G.R. No. L-45589 July 28, 1988
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO VERANO, JR., defendant-appellant.

FACTS

Pedro Verano, Jr. was charged with Robbery with Homicide before the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. The information alleged that on August 22, 1975, in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, he robbed Manuela J. Ponce Vda. de Trinidad and Remedios Trinidad y Ponce of cash and valuables totaling P1,498.00. On the occasion of the robbery, he assaulted and stabbed Remedios Trinidad y Ponce, causing her death. Initially pleading not guilty, Verano, during the trial, moved to withdraw his plea and enter a plea of guilty, simultaneously invoking the benefit of Presidential Decree No. 603.
The trial court conducted a careful inquiry into the voluntariness and comprehension of Verano’s plea. The judge placed him on the witness stand, questioning him on his awareness of the charge, his consultation with counsel, his understanding of the plea’s consequences, and the voluntariness of his action. Satisfied with his affirmative responses, the court, while accepting the plea, still required the prosecution to present evidence to establish his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. Based on this evidence and the plea, the trial court found Verano guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, with corresponding indemnities.

ISSUE

The core issues were whether the trial court erred in convicting Verano based on his plea of guilty and in not granting him the benefit of P.D. No. 603, Article 192.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found no error in the trial court’s acceptance of the guilty plea. It emphasized that the lower court meticulously followed the stringent procedure required for capital offenses, conducting a “searching inquiry” to ensure the plea was voluntary and made with full comprehension of its consequences. Furthermore, the court did not rely solely on the plea; it required the prosecution to present evidence to prove guilt and the degree of culpability, adhering to the safeguards outlined in People v. Camay. Therefore, the conviction was validly based on both the plea and the evidence adduced.
Regarding the penalty, the Court held that Verano was not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of a plea of guilty because it was entered after arraignment and after the trial had begun. However, with the abolition of the death penalty under the 1987 Constitution , the penalty for Robbery with Homicide was reduced to reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court modified the sentence. The minimum term was set within the range of the penalty next lower in degree (prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium), and the maximum within the prescribed penalty. Verano was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The civil indemnity was increased to P30,000.00. The appeal was dismissed with modifications.