PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

ARNEL ALICANDO
251 SCRA 293 |. December 12, 1995
Puno, J.

Doctrine: The presumption that the arraignment of the appellant was regularly conducted
will not apply when life is at stake.

FACTS
Accused-appellant Arnel Alicando was charged and convicted for the crime of Rape with
Homicide and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. The information filed against him
stated that the accused raped a 4-year-old child and in the process thereof, chocked her all of which
contributed to her death. On arraignment, the appellant pleaded guilty with the assistance of Atty.
Antiquiera of the PAO. This was followed by the reception of evidence of the prosecution of the
court wherein the prosecution presented several witnesses who attested to the crime committed by
the appellant. In sum, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused was drinking with the father
of the victim but then would occasionally leave the group. At 4:30pm, the group stopped drinking
and left. At around 5:30 p.m., a witness testified that she saw the victim at the window of
appellant’s house and when she tried to talk to her, the latter closed the window. Moments later,
she heard crying and when she peeped through an opening, she saw the appellant naked on the top
of the victim while chocking her neck. The parents of the victim searched for their child the whole
night to no avail.
In the wee hours of the morning, another neighbor discovered the lifeless body of the
victim under his house. At around 9am the same day, appellant confessed his guilt to the victim’s
parents and by virtue thereof, he was arrested by the police. During interrogation, the accused
confessed his guilt without the assistance of counsel and on the basis of such interrogation, the
police found and recovered the victim’s slippers, buri mat, stained pillow and stained t-shirt all of
which were presented to the court as evidence. On the basis of such, the RTC rendered the decision
and sentenced the accused to suffer the penalty of death which prompted this automatic review by
the Court.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the presumption that the arraignment was regularly conducted must apply in the
present case – NO.
The Rules on Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint or information filed
against an accused must be relayed to him in a language or dialect known to him in order
to guarantee his right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. In
the present case, the records do not reveal that the information against the appellant was
read in the dialect known to him but the same was written in English. There was also no
showing that the accused understands what is written in English language. And because of
such irregularity, the court declared the arraignment of appellant a nullity. It also reiterated
that when a life is at stake, the courts must not rely on the presumption that an
arraignment was regularly conducted. The Court must not assume but must be sure.

2. W/N the plea of guilt made by the appellant is valid- NO.

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 The plea of guilt is likewise null and void for violating Sec 3, Rule 116 of the Rules
on Criminal Procedure. According to the said rule, the courts are mandated to conduct a
searching inquiry once the accused pleads guilty to a crime charged in order to prove his
guilt and the precise degree of culpability. It is elementary that the searching inquiry of the
trial court must be focused on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea, and (2) the full
comprehension of the consequences of the plea.
In the present case, the trial court simply inquired if appellant had physical marks
of maltreatment and did not even asked the appellant regarding the circumstances of his
arrest. It also ignored the fact that when the accused surrendered, he suffered from
hematoma because he was mobbed by fellow inmates. Moreover, the trial court also failed
to determine effectively whether accused had full comprehension of the consequences of
his plea because when he was told that he would suffer the penalty of mandatory death
penalty, the court did not explain the meaning of “mandatory”. It must be stressed that a
conviction in capital offenses cannot rest alone on a plea of guilt. And since the plea was
obtained in violation of several constitutional rights of the accused, the same must be
declared null and void.

3. W/N the evidence obtained as a product of interrogation is admissible as evidence- NO.

Another well-settled doctrine in the criminal justice system is that fruits of
poisonous tree is inadmissible as evidence. In the case at bar, the t-shirt, pillow and other
items were all obtained from the uncounseled admission of the accused. The investigating
officer also did not even bother to reduce the important confession into writing neither
there was any showing that despite being informed of his constitutional rights, that the
accused waived the same. Furthermore, the trial court erred in holding that the pillow and
t-shirt strongly corroborated the allegation of rape since there was absolutely no basis that
the trial court concluded that the stains on the pillow and t-shirt were human bloodstains
and the same was not examined by any expert.
It is important to emphasize that the burden to prove that an accused waived his
right to remain silent and the right to counsel before making a confession under custodial
interrogation rests with the prosecution. It is also the burden of the prosecution to show
that the evidence derived from confession is not tainted as "fruit of the poisonous tree."
The burden has to be discharged by clear and convincing evidence. In the case at bar, the
lack of objection did not satisfy the heavy burden of proof that rested on the prosecution.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision in Criminal Case No. 43663, convicting accused Arnel
Alicando of the crime of Rape with Homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death is
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further
proceedings. No costs.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2