GR 59876; (August, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. No. 59876 August 31, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. DIOSDADO DE GUIA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Diosdado de Guia, was charged with Murder for hacking Narciso Gonzales to death with a bolo on July 21, 1981, in Barangay San Agustin, Iba, Zambales. The information alleged the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. During arraignment, de Guia initially pleaded not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty. The trial court accepted this plea. The prosecution presented witnesses, including Noel Montefalcon who testified that he and the victim were cleaning fish when de Guia suddenly attacked Gonzales from behind, hacking him multiple times. De Guia even pursued and hacked the victim again as the latter attempted to board a bus. The defense presented no evidence. The trial court convicted de Guia of Murder, sentenced him to death, and ordered him to pay indemnity and damages.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether the trial court erred in accepting the accused’s plea of guilty without ensuring it was made with full comprehension, and (2) whether the prosecution proved the qualifying circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s decision. On the first issue, the Court found the plea of guilty was improvidently accepted. The record showed the accused attempted to qualify his plea, stating through counsel there was “a little bit frustration” and denying he acted with evident premeditation and treachery. The trial judge did not conduct a searching inquiry into the accused’s comprehension of the plea’s consequences, especially given the capital charge and the accused’s shifting pleas. This failure violated the stringent requirements for accepting a guilty plea in capital offenses.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the qualifying circumstances were not proven. While the attack was sudden, the prosecution evidence did not establish that the accused employed means to ensure the victim had no opportunity for self-defense. The witness testified they were standing and cleaning fish; the mere fact of an attack from behind, without more, does not automatically constitute treachery. The circumstance of evident premeditation was also not proven, as there was no evidence of the time when the accused determined to commit the crime, an act manifestly indicating his determination, or a sufficient lapse of time between conception and execution for reflection. The savagery of the attack suggested powerful emotion rather than cold calculation. Consequently, the crime committed was Homicide, not Murder. The Court sentenced de Guia to an indeterminate penalty and increased the civil indemnity to P30,000.00.