G.R. No. 132059; June 29, 2001
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. WENEFREDO DIMSON ASOY, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused Wenefredo D. Asoy was convicted and sentenced to death by the Regional Trial Court of Carigara, Leyte, for the crime of Rape with Homicide of his sister, Ester Dimson Asoy. An Information was filed alleging that on December 22, 1996, in Tunga, Leyte, the accused, armed with a bolo, with lewd designs and by force, had carnal knowledge of Ester against her will, and on the occasion thereof, hacked and killed her. Upon arraignment on March 4, 1997, assisted by counsel, the accused pleaded “guilty.” The trial court, considering the seriousness of the offense under the Heinous Crime Law, reset sentencing and ordered the presentation of prosecution witnesses to determine culpability. The prosecution presented witnesses: the mother, Anecita Dimson-Asoy, who testified the accused confessed to killing Ester but not to raping her; Ronelo Tañola, who found the body; SPO4 Melecio Davocol, who investigated and confiscated a bladed weapon; and Police Superintendent Angel A. Cordero, who presented a Medico-Legal Necropsy Report confirming death from an incised neck wound and the presence of non-motile spermatozoa, indicating loss of physical virginity. The defense offered no evidence. The trial court found the accused guilty based on his plea and the evidence, imposing the death penalty. The case is on automatic review.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court gravely erred in proceeding with the trial despite the accused’s improvident plea of guilty.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court SET ASIDE the decision and ordered the trial court to re-arraign the accused and conduct proper proceedings. The trial court failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements for arraignment and a plea to a capital offense. Under Section 1(a), Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the arraignment must be made by reading the information in a language or dialect known to the accused. The Certificate of Arraignment only stated the accused was “informed of the nature of the charge against him by reading the INFORMATION,” without indicating it was translated into a dialect he understood. Furthermore, under Section 3, Rule 116, when an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the plea. The trial court did not conduct such an inquiry. The mother’s testimony also raised doubt as to whether the accused pleaded guilty to rape with homicide, as she stated he confessed only to the killing, not the rape. Consequently, the plea was improvident, necessitating a re-arraignment.