People v Magat

G.R. No.-130026 May 31, 2000

This is a case of incestuous rape; Two informations were filed against appellant. Upon arraignment, he
pleaded guilty but bargained for a lesser penalty for each case.The mother of the complainant and the
public prosecutor agreed and an order was issued the same day imposing ten (10) years imprisonment
for each case.

After three months, the cases were revived at the instance of the complainant on the ground that the
penalty was too light. During such revival, two witnesses were presented; the medico-legal officer of
NBI and the complainant’s mother. Appellant was re-arraigned and he entered a plea of not
guilty.Two months later, he entered anew a plea of guilty.The court then imposed the penalty of death.
The trial court found magat guilty of the crime of rape and was sentenced to death by lethal injection.
Subsequently, the case was brought to the Supreme court for Automatic Review.

(Refer the full text for the detailed sequence of events)

Held:

The ​first order issued ​by the trial is​ void ab initio ​on the ground that the accused’s plea is not the
plea bargaining contemplated by law and the rules of procedure.

Plea of guilty:

By pleading guilty to the offense charge, the accused should be sentenced to the penalty to which he
pleaded.

An accused may not foist or impose a conditional plea of guilty on the court by admitting his guilt
provided that a certain penalty be meted unto him.---

The only instance where a plea bargaining is allowed under the Rules is when the accused pleads
guilty to a lesser offense.Sec 2 Rule 116 (note that there is a new set of Rules of Criminal
Procedure).Here the reduction of the penalty is only a consequence of the plea of guilt to a lesser
penalty​.

The Appellant did not plead to a lesser offense but pleaded guilty to the rape charges and only
bargained for a lesser penalty.He did not plea bargain but made conditions on the penalty to be
imposed.

This is erroneous because by pleading guilty to the offense charged, accused should be sentenced to
the penalty to which he pleaded.It is the essence of a plea of guilty that that the accused admits
absolutely and unconditionally hid guilt and responsibility for the offense imputed to him.Hence, an
accused may not foist a conditional plea of guilty on the court by admitting his guilt provided that a
certain penalty will be meted unto him.

Plea bargaining; Double Jeopardy; Judgments;

A judgment rendered by the trial court which was based on a void plea is also void ab initio and
cannot be considered to have attained finality for the simple reason that void judgment has no legality
from its inception, and double jeopardy will not lie.---
Since the judgment of conviction is void, double jeopardy will not lie. Whatever procedural infirmity
in the arraignment of the accused was rectified when he was re-arraigned and entered a new plea.he
did not question the procedural errors in the first arraignment and having failed to do so, waived the
errors in procedure.

Failure to question procedural errors in the first arraignment, he is deemed to have waived his right
to the same and waived the errors in procedures.---

Plea of guilty to a capital offense; Trial judges must comply with the procedure laid down in the rules
of arraignment, particularly the rules governing a plea of guilty to a capital offense in order to
preclude any room for reasonable doubt in the mind either the trial court or of the Supreme Court. ----

Under the present rule, if the present rule, if accused enters a plea of guilty the trial courts are now
enjoined :

1. to conduct searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea;
2. to require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt and precise degree of
culpability; and
3. to ask if he so desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so.

Take note: The absence of the transcript of stenographic notes of the proceedings during the
arraignment does not make the procedure flawed.

The minutes of the proceedings indubitably show that the judge read the informations to the
accused-appellant both in English and Tagalog, asked him questions as to his understanding of the
consequences of his plea, his educational attainment and occupation. Accused-Appellant could have
known of the consequence of his plea having pleaded twice to the charges against him. In fact, in the
two (2) letters sent to the trial court judge, accused-appellant not only admitted his “sins” but also
asked for forgiveness and prayed for a chance to reform.

When the trial court, in obedience to the Supreme Court’s injunction, receives evidence to determine
precisely ​whether or not the accused has erred in admitting guilt, the manner in which the plea of
guilty is made, loses legal significance, for the simple reason that the conviction is predicated not on
the plea but on the evidence proving the commission by the accused of the offense charged. ---

Criminal Law : Rape; Damages;

The award of civil indemnity”

1. Reaction to the apathetic social perception of the penal law;

2. Financial fluctuations over time; and
3. Expression of the Supreme Court over the incidence of the heinous crimes against persons.

Xxx more so if the crime is committed by the father against his own flesh and blood.---