PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ARNEL ALICANDO y BRIONES, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 117487

December 12, 1995

PUNO, J.
CASE FACTS:
On June 12, 1994 accused Arnel Alicando joined the the drinking
spree of Romeo Penecilla ( the father of the victim) and Ramil Rodriguez at
Barangay Rizal, Zone 1, Pulo Bala, Iloilo. Accused-Apellant joins them but
every now and then he would take then leave then return. The appellant was
living with his uncles house five-arms arm's length from Penecilla's house. At
about 4pm that day they stopped the drinking spree.
Luis Rebada lives in Penecilla neighborhood about 1-1/2 arms length
away, At about 5:30 p.m. of that day, he saw the victim at the window of
appellant's house. The victim offered the accused to buy her "yemas" but
appellant closed the window. Soon he heard the victim crying. he approached
appellant's house and peeped through an opening between its floor and door.
The sight shocked her appellant was naked, on top of the victim, his left hand
choking her neck. he retreated to her house in fright. he gathered her children
together and informed her compadre, Ricardo Lagrana, then in her house,
about what she saw. Lagrana was also overcome with fear and hastily left.
Romeo Penecilla returned to their house at 8 o'clock in the evening. He did not
find Khazie Mae (victim). He and his wife searched for her until 1 o'clock in the
morning. Their effort was fruitless. Rebada was aware that the Penecillas were
looking for their daughter but did not tell them what she knew. Instead, Relada
called out appellant from her window and asked him the time Khazie Mae left
his house. Appellant replied he was drunk and did not know.
As the sun started to rise, another neighbor, Leopoldo Santiago went down
from his house to answer the call of nature. He discovered the lifeless body of
Khazie Mae under his house. Her parents were informed and so was the police.
At 9:00 a.m., Rebada out of conscience informed Romeo Penecilla and his wife
Julie Ann, that he committed the crime. Forthwith, He was arrested and
interrogated by PO3 Danilo Tan. He verbally confessed his guilt without the
assistance of counsel. On the basis of his uncounseled verbal confession and
follow up interrogations, the police came to know and recovered from
appellant's house, Khazie Mae's green slippers, a pair of gold earrings, a buri
mat, a stained pillow and a stained T-shirt all of which were presented as
evidence for the prosecution.
After thorough examination and evidences presented the accused was
convicted by the Lower court for the crime of Rape with homicide beyond
reasonable doubt.
An automatic review of the case was done considering death penalty was
imposed by the trial court and found errors to wit;
Records shows that it violated the implementing rules of the constitutional
right of the appellant to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. It also denied him of his constitutional right to due process of law.
The plea of guilty made by the appellant is likewise null and void. The trial
court violated section 3 of Rule 116 when it accepted the plea of guilt of the
appellant. Said section provides When the accused pleads guilty to a capital
offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and
full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution
to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also
present evidence in his behalf but records reveal how the trial judge
inadequately discharged the duty of conducting a "searching inquiry." In the
hearing of June 28, 1994, Some prosecution evidence, offered independently of
the plea of guilt of the appellant, were inadmissible, yet, were considered by the
trial court in convicting the appellant.

ISSUE:
Whether or Not the lower court committed lone error in convicting the accused
WON the accused the lower court committed lone error in admitting the “verbal
confession of guilt of the accused without the assistance of a council.

HELD:

YES, the lower court committed lone error in convicting the accused. The
records also do not reveal that the Information against the appellant was read
in the language or dialect known to him. Their was no record showing that the
Information couched in English was translated to the appellant in his
own dialect before his plea of guilt. The lower court violated the rule on
implementing the constitutional right of the appellant to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him. It also denied appellant his
constitutional right to due process of law. The trial court violated section 3 of
Rule 116 when it accepted the plea of guilt of the appellant. Said section
requires that the court shall conduct a searching inquiry the voluntariness and
full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution
to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The trial court simply
inquired if appellant had physical marks of maltreatment. It did not ask
the appellant when he was arrested, who arrested him, how and where he was
interrogated, whether he was medically examined before and after his
interrogation,. It limited its efforts trying to discover late body marks of
maltreatment as if involuntariness is caused by physical abuse alone.
Further, there are physical evidence to prove Khazie was raped. These consists
of a pillow with bloodstains in its center 14 and the T-shirt 15 of the accused
colored white with bloodstains on its bottom. These physical evidence are
evidence of the highest order. They strongly corroborate the testimony of Luisa
Rebada that the victim was raped.These are inadmissible evidence for they
were gathered by PO3 Danilo Tan of the Iloilo City PNP as a result of custodial
interrogation where appellant verbally confessed to the crime without the
benefit of counsel which is also a violation of the rights of the accused.