People v. Ulit

131. People v. Ulit, G.R. No.
131799-901, 23 February 2004, 423 SCRA 374

Facts:
In Criminal Case No. 97-385, the appellant was charged with qualified rape, i.e., the rape of his niece,
who was a minor, punishable by death under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 7659.
After the prosecution had rested its case, the trial court reset the hearing to November 5, 1997 for the
appellant to adduce his evidence. When the case was called for trial on that date, his counsel
manifested to the court that the appellant was changing his plea in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-385 and 97-
387 from "not guilty" to "guilty." He also manifested that he would no longer adduce any evidence in his
defense in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-386 and 97-388 because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes charged therein. The trial court suspended the proceedings and
gave the appellant forty-five minutes to confer with his counsel. When trial resumed, the appellant
reiterated his earlier manifestation. When told by the court that he could be sentenced to death for the
rape charges, the appellant stood pat on his decision to plead guilty in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-385 and
97-387, and to no longer present any evidence in his defense in the other two cases. The appellant was
re-arraigned in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-385 and 97-387 with the assistance of the same counsel and
entered his plea of guilty to the charges.
Issue:
WON the appellant's plea of guilty in Criminal Case No. 97-385 was imprudently made.
Ruling:
Yes.; When the appellant informed the trial court of his decision to change his plea of "not guilty" to
"guilty," it behooved the trial court to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
comprehension of the consequences of his plea as mandated by Section 6, Rule 116 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure. In People vs. Camay,[23] this Court enumerated the following duties of the
trial court under the rule:
1. The court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension [by the
accused] of the consequences of his plea;
2. The court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and
precise degree of his culpability; and
3. The court must require the prosecution to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he
desires. [24]
The raison d'etre for the rule is that the courts must proceed with extreme care where the imposable
penalty is death, considering that the execution of such sentence is irrevocable. Experience has shown
that even innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty. Improvident pleas of guilty to a capital offense
on the part of the accused must be averted since by admitting his guilt before the trial court, the
accused would forfeit his life and liberty without having fully understood the meaning, significance and
the dire consequences of his plea.[25]
There is no hard and fast rule as to how the trial judge may conduct a searching inquiry. It has been
held, however, that the focus of the inquiry must be on the voluntariness of the plea and the full or
complete comprehension by the accused of his plea of guilty so that it can truly be said that it is based
on a free and informed judgment. In People vs. Aranzado,[26] we formulated the following guidelines
as to how the trial court may conduct its searching inquiry:
(1) Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into the custody of the law; (b) whether
he had the assistance of a competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations; and
(c) under what conditions he was detained and interrogated during the investigations. These the court
shall do in order to rule out the possibility that the accused has been coerced or placed under a state of
duress either by actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent or avenging quarters.
(2) Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he had conferred with, and completely
explained to, the accused the meaning and consequences of a plea of guilty.
(3) Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused, such as his age, socio-economic
status, and educational background, which may serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a
free and informed plea of guilty.
(4) Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or nature of the penalty under the law and the
certainty that he will serve such sentence. Not infrequently indeed an accused pleads guilty in the hope
of a lenient treatment or upon bad advice or because of promises of the authorities or parties of a
lighter penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty of the judge to see to it that the
accused does not labor under these mistaken impressions.
(5) Require the accused to fully narrate the incident that spawned the charges against him or make him
reenact the manner in which he perpetrated the crime, or cause him to supply missing details or
significance.[27]
In People vs. Ostia,[28] we held that the trial court is also required to probe thoroughly into the reasons
or motivations, as well as the facts and circumstances for a change of plea of the accused and his
comprehension of his plea; explain to him the elements of the crime for which he is charged as well as
the nature and effect of any modifying circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense,
inclusive of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, as well as the qualifying and special qualifying
circumstances, and inform him of the imposable penalty and his civil liabilities for the crime for which he
would plead guilty to.[29]
In this case, the trial court failed to make a searching inquiry into the appellant's voluntariness and full
comprehension of his plea of guilty.

People v. Ulit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Ulit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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 v. Ulit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

131. People v. Ulit, G.R. No.

131799-901, 23 February 2004, 423 SCRA 374

You might also like