G.R. No. 241257 , September 29, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Brendo P. Pagal, a.k.a. “Dindo,” Accused-Appellant.

DISSENTING OPINION: LOPEZ, J.

FACTS

This case involves the appeal of accused-appellant Brendo P. Pagal, who was charged with Murder. The accused initially entered a plea of guilty before the trial court. The majority opinion, represented by the ponencia, voted to acquit the accused. The dissent, as articulated by Justice Lopez, fundamentally disagrees with this disposition and argues for the remand of the case to the trial court for further appropriate proceedings.
Justice Lopez raises two primary grounds for remand. First, he concurs with other dissenting colleagues that the accused’s plea of guilt was improvident due to the trial court’s failure to conduct the mandatory searching inquiry to ensure the plea was made voluntarily and intelligently, as required under the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Second, he argues that the trial court committed a grave error by allowing a nolle prosequi (a declaration of unwillingness to prosecute) from the public prosecutor, which amounted to a dereliction of judicial duty after a plea had been entered.

ISSUE

Whether the case should be remanded to the trial court due to (1) an improvident plea of guilt and (2) the trial court’s error in allowing a nolle prosequi instead of requiring the prosecution to present evidence.

RULING

Justice Lopez, in his dissenting opinion, firmly rules that the case must be remanded. On the first issue, the absence of a proper searching inquiry into the voluntariness and intelligence of the guilty plea, coupled with the accused’s own appeal, indicates the plea was improvident. This procedural defect necessitates re-arraignment to secure a valid plea and verdict. On the second issue, Justice Lopez argues that once an accused pleads guilty, the court must not simply accept a prosecution’s move to discontinue the case. The trial court has the discretion and duty to ensure the State’s interest in justice is served. Here, the court should have compelled the prosecution, under threat of contempt, to present readily available evidence like the death certificate, autopsy report, and investigation report to establish the corpus delicti alongside the judicial confession.
The dissent emphasizes that a valid guilty plea is a judicial confession that rebuts the presumption of innocence and constitutes high-quality evidence. Therefore, the State has a compelling interest in securing a proper conviction and appropriate penalty. A remand is essential to afford the State due process and to ensure the accused is convicted of the proper offense, which could be murder or at the very least the lesser included offense of homicide. Justice Lopez concludes that justice is not served by an acquittal or a conviction for an improperly determined lesser offense; hence, remand for correct proceedings is the proper course of action.