of #uilty A "etermination of punishment. A Ehere the defendant pleads #uilty to acomplaint or information, if the court accepts the plea and has discretion as to the punishmentfor the offense, it may hear witnesses to determine what punishment shall be imposed.

urthermore, the court a !uo did not even consult the testimonies of the three 8tate witnesses A namely, thedoctor and the police officers who too6 down the statements of the accused A who testified durin# the first andsecond hearin#s, at least with the end in view of ascertainin# the de#ree of the penalty that should be imposedafter acceptin# the plea of #uilty of the accused. Ehat the court a !uo did was only to as6 the accused whether they were ready to receive their sentence after they had affirmed the /truthfulness and correctness/ of theircounselBs manifestation on their chan#e of plea. n short, the court a !uo did not even inform the accused thattheir plea of #uilty mi#ht mean death for all of them.

E; deeply lament this attitude of the court a !uo . %e that as it may, however, E; only hope that hereafter trialcourts would strictly comply with the ri#id standard set in the followin# cases after 'pduhan, 'rpa and 8olacito,all of which have invariably, consistently and firmly established and stressed the duty of trial courts beforeacceptin# the plea of #uilty of an accused to a capital offense. These cases are

1. The case of )eople vs. ;n#latera &>2 8C3', 2I4, !uly >1, 1970(, where E; found it proper to invite theattention of the Court of a !uo and of all trial courts in #eneral to what E; said in 'pduhan and 8olacito caseson the matter of what the trial court should do upon arrai#nment of a defendant char#ed with a capital offense,before he is allowed to enter a plea of #uilty

. The case of )eople vs. ;stebia &20 8C3', 90, !uly 9, 1971(, where, in addition to reiteratin# what E; saidin the ;n#latera case, E; also stressed on the need for care and prudence before acceptin# the plea of #uiltyof an accused especially in capital offenses

>. The case of )eople vs. lores &120 8C3', >0, !uly >0, 1971(, Ehere this CO@3T, spea6in# throu#h thenChief !ustice Huerube C. $a6alintal, said

The norm that should be allowed where a plea of #uilty is entered the defendant, especially incases where the capital penalty may be imposed, is that the court should he sure that


5/6

defendant fully understood the nature of the char#es prefer red a#ainst him and the of thepunishment provided by law before it is imposed.

2. The case of eople "s. Simeon &27 8C3', 1 9, 8eptember =, 197 (, where E; made reference tonumerous other cases, such as #S "s. $al%anos, supra #S "s. Rota, et al., supra& #s 'S. Agcaoili &>1 )hil. 91,$arch >1, 191I( )eople vs. %ulala6e &104 )hil, 747, "ecember = 19I9( and eople "s. Arpa, supra , not to

mention the 1971 and 197 cases of eople "s. (ste%ia, supra , and eople "s. (ste%ia &:->2=11, 'u#ust ,197 (

I. The case of eople "s. )%a*e+ &41 8C3' 24=, 27> "ecember 0,1972(, where this CO@3T, spea6in# a#ainthrou#h then Chief !ustice Huerube C. $a6alintal, said

The trial court disre#arded our in+unction in eople "s. Apdu an & 2 8C3', =17( to all trial +ud#es to Brefrain from acceptin# with alacrity an accusedBs plea of #uilty, for while +usticedemands a speedy administration, +ud#es are duty bound to be e tra solicitous in seein# to itthat when an accused pleads #uilty he understands fully the meanin# of his plea and theimport of an inevitable conviction. n eople ". Lacson &II 8C3', I=9(, this Court hadoccasion to reiterate the rule that in capital offenses the ta6in# of testimony, notwithstandin#the plea of #uilty, is the proper and prudent course to follow to establish tile #uilt and precisede#ree of culpability of the accused not only to satisfy the trial +ud#e but to aid the 8upremeCourt in determinin# whether accused really and truly understood and comprehended themeanin#, full si#nificance and conseDuences of his plea.B

Ehat this Court said in )eople vs. %usa &I1 8C3' >17( is particularly apropos B n sum andsubstance, it will not suffice, under the law providin# for compulsory review of deathsentences by t his Court, that the accusedBs plea of #uilty is admitted and, on the basisthereof. that +ud#ment is summarily rendered. The essence of +udicial review in capitaloffenses is that while society allows violent retribution for heinous crimes committed a#ainst it,it always must ma6e certain that blood of the innocent is not spilled, or that the #uilty are notmade to suffer more than their +ust measure of punishment and retribution. Thus, a +ud#ment

metin# out penalty of death is valid only if it is susceptible of a fair and reasonablee amination by this Court.

4. The case of eople "s. -omingo &4= 8C3', I0, I2, *ovember 1>, 197I(, where, aside from reiteratin# therule on the duty of trial courts to e ercise solicitous care before sentencin# the accused on a plea of #uilty,especially in capital offenses, E; also said that trial +ud#es should #ive ample opportunity to the counsel deoficio to e amine not only the records of the case but also the scene of the crime as well as to confer with theaccused len#thily so that he can properlyB intelli#ently and fully represent and defend the interests of theaccused and

7. The latest case of )eople vs. 5ondolero & .3. *o. :- 204>> 'u#ust I, 1974(, where E; reiterated the rulelon# established since the Talbanos, 3ota and '#caoili cases, supra , that since there is no law prohibitin# theta6in# of testimony after a plea of #uilty, where a #rave offense is char#ed, this Court has deemed such ta6in#of testimony the prudent and proper course to follow for the purpose of establishin# not only the #uilt but aswell as the precise de#ree of culpability of the defendant./

E; hasten to add what E; said in )eople vs. 3icalde &:>247>, !anuary >0, 197>(, which is somehow denticalin most, if not all, respects to the case at bar. n that case, this CO@3T, spea6in# throu#h Chief !ustice red3ui Castro, sounded once more its concern over the failure of trial courts to comply strictly with the proceduralpaths E; have adverted to as early as the Talbanos case. 8aid this CO@3T


6/6

Our previous decisions have repeatedly warned a#ainst the dan#er of the plea of #uilty bein#improvidently entered in capital cases. E; have uniformly stressed the importance of the trialcourtBs receivin# evidence notwithstandin# the plea of #uilty in order that no reasonable doubtmay remain as to the #uilt and the de#ree of culpability of the accused. Ee have time andtime a#ain reminded +ud#es that they are duty bound to be e tra solicitous in seein# to it thatwhen an accused pleads #uilty he understands fully the meanin# ofB his plea and the import of

inevitable conviction &@8 vs. !amad, >7 )hil. >0I )eople vs. %ulala6e, 104 )hil. 747 )eoplevs. 'rpa, 7 8C3', 10>7(.

n the case at bar, Ee are not satisfied that the trial +ud#e has properly dischar#ed this basicduty en+oined of him.

's pointed out by both the counsel for the appellant and the 8olicitor eneral, the trial +ud#elimited himself to as6in# two brief Duestions from the appellant whether the appellant wasaware of tile conseDuences of his chan#e of plea from not #uilty to that of #uilty, and whetherthe appellant 6new that notwithstandin# such plea of #uilty the only possible penalty was thatof death. The record is completely bereft of any indication that the Court dili#ently ascertainedfor itself whether the appellant completely understood the full meanin#, si#nificance and

implications of his plea of #uilty. The court li6ewise failed to inform the appellant of thea##ravatin# circumstances alle#ed in the amended information and their effect on his plea.

'#ain, the court failed to as6 the appellant whether he was invo6in# miti#atin# circumstancesin his favor. inally, the court did not ma6e any inDuiry, which inDuiry was obviously called for,why the appellant had a sudden chan#e of plea after he had previously pleaded not #uilty tothe char#e a#ainst him. n sum, the trial court failed to ta6e the necessary precautions toforestall the entry by the appellant of an improvident plea of #uilty before passin# +ud#mentupon him.

E5;3; O3;, T5; ";C 8 O* O T5; CO@3T ' H@O O OCTO%;3 7, 1970, *" * T5; 'CC@8;"@ :TF O 3O%%;3F E T5 5O$ C "; '*" 8;*T;*C * ;'C5 '*" ':: O T5;$ TO T5; 8@)3;$;

);*':TF O ";'T5 8 5;3;%F 8;T '8 "; '*" T5; C'8; 3;)3 $'*";" TO T O3 @3T5;3

)3OC;;" * 8 * CO* O3$ TF E T5 T5 8 ";C 8 O*. E T5O@T )3O*O@*C;$;*T '8 TO CO8T8.

Documents

People versus Baluyot