People Vs Tiongson Rule 121

RULE 121 NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUDY

TIONGSON, defendant-appellant.
G.R. Nos. L-35123-24, July 25, 1984, CONCEPCION JR., J.
The Court requires that in every case under a plea of guilty, where the penalty may be death, the
trial court should call witnesses for the purpose of establishing the guilt and degree of
culpability of the defendant and not only to satisfy the trial judge but to aid the Supreme Court in
determining whether accuse understood and comprehended the meaning, full significance and
consequences of his plea.
FACTS:
At about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon of October 26, 1971, the accused Rudy Tiongson
escaped from the Municipal Jail of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, together with George de la
Cruz and Rolando Santiago, where they were detained under the charge of Attempted Homicide.
While in the act of escaping, the said Rudy Tiongson killed Pat. Zosimo Gelera, a member of the
police force of Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, who was guarding the said accused, and PC
Constable Aurelio Canela of the PC Detachment stationed in Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, who
went in pursuit of them. Thus, Rudy Tiongson was charged with Murder, in two separate
informations.
The accused, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded guilty to both informations. The trial
court, however, did not render judgment outright, but ordered the prosecution to present its
evidence, after which, it sentenced the said accused to suffer the death penalty in each case, to
indemnify the heirs of the victims in the amount of P12,000.00 and to pay the costs. The death
penalty having been imposed, the cases are now before the Court for mandatory review.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the cases may be returned to the court below for proper proceedings
claiming that the acceptance of the plea of guilty was precipitate since the trial judge did not
ascertain from the accused that the latter was aware of the consequences of his pleas of guilty
and that he fully understood the significance and meaning thereof.
HELD:
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 understands the nature of the charges preferred against him and the character of
the punishment provided by law before it is imposed. For this reason, the Court requires that in
every case under a plea of guilty, where the penalty may be death, the trial court should call
witnesses for the purpose of establishing the guilt and degree of culpability of the defendant and
not only to satisfy the trial judge but to aid the Supreme Court in determining whether accuse
understood and comprehended the meaning, full significance and consequences of his plea.
In the instant case, the trial judge required the taking of testimony as to the circumstances
under which the crime was committed before passing judgment so that the resulting verdict
cannot in any way be branded as deficient.
The Solicitor General agrees with counsel for the accused that the evidence presented by
the prosecution does not warrant, nor support, the finding that the killing of Pat. Zosimo Gelera
was qualified by treachery since the prosecution failed to present any eyewitness who directly
saw the killing. The circumstances qualifying or aggravating the act of killing a human being
must be proved in an evident and incontestable manner, mere presumptions or deductions from
hypothetical facts not being sufficient to consider them justified.
The Solicitor General also agreed with the defendant's counsel that treachery is not
present in the killing of PC Constable Aurelio M. Canela since the deceased was actually warned
by PC Sgt. Saway not to remain standing but seek cover because of the known presence of the
accused in the vicinity, but that the said deceased disregarded the warning.
It may be true that a judicial confession of guilt admits all the material facts alleged in the
information, including the aggravating circumstances listed therein, as stated by the trial judge,
yet where there has been a hearing and such circumstances are disproven by the evidence, they
should be disallowed in the judgment.
The Court also agreed with the parties that the aggravating circumstances of (1) evident
premeditation, (2) in contempt of or with insult to public authorities, (3) uninhabited place, and
(4) abuse of superior strength were not present in the commission of the crimes.
Evident premeditation must be ruled out in the absence of sufficient proof that a plan to
kill the victims existed, the execution of which was preceded by deliberate thought and
reflection.
The alleged commission of the crime in contempt of or with insult to the public
authorities cannot also be appreciated since Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela are not persons
in authority, but merely agents of a person in authority.
The alleged commission in an isolated place based on mere declaration of PC Sgt. Saway
that the place where PC Constable Canela was shot was about 700 meters away from the
Municipal Building, which does not satisfy the requirement. Besides, the record does not show
that the place was intentionally sought by the accused to facilitate the commission of the crime.
Finally, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength must also be ruled out
since there is no direct evidence that the accused employed superior strength in the killing of Pat.
Gelera. With respect to PC Constable Canela, the accused was alone against three armed
pursuers, namely: PC Sgt. Saway, PC Constable Canela, and Pat Nicandro Garcia, and a civilian
by the name of Fred Barcelona.
As heretofore stated, the accused is guilty only of the crime of Homicide in the killing of
PC Constable Canela and Pat. Gelera. The Solicitor General recommends that the accused should
be sentenced to suffer imprisonment of from 8 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months, with
the accessory penalties, for each homicide committed by him, which is within the range provided
by law.

People Vs Tiongson Rule 121

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Tiongson Rule 121

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Tiongson Rule 121

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RULE 121 NEW TRIAL OR RECONSIDERATION

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUDY

You might also like