People vs Abapo, 239 SCRA 305
Criminal Case Digest:
Digested Cases
FACTS : On January 16, 1998, Benjie Tecson filed a sworn complaint before the
National Bureau of Investigation, National Capital Region, alleging that she
was first raped by her father when she was barely ten years old inside their
house in Nagcarlan, Laguna. She narrated that the first incident was repeated
several more times at a rate of not less than twice a week and almost everyday
when her mother was not around. The alleged sexual congress between her and her
father went on until February 1997 when BENJIE finally became pregnant.
Expedito Abapo y Siroihos was charged with raping his daughter eighty-six (86) times in the Regional Trial Court (
Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty to the crimes charged with the assistance of his counsel, Attorney Nena O. Palencia.[9] The prosecution was however ordered to adduce evidence as required by the Rules of Court.
In his brief, the
accused-appellant assigns the following errors allegedly committed by the RTC
"I. THE TRIAL
COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE EIGHTY SIX INFORMATIONS INSUFFICIENT
TO SUPPORT A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE THE PRECISE DATES OF
THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED RAPES, IT BEING AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME
CHARGED.
II. THE TRIAL COURT
GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THIRTY SEVEN (37) COUNTS OF DEATH PENALTY UPON
ACCUSED-APPELLANT IN VIEW OF THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ALLEGE IN THE
INFORMATIONS THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS THE FATHER OF THE VICTIM
Held: We are constrained to observe that the arraignment proceedings in the
Regional Trial Court leave much to be desired and for this reason resolve to
remand the cases for rearraignment. Calrspped
Section 3 of Rule
116 of the Rules of Court provides that:
"Sec. 3. Plea
of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. – 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."
Pursuant to the
foregoing rule it is mandatory for trial courts to accomplish three things to
avoid an improvident plea of guilt:
"1. conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of the accused’s plea;
2. require the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise decree of his
culpability; and
3. inquire whether
or not the accused wishes to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do
so if he desires
Considering that the accused-appellant entered an improvident plea of guilt, which improperly impaired the prosecution’s presentation of the evidence, a duty mandated by the rules, we are constrained to remand the thirty-seven (37) charges of rape to the court a quo for rearraignment and further proceedings in accordance with the above pronouncement of the court.
WHEREFORE, the
judgments on automatic review are SET ASIDE. G. R. Nos. 133387-133423 [Criminal
Cases Nos. 10715-SP (98) to 10751-SP (98)] are REMANDED for rearraignment under
the same informations. Supreme
The appeals in
Criminal Cases Nos. 10667-SP (98) to 10714-SP (98)[21] are hereby DISMISSED and
the decisions therein are final and executory.
