SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 174 10/29/20, 1:57 AM

204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. De Luna
*
G.R. No. 77969. June 22, 1989.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

PATRICK DE LUNA, defendant-appellant.

Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Arraignment; Plea of

Guilty; Plea of guilty must be unconditional and of such nature as to
foreclose defendantÊs right to defend himself from the charge, leaving
the court no alternative but to impose the penalty fixed by law.·The
essence of a plea of guilty is that the accused admits his guilt,
freely, voluntarily, and with a full knowledge of the consequences
and meaning of his act and with a clear understanding of the
precise nature of the crime charged in the complaint or information.
While it is true that a plea of guilty admits all the allegations in the
information including the aggravating and qualifying
circumstances, the repeated and emphatic qualification stated by
the defendant-appellant as regards his plea of guilty should have
drawn the attention of the trial court that the plea was made
without a full knowledge of its consequences. Apparently, counsel
failed to advise him as to the meaning and effect of the technical
language used in the information qualifying the acts constituting
the offense. In order to be valid, the plea must be an unconditional
admission of guilt. It must be of such nature as to foreclose the
defendantÊs right to defend himself from said charge, thus leaving
the court no alternative but to impose the penalty fixed by law.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Considering the gravity of the
offense charged, the trial court should have rejected the defendantÊs
plea of guilty and directed the parties to submit their respective
evidence.·-While this Court has had the occasion to rule that it is
permissible for an accused to enter a plea of guilty to the crime
charged with the reservation to prove mitigating circumstances,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017570569cf809209f4d003600fb002c009e/p/APQ836/?username=Guest Page 1 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 174 10/29/20, 1:57 AM

considering, however, the gravity of the offense charged in the case

at bar, the more prudent course for the trial court to follow is to
reject the plea made by the appellant and direct the parties to
submit their respective evidence.
Same; Same; Same; Same; AppellantÊs qualified plea of guilty is
not a valid plea of guilty.·Under the circumstances of this case, the
appellantÊs qualified plea of guilty is not a valid plea of guilty. Thus,
this Court has ruled that: „An accused may not enter a conditional

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

205

VOL. 174, JUNE 22, 1989 205

People vs. De Luna

plea of guilty in the sense that he admits his guilt, provided that a
certain penalty be imposed upon him. In such cases, the
information should first be amended or modified with the consent of
the fiscal if the facts so warrant, or the accused must be considered
as having entered a plea of not guilty.‰
Same; Same; Same; Same; Plea of guilty to a lesser offense
requires consent of the Fiscal and the offended party.·Even
assuming that the plea was in fact to the lesser offense of Homicide
and not Murder, as stated by appellant in his appeal, this Court
cannot sustain appellantÊs earnest request for an immediate
reduction of the penalty imposed by the trial court. This procedure
would run contrary to the explicit provisions of Section 2, Rule 116
of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, which states:
„SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense.·The accused, with the
consent of the offended party and the fiscal, may be allowed by the
trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense, regardless of whether
or not it is necessarily included in the crime charged, or is
cognizable by a court of lesser jurisdiction than the trial court. No
amendment of the complaint or information is necessary.‰
(Emphasis supplied.) The consent of the fiscal and the offended

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017570569cf809209f4d003600fb002c009e/p/APQ836/?username=Guest Page 2 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 174 10/29/20, 1:57 AM

party is necessary. If the plea of guilty to a lesser offense is made

without the consent of the fiscal and the offended party, the
conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another prosecution
for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the
former information.
Same; Same; Same; Same; When an accused pleads guilty to a
capital offense, it is mandatory that the prosecution be required to
present evidence to determine the precise participation and degree of
culpability of accused, despite waiver made by the latter to the
presentation of such evidence.·After a plea of guilty in capital
offenses, it is imperative that the trial court requires the
presentation of evidence for the prosecution to enable itself to
determine the precise participation and the degree of culpability of
the accused in the perpetration of the capital offense charged. In his
Manifestation in lieu of AppelleeÊs Brief, the Solicitor General, in
fact, made the following observation: „Herein trial courtÊs
recognition and admission of appellantÊs purported waiver of his
right that the prosecution present further evidence x x x is rather
odd. For it is the duty of the trial court to take evidence in capital
cases where accused enters a plea of guilty x x x.‰ Thus,
notwithstanding the waiver made by the appellant as to the
presentation of evidence by the prosecution, the presentation of evi-

206

206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. De Luna

dence should be required in order to preclude any room for

reasonable doubt in the mind of the trial court, or the Supreme
Court on review, as to the possibility that there might have been
some misunderstanding on the part of the accused as to the nature
of the charge to which he pleaded guilty, and to ascertain the
circumstances attendant to the commission of the crime which
justify or require the exercise of a greater or lesser degree of
severity in the imposition of the prescribed penalties.

APPEAL from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Cebu City, Br. 10.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017570569cf809209f4d003600fb002c009e/p/APQ836/?username=Guest Page 3 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 174 10/29/20, 1:57 AM

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-
appellee.
David G. Ompoc for defendant-appellant.

GANCAYCO, J.:

Two main issues are raised by defendant-appellant in his

appeal from the decision of Branch 10 of the Regional Trial
Court of Cebu City: (1) Whether or not the defendant-
appellant entered a valid plea of guilty to the offense as
charged in the information; and (2) Assuming that there
was a valid plea of guilty, whether the accused may waive
the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
Charged with Murder before Branch 10 of the Regional
Trial Court of Cebu City, under the following information,

„That on or about the 17th day of December 1986, at about 7:00

P.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused with deliberate intent, with
intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did
then and there attack, assault and use personal violence upon one
Tricia by punching and kicking her on the different parts of her
body thereby inflicting upon her the following physical injuries:

„CARDIORESPIRATORY ARREST, SECONDARY TO SEVERE

MULTIPLE INJURIES, TRAUMATIC.‰

and as a consequence of said injuries Tricia died in the next day.

1
CONTRARY TO LAW.‰

_______________

1 Page 4, Rollo.

207

VOL. 174, JUNE 22, 1989 207

People vs. De Luna

defendant-appellant Patrick de Luna, assisted by Counsel-

de-Oficio Atty. David Ompoc, when arraigned on December
23, 1986, entered a PLEA OF GUILTY with the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017570569cf809209f4d003600fb002c009e/p/APQ836/?username=Guest Page 4 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 174 10/29/20, 1:57 AM

2
qualification that „hindi ko sinasadya. ‰
The five-page transcript of stenographic notes taken on
the day of the arraignment reveals the following:

INTEEPRETER: (TO ACCUSED)

(After reading the Information)
Q: Do you understand the charge which I have just read
to you?
ACCUSED DE LUNA:
A: Yes, I understand but I have no motive to kill her. I
was drunk at that time.
INTERPRETER: (TO ACCUSED)
Q: What do you say to this charge, are you guilty or not?
ACCUSED DE LUNA:
A: I am guilty but „hindi ko sinasadya ang nangyari.‰ I
was so drunk.
COURT:
Compañero, did the accused understand that this is a
capital offense?
ATTY. OMPOC: (Explaining to the accused)
Do you understand that this is a capital offense?
ACCUSED DE LUNA:
A: Yes, but „hindi ko sinasadya ang nangyari.‰
xxx xxx xxx
COURT:
ÂUnder the law, the Rules of Court, the prosecution will
have to present evidence in order to determine the
culpability of the accused in this heinous charge of
Murder.
(TO ACCUSED):
What does the accused say, do we have to present
evidence for the prosecution?
ACCUSED DE LUNA:
A: No more evidence. No more presentation of evidence. I
accept my fault but I want the court to know that I
have no motive to kill her.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017570569cf809209f4d003600fb002c009e/p/APQ836/?username=Guest Page 5 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 174 10/29/20, 1:57 AM

_______________

2 Page 29, Rollo. The phrase „hindi ko sinasadya‰ means „I did not
mean (to do) it.‰

208

208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. De Luna

ATTY. OMPOC:
The accused your honor categorically stated that he
does not want evidence to be presented but he accepts
his fault, but according to him, he did not intend to
commit the crime, „hindi sinasadya.‰
COURT: (TO ACCUSED)
So you admit the charge against you? You understood
the charge of Murder filed against you and you admit
you are guilty?
ACCUSED DE LUNA:
Yes, I3am guilty but I have no intention to kill the
child.

Thereupon, the court a quo rendered a decision dated

December 23, 1986 convicting defendant-appellant of the
crime of Murder. The decision reads, thus:

„When this case was called for arraignment, Atty. David G. Ompoc,
appointed Counsel-de-Oficio for the accused Patrick de Luna
lengthily conferred with the accused and after such lengthy
conference with the accused, accused Patrick de Luna, upon
arraignment registered his plea of Guilty to the charge of Murder
with the qualification that Âhindi niya sinasadya.Ê
„Being informed of the charge and having understood the said
accusation, the accused waived his right that the prosecution
present its evidence in order to determine for this court the degree
of culpability of the accused under the present charge.
„Aside from the plea of Guilty, the records is [sic] replete with
evidence strongly and indubitably showing that on the 17th day of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017570569cf809209f4d003600fb002c009e/p/APQ836/?username=Guest Page 6 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 174 10/29/20, 1:57 AM

December, 1986 at about 7:00 oÊclock in the evening, the accused,

with deliberate intent, with intent to kill and with treachery and
evident premeditation, did then and there attack, assault and use
personal violence upon one little, small [sic] girl named Tricia by
punching and kicking her on the different parts of her body thereby
inflicting upon her the following physical injuries:‰
ÂCardiorespiratory Arrest, Secondary to Severe Multiple Injuries,
TraumaticÊ and as a consequence of said injuries, Tricia died the
next day.
WHEREFORE, finding accused Patrick de Luna Guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and appreciating in his
favor

_______________

3 TSN, December 23, 1986, pages 2 and 3.

209

VOL. 174, JUNE 22, 1989 209

People vs. De Luna

the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty plus his manifestation

to this court that he did not intentionally want it to happen that
way, the court hereby sentences accused Patrick de Luna to
Reclusion Perpetua (life imprisonment) and to indemnify the heirs
of Tricia the sum of P30,000.00.
Costs de oficio.
4
SO ORDERED.‰

Not satisfied therewith, the defendant-appellant interposed

this appeal alleging that the trial court committed the
following errors:

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN SENTENCING THE ACCUSED

FOR MURDER WHICH WAS NOT PLEADED OR ADMITTED BY
THE ACCUSED, BECAUSE OF HIS QUALIFICATION TO HIS
PLEA, THAT HE DID NOT COMMIT THE CRIME
INTENTIONALLY.

II

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017570569cf809209f4d003600fb002c009e/p/APQ836/?username=Guest Page 7 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 174 10/29/20, 1:57 AM

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT REQUIRING THE

PROSECUTION TO PRESENT EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO
DETERMINE THE PROPER PENALTY FOR THE CRIME
INVOLVED.

In his first assigned error, it is the contention of appellant

that the trial court misappreciated the plea of guilty made
by him. Appellant contends that what he admitted was the
commission of the crime of Homicide and not Murder
because of the repeated qualification to his plea that he did
not commit the crime intentionally. He denied the
allegations of treachery and evident premeditation in the
information which are necessary to sustain a charge and
subsequent conviction for Murder. He questions the
appreciation by the trial court that what was proved by the
qualification Âhindi ko sinasadyaÊ was only the mitigating
circumstance of „no intention to commit so grave a wrong‰
recited in paragraph 3, Article 13 of the Revised Penal
Code, and claims that in truth and in fact his plea was that
of

_______________

4 Page 6, Rollo.

210

210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. De Luna

guilt of the lesser offense of Homicide, not Murder.

The essence of a plea of guilty is that the accused admits
his guilt, freely, voluntarily, and with a full knowledge of
the consequences and meaning of his act and with a clear
understanding of the precise nature
5
of the crime charged in
the complaint or information.
While it is true that a plea of guilty admits all the
allegations in the information6 including the aggravating
and qualifying circumstances, the repeated and emphatic
qualification stated by the defendant-appellant as regards
his plea of guilty should have drawn the attention of the
trial court that the plea was made without a full knowledge

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017570569cf809209f4d003600fb002c009e/p/APQ836/?username=Guest Page 8 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 174 10/29/20, 1:57 AM

of its consequences. Apparently, counsel failed to advise

him as to the meaning and effect of the technical language
used in the information qualifying the acts constituting the
offense.
In order to be valid, the plea must be an unconditional
admission of guilt. It must be of such nature as to foreclose
the defendantÊs right to defend himself from said charge,
thus leaving the court7
no alternative but to impose the
penalty fixed by law.
Under the circumstances of this case, the appellantÊs
qualified plea of guilty is not a valid plea of guilty.
Thus, this Court has ruled that:

„An accused may not enter a conditional plea of guilty in the sense
that he admits his guilt, provided that a certain penalty be imposed
upon him. In such cases, the information should first be amended or
modified with the consent of the fiscal if the facts so warrant, or the
8
accused must be considered as having entered a plea of not guilty.‰

_______________

5 United States vs. Borlado, 42 Phil. 72 (1921); United States vs.

Dineros, 18 Phil. 566 (1911); United States vs. Jamad, 37 Phil. 305
(1917); People vs. Ng Pek, 81 Phil. 562 (1948); People vs. Balicasan, 17
SCRA 1119 (1966).
6 People vs. Alicia, 95 SCRA 227 (1980).
7 People vs. Ng Pek, supra; People vs. Serafica, 29 SCRA 123 (1969).
8 People vs. Sabilul, 49 O.G. 2743.

211

VOL. 174, JUNE 22, 1989 211

People vs. De Luna

While this Court has had the occasion to rule that it is

permissible for an accused to enter a plea of guilty to the
crime charged9 with the reservation to prove mitigating
circumstances, considering, however, the gravity of the
offense charged in the case at bar, the more prudent course
for the trial court to follow is to reject the plea made by the
appellant and direct the parties to submit their respective
evidence.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017570569cf809209f4d003600fb002c009e/p/APQ836/?username=Guest Page 9 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 174 10/29/20, 1:57 AM

Even assuming that the plea was in fact to the lesser

offense of Homicide
10
and not Murder, as stated by appellant
in his appeal, this Court cannot sustain appellantÊs
earnest request for an immediate reduction of the penalty
imposed by the trial court. This procedure would run
contrary to the explicit provisions of Section 2, Rule 116 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, which
states:

„SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense.·The accused, with the

consent of the offended party and the fiscal, may be allowed by the
trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense, regardless of whether
or not it is necessarily included in the crime charged, or is
cognizable by a court of lesser jurisdiction than the trial court. No
amendment of the complaint or information is necessary.‰
(Emphasis supplied.)

The consent of the fiscal and the offended party is

necessary. If the plea of guilty to a lesser offense is made
without the consent of the fiscal and the offended party, the
conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another
prosecution for an offense which necessarily
11
includes the
offense charged in the former information.
On the second assigned error, it is the contention of
appellant that the trial court, after a plea of guilty to a
capital offense (Murder), should have required the
prosecution to present its evidence to determine the proper
penalty to be imposed.
The Court sustains the appellant on this score.
This Court has had the opportunity to formulate this
proce-

_______________

9 People vs. Racaza, 82 Phil. 623 (1949).

10 Pages 24 and 25, Rollo.
11 Section 7, Rule 117, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended.

212

212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. De Luna

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017570569cf809209f4d003600fb002c009e/p/APQ836/?username=Guest Page 10 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 174 10/29/20, 1:57 AM

12
dure as early as 13
People vs. Apduhan, Jr. and a long line of
cases thereafter. 14
In People vs. Camay, this Court has ruled that:

„The procedure to be followed in a situation like this where the

accused, with assistance of counsel, voluntarily pleads guilty to a
capital offense is explicitly laid down in Sec. 3, Rule 116 of the Rules
on Criminal Procedure promulgated by the Court, and which went
into effect on January 1, 1985. This new rule states:

ÂWhen an 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.Ê

„The amended rule is a capsulization of the provisions of the old

rule and pertinent jurisprudence. We had several occasions to issue
the caveat that even if the trial court is satisfied that the plea of
guilty was entered with full knowledge of its meaning and
consequences, the court must still require the introduction of
evidence for the purpose of establishing the guilt and the degree of
culpability of the defendant.
xxx xxx xxx
„Under the new formulation, three (3) things are enjoined of the
trial court after a plea of guilty to a capital offense has been entered
by the accused:

1. The court must conduct a searching inquiry into the

voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of
his plea;
2. The court must require the prosecution to present evidence
to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of
his culpability; and
3. The court must ask the accused if he desires to present
evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.‰

This rule is, therefore, mandatory.

_______________

12 SCRA 798 (1968).

13 People vs. Lacson, 55 SCRA 589 (1974); People vs. Nismal, 114

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017570569cf809209f4d003600fb002c009e/p/APQ836/?username=Guest Page 11 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 174 10/29/20, 1:57 AM

SCRA 487 (1982); People vs. Abrea, 112 SCRA 83 (1982); People vs.
Alibasa, 118 SCRA 183 (1982).
14 152 SCRA 401 (1987).

213

VOL. 174, JUNE 22, 1989 213

People vs. De Luna

After a plea of guilty in capital offenses, it is imperative

that the trial court requires the presentation of evidence
for the prosecution to enable itself to determine the precise
participation and the degree of culpability of the accused in
the perpetration of the capital offense charged.
In his Manifestation, in lieu of AppelleeÊs Brief, the
Solicitor General, in fact, made the following observation:

„Herein trial courtÊs recognition and admission of appellantÊs

purported waiver of his right that the prosecution present further
evidence x x x is rather odd. For it is the duty of the trial court to
take, evidence in capital cases where accused enters a plea of guilty
15
xxx .‰

Thus, notwithstanding the waiver made by the appellant

as to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution, the
presentation of evidence should be required in order to
preclude any room for reasonable doubt in the mind of the
trial court, or the Supreme Court on review, as to the
possibility that there might have been some
misunderstanding on the part of the accused as to the
nature of the charge to which he pleaded guilty, and to
ascertain the circumstances attendant to the commission of
the crime which justify or require the exercise of a greater
or lesser degree of16 severity in the imposition of the
prescribed penalties.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court dated
December 23, 1986 is hereby SET ASIDE. The case is
remanded to said court for a new arraignment and further
proceeding. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ.,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017570569cf809209f4d003600fb002c009e/p/APQ836/?username=Guest Page 12 of 13
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 174 10/29/20, 1:57 AM

concur.

Decision set aside. Case remanded to trial court for new

arraignment and further proceeding.

Note.·Norm to be followed by courts in pleas of guilty

to

_______________

15 Page 48, Rollo.

16 People vs. Basa, 51 SCRA 317 (1973).

214

214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Animos vs. Philippine Veterans Affairs Office

capital offenses, applies to a case where accused entered a

guilty plea and manifested his readiness to accept even the
gravest penalty. (People vs. Castanio, 141 SCRA 563.)

··o0o··

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017570569cf809209f4d003600fb002c009e/p/APQ836/?username=Guest Page 13 of 13