Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

FEDERICO SILVESTRE
G.R. No.L-33821 June 22, 1973

FACTS:
Federico Silvestre and Francisco See are accused of Robbery in Band with Homicide and
Rape under Articles 296 and 294, pars. 1 and 2 of the Revised Penal Code. They
allegedly entered Isabelo Secuya's house on June 12, 1970, with intent to gain, violence,
and intimidation. They armed themselves with a gun and conspired with one Falconit and
one Boy Paco to steal cash and a suit worth P290.00. They also attacked Roque Estrella,
causing his death, and raped Adela S. Estrella. The offense is accompanied by
aggravating circumstances of recidivism, quasi-recidivism, and nighttime.

Upon arraignment, Silvestre entered a plea of "guilty," while his co-accused, Francisco
See, pleaded "not guilty." The trial court found Silvestre guilty of the crime and sentenced
him to death. However, he did not understand the Visayan dialect and requested that the
charge be read in Tagalog.

The Office of the Solicitor General assails that the trial court erred in convicting and
imposing the death penalty on Silvestre without taking necessary precautions to ensure
that the accused fully understood the charges and its consequences.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court erred in convicting and imposing the death penalty on Silvestre.

RULING:
Yes. The court did not ascertain whether the defendant understood the full meaning and
implications of his plea of guilty and did not receive evidence to establish the guilt and
culpability of the defendant. The court's acceptance of the plea was inordinately hasty and
without due regard for its consequences on a human being.

Likewise, the court appointed a lawyer to act as counsel for the arraignment, and only ten
minutes were allowed for the newly appointed counsel de oficio to study the charge and
confer with the accused. The fault in the case is not solely with the trial judge, but also
with Atty. Jose B. Guyo, the counsel de oficio, who did not take his duties with the
seriousness and concern expected of a conscientious advocate and officer of the court.

You might also like