G.R. No. L-29451 December 14, 1979
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BONIFACIO ALVARADO, ERNESTO ROBLES and JOHN DOE, alias MARIO VILLACAMPA, accused. BONIFACIO ALVARADO and ERNESTO ROBLES, accused whose death sentences are under automatic review.

FACTS

Accused Bonifacio Alvarado and Ernesto Robles, along with others, were charged with Robbery with Homicide for robbing and killing Erlinda N. Misa in Cebu City. After an initial plea of guilty to an information alleging five aggravating circumstances, their counsel was allowed to withdraw the plea. The fiscal subsequently amended the information, eliminating two aggravating circumstances. Upon re-arraignment on the amended information, both accused, assisted by counsel and with the information translated into Cebuano, again pleaded guilty. Their counsel invoked the mitigating circumstances of poverty, lack of instruction, and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. The trial judge conducted a brief colloquy, informing Alvarado that the penalty could be life imprisonment or death, to which Alvarado responded he was pleading guilty because it was true and asked for a minimum penalty as it was his first offense. The court then stated it would only follow the law.
The trial court did not immediately render judgment. Instead, it proceeded to try their co-accused, Wenceslao Alvarado, who had pleaded not guilty. During Wenceslao’s trial, evidence including witness testimony, necropsy reports, affidavits of the accused, and physical evidence was presented, detailing the commission of the crime. The trial court later convicted Bonifacio Alvarado and Ernesto Robles as principals based on their pleas of guilty and sentenced them to death in a separate decision. They did not appeal, leading to automatic review by the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on the basis of the accused’s pleas of guilty without taking independent evidence to ascertain the circumstances attending the commission of the crime.

RULING

Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory duty of trial courts in capital offenses. When an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the plea. More critically, the court is required to require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of culpability. This evidence is necessary to establish the existence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances and to provide a sufficient basis for the Supreme Court’s automatic review of a death sentence.
In this case, while a brief inquiry was made, the trial court failed to take independent evidence against Bonifacio Alvarado and Ernesto Robles after their pleas. It merely relied on the evidence presented during the separate trial of their co-accused, Wenceslao. This was a fatal procedural flaw. The evidence against Wenceslao, who pleaded not guilty and underwent trial, cannot be automatically used against Bonifacio and Ernesto without violating their constitutional rights to due process and to confront the witnesses against them. They were not present at that trial, and their interests, while represented by the same counsel, were not identical for the purpose of adopting that evidence. Consequently, the record lacked the requisite evidence to justify the imposition of the supreme penalty. With no sufficient evidence to prove aggravating circumstances, the death penalty could not be sustained. The Court thus imposed the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.