People vs. Ostia

An improvident plea of guilty to a capital offense does not require remand where independent prosecution evidence, apart from the plea and the accused's admission, establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction may rest on such hard evidence, with improvidence rendered legally insignificant, while the proper qualifying circumstance and penalty are determined from what was alleged and proved.

Ponciano Onato and Edita Onato resided with their four-year-old daughter Beverly Onato in Sitio Mactang, Barangay Ilo, Sto. Niño, Samar. Ponciano was a fisherman and farmer employed by Tito Soria in a buy-and-sell fish business, alongside co-worker Roberto Ostia who resided in the poblacion of Sto. Niño. Rufo Legaspi, a carpenter and Barangay Tanod, was a neighbor of the Onatos.

On May 13, 1995, a Saturday, at about 7:00 p.m. in Sitio Mactang, Barangay Ilo, Sto. Niño, Samar, Rufo Legaspi was seated near his house when he saw Roberto Ostia walking toward the poblacion with Beverly Onato perched on his right shoulder and holding the right hand of Mary Donoso, Beverly's nine-year-old playmate, the trio in animated conversation. After about an hour, Edita noticed Beverly had not returned and went out to look for her, whereupon Rufo told her he had earlier seen Beverly with Roberto toward the poblacion. Thereafter Roberto passed by without Beverly, and when Edita asked where Beverly was, he fled instead of responding.

Edita woke her husband Ponciano, and together with neighbors and police officers Manuel Toribio and Dodong Espino, they searched for Beverly that night without success. They resumed the search the next day, May 14, 1995, and at 3:00 p.m. found Beverly dead, sprawled in a grassy portion below a copra kiln about 120 meters from the Onato house and about 15 meters from the nearest house, where photographs of her body were taken. Lorenzo Bernabe, Municipal Sanitary Inspector trained to perform autopsies in the absence of the Municipal Health Officer, autopsied the cadaver, drew a sketch of the injuries, and prepared an autopsy report later validated by Dr. Renato Ortiz in a Medico-Legal Necropsy Report dated May 24, 1995 showing a 3.5 cm lacerated wound from the posterior vaginal wall to the anus, a 2 cm lacerated wound from the vagina to the mons pubis, a 5.0 cm purplish contusion on the left lumbar area below the costal margin, and blood clots in the left ear, with cause of death stated as cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to severe hemorrhage, the vaginal lacerations attributed to a blunt instrument shoved violently into the vagina which could be a penis.

During trial on the rape with homicide charge, the prosecution began presenting evidence with Dr. Ortiz, while Roberto, through counsel de oficio, sought to plead guilty to murder, to which the prosecutor stated he had insufficient evidence of rape but sufficient evidence of killing, and Ponciano agreed. Upon re-arraignment Roberto pleaded guilty to murder after the Information was read and translated to him in the Waray dialect, and when later questioned he testified he killed Beverly by smashing a rock bigger than his fist, about seven inches in diameter, on her head and chest and other parts of her body because he lost control of himself, without force or coercion, admitting he caused her death. The prosecution formally offered its documentary evidence which was admitted without objection, Roberto adduced no testimonial or documentary evidence, and the case was submitted for decision, the trial court finding the killing qualified by evident premeditation and aggravated by abuse of confidence, nighttime, and despoblado.

• Improvident Plea: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court failed to comply with Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court when he pleaded guilty to murder, a capital offense punishable by reclusion perpetua to death, by failing to conduct a searching inquiry into voluntariness and full comprehension of consequences and to inquire whether he wished to adduce evidence and allow him to do so, rendering the plea improvident and warranting nullification of the re-arraignment, proceedings, and conviction and remand for appropriate proceedings.
• Evident Premeditation: Accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in ruling that evident premeditation qualified the killing to murder.
• Death Penalty: Accused-appellant argued that, assuming murder was committed, the trial court erred in imposing the supreme penalty of death upon him.

• Compliance with Searching Inquiry: Respondent countered that the trial court complied with fealty with Section 3, Rule 116, having read and translated the Information in the Waray dialect, conducted searching and clarificatory questions on understanding, voluntariness, and consequences, informed accused-appellant that he admitted the facts alleged and that reclusion perpetua to death could be imposed depending on circumstances appreciated, confirmed absence of threats or coercion, elicited the manner of killing with a rock, and required the prosecution to present evidence including Dr. Ortiz, Ponciano Onato, and Rufo Legaspi.
• Presentation of Evidence: Respondent argued that the claimed absence of inquiry as to accused-appellant's interest to present evidence is of no moment.

• Validity of Guilty Plea: Whether the trial court gravely erred in convicting accused-appellant of murder despite his improvident plea of guilty.
• Qualifying Circumstance: Whether the trial court erred in ruling that evident premeditation qualified the killing to murder.
• Penalty and Aggravating Circumstances: Whether, assuming murder was committed, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty upon accused-appellant.

• Validity of Guilty Plea: Yes, the plea was improvident for failure to explain the nature, elements, qualifying and aggravating circumstances, penalties, and civil liabilities and to probe the change of plea, but remand is unnecessary because independent circumstantial evidence proved murder beyond reasonable doubt.
• Qualifying Circumstance: Yes, evident premeditation was erroneously applied because it was neither alleged nor proved, while treachery, sufficiently alleged by the victim's four-year age and duly proved, properly qualifies the killing to murder.
• Penalty and Aggravating Circumstances: Yes, death was erroneously imposed because nighttime, despoblado, and abuse of confidence were not proved, so with no modifying circumstances the penalty is reclusion perpetua with ₱50,000.00 civil indemnity and ₱50,000.00 moral damages.

• Validity of Guilty Plea: When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, defined as punishable by death under the law at commission, mandatory duties require conducting a searching inquiry into voluntariness and full comprehension, requiring the prosecution to prove guilt and precise degree of culpability, and asking if the accused desires to present evidence and allowing it. Murder punishable by reclusion perpetua to death is capital, and the allegation that Beverly was four years old sufficiently alleged treachery. Here the Information was merely read and translated in Waray, the penalty range stated, and voluntariness asked, but the court failed to explain murder and its elements, that killing a four-year-old constitutes treachery, the nature and effect of qualifying and generic aggravating and mitigating circumstances including heinous crimes and indivisible penalties, the specific circumstances for choosing reclusion perpetua or death, whether a post-prosecution guilty plea remains mitigating, and civil liabilities, especially as accused-appellant was unlettered and merely thumbmarked a waiver, without probing reasons for changing plea from not guilty to guilty, for failing to adduce controverting evidence on reinvestigation, for consulting counsel, or for wishing to present mitigating evidence. Nevertheless, conviction stands without remand because, where evidence is received to verify guilt and not merely the plea, improvidence loses legal significance and guilt may rest on adequate record evidence, as prosecution evidence albeit circumstantial established murder beyond reasonable doubt.
• Qualifying Circumstance: Treachery rather than evident premeditation qualifies the killing. Evident premeditation was not alleged in the Information, and an accused cannot be convicted of murder on an unalleged qualifying circumstance without denial of the right to be informed, since every element must be alleged to enable defense preparation and conviction is limited to the offense charged or necessarily included therein. Moreover, evident premeditation was not proved, there being no evidence of when accused-appellant decided to kill, adherence to that determination, and sufficient lapse between determination and execution. By contrast, treachery was alleged through the victim's four-year age and proved, killing a child of tender years by an adult constituting treachery even if the mode of attack is not proved because such child could not put up defense and is at the mercy of the assailant.
• Penalty and Aggravating Circumstances: Nighttime, despoblado, and abuse of confidence were erroneously appreciated. Nighttime requires proof that accused-appellant purposely sought or took advantage of it, which was absent. Despoblado requires proof that solitude of the situs was sought or taken advantage of, which was absent despite distance from houses. Abuse of confidence requires proof that accused-appellant enjoyed trust and confidence of Beverly or her parents and took advantage thereof to kill, which was not established by the bare fact that he and Ponciano were co-workers. With no generic aggravating or mitigating circumstances, Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code mandates reclusion perpetua, with civil indemnity of ₱50,000.00 retained and moral damages of ₱50,000.00 added.

• Plea of Guilty to Capital Offense — When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the trial court must (1) conduct a searching inquiry into voluntariness and full comprehension of consequences, (2) require the prosecution to prove guilt and precise degree of culpability, and (3) ask if the accused desires to present evidence and allow it if so. Applied here, failure to explain murder, treachery, qualifying and aggravating and mitigating circumstances, indivisible penalties, and civil liabilities to an unlettered accused and to probe the change of plea rendered the plea improvident, though conviction was sustained on independent evidence.
• Searching Inquiry in Death Cases — Because a death sentence is irrevocable and innocents have at times pleaded guilty, trial judges must proceed with meticulous care, considering age, personality, educational background, socio-economic status, coercion or duress, assistance of competent counsel, understanding of charges, elements and penalties, requiring narration or reenactment in a language understood, and questioning counsel on explanation of plea and consequences, to preclude reasonable doubt about misunderstanding and to aid review of circumstances justifying severity. Applied here, the limited reading, translation, and voluntariness questions fell short of this standard.
• Effect of Improvident Plea Where Evidence Independently Proves Guilt — Where the trial court receives prosecution evidence to determine whether the accused erred in admitting guilt, the manner of the guilty plea loses legal significance because conviction rests on evidence, and even an improvident plea is irrelevant if post-plea prosecution evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Applied here, remand was unnecessary because circumstantial evidence independently established murder.
• Treachery by Killing a Child of Tender Years — Killing a child by an adult constitutes treachery even if the prosecution does not prove the mode of attack, because a child of tender years could not be expected to put up a defense and is at the mercy of the assailant. Applied here, the allegation that Beverly was four years old sufficiently alleged treachery and the killing was qualified as murder on that ground.
• Requirement to Allege Qualifying Circumstance — Every element including a qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the complaint or Information to enable defense preparation and inform the accused of the nature of the charge; conviction for a higher offense on an unalleged qualifying circumstance, no matter how convincing the evidence, is an unauthorized denial of that right. Applied here, evident premeditation, unalleged and unproved, could not qualify the killing.
• Evident Premeditation, Nighttime, Despoblado, and Abuse of Confidence — Evident premeditation requires proof of time of determination, adherence thereto, and sufficient lapse before execution; nighttime requires purposely seeking or taking advantage of darkness; despoblado requires seeking or taking advantage of solitude; abuse of confidence requires enjoyed trust and taking advantage thereof, not mere co-employment. Applied here, none was proved, leaving no modifying circumstances and requiring reclusion perpetua under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.

• "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." — States the controlling text of Section 3, Rule 116 applied to invalidate the plea procedure for murder.
• "The execution of a death sentence is irrevocable and experience has shown that innocent persons have, at times, pleaded guilty." — Justifies the meticulous-care standard and searching inquiry required before accepting a guilty plea in capital cases.
• "x x x (1) conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea and the accused's full comprehension of the consequences thereof; (2) require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and (3) ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. x x x" — Enumerates the three mandatory duties whose breach rendered the plea improvident.
• "Thus, even without considering the plea of guilty of appellant, he may still be convicted if there is adequate evidence on record on which to predicate his conviction." — States the ratio for sustaining conviction despite improvidence where independent evidence proves guilt.

• People vs. Chua, G.R. No. 137841, October 1, 2001 — Followed as authority for the three mandatory duties upon guilty plea to capital offense, the grave abuse in failing to observe them, the meticulous-care standard, and the scope of searching questions.
• People vs. Derilo, 271 SCRA 633 (1997) — Followed for the rule that an unlettered accused cannot be presumed to understand treachery as a highly technical term, and for sustaining conviction despite improvident plea where evidence was received to verify guilt.
• People vs. Jabien, 332 SCRA 702 (2000) — Followed to hold remand unnecessary where guilt was proved by prosecution evidence independent of the informed plea and admission.
• People vs. Gallarde, 325 SCRA 835 (2000) — Followed to require allegation and proof of a qualifying circumstance to convict for murder when rape with homicide fails, barring conviction on an unalleged higher offense.
• People vs. Gonzales, 311 SCRA 547 (1999); People vs. Lumandong, 327 SCRA 650 (2000) — Followed for the rule that killing a child by an adult constitutes treachery even without proof of mode of attack.
• People vs. Bello, 316 SCRA 804 (1999) — Cited on whether a guilty plea after prosecution commenced presenting evidence may still be considered mitigating.
• People vs. Albert, 251 SCRA 136 (1995) — Cited on the duty to inquire whether the accused sought counsel's advice and wished to adduce mitigating evidence.
• People vs. Suelto, 325 SCRA 41 (2001) — Followed on the elements and proof required for evident premeditation.
• People vs. Beltran, 260 SCRA 141 (1996); People vs. Cabiles, 248 SCRA 207 (1995) — Followed to reject nighttime and despoblado absent proof of purposely seeking or taking advantage thereof.
• People vs. Gelera, 277 SCRA 450 (1997) — Followed with People vs. Crumb to reject abuse of confidence absent proved trust and exploitation thereof.
• People vs. Latupsan, 360 SCRA 60 (2001) — Followed to award moral damages in addition to civil indemnity.

• Section 3, Rule 116, Rules of Court — Governs plea of guilty to capital offense and reception of evidence; applied to find the re-arraignment for murder improvident for lack of searching inquiry, explanation of consequences, and offer to present defense evidence.
• Section 4, Rule 114, Rules of Court; Article 63, Revised Penal Code — Define capital offense as punishable with death and govern application of indivisible penalties; applied to treat murder punishable by reclusion perpetua to death as capital and to impose reclusion perpetua absent modifying circumstances.
• Article 248, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 — Defines murder and punishes it with reclusion perpetua to death; applied as the offense of conviction with treachery as qualifying circumstance.
• Section 6, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires allegation of qualifying circumstances; applied to hold the victim's four-year age sufficient allegation of treachery but insufficient to sustain unalleged evident premeditation.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales and Azcuna, JJ., concurred. Vitug, J., additionally believed the attendance of the qualifying circumstance of treachery should warrant the grant of exemplary damages. Ynares-Santiago, J., was on leave.