PEOPLE vs ESTOMACA

On May 24, 1994, consequent to five separatecomplaints, Criminal Cases Nos. 43567,43568,43569,43570 and43571 were filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, IloiloCity charging herein appellant, an illiterate laborer, with rapecommitted on five separate occasions against his own daughter,complainant Estelita Estomaca. Heres what happened: Melita, the eldest daughter of the accused claims that she was raped by the accused.There is some inconsistency in the statements on recordas to what actually took place on June 14, 1994 during thearraignment of appellant, assisted by his government counsel deoficio, Atty. Rogelio Antiquiera. The decision of the court below,dated July 15, 1994, declares that he entered a plea of guilty toCriminal Cases Nos. 43568 and 43571, and a plea of not guilty toCriminal Cases Nos. 43567,43569 and 43570. Obviouslyengendered by the insufficiency of the proceedings conductedand the imprecision of the notes taken at this stage, this matterwill be further discussed hereafter.The two criminal complaints, both subscribed by theoffended party on April29, 1994 and which are the subject of thejoint judgment of the lower court challenged in this appellatereview.Proceeding upon the capital nature of the offensesinvolved, the trial court, after appellant ostensibly waived thepresentation of evidence for his defense, required theprosecution to adduce evidence purportedly to establish appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, on June 29,1994, the complainant herself, Melita Estomaca, appeared incourt and testified that she was raped by her father once inDecember, 1993 and, again, on March 6, 1994.On the authority of Republic Act No. 7659 which tookeffect on December 31, 1993, the lower court imposed uponappellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the sexual assault supposedly perpetrated in December, 1993, and the supremepenalty of death with respect to the rape allegedly committed onMarch 6, 1994. In each of the said cases, he was further orderedto indemnify the offended party in the amount of P50,000.00 andto pay the costs.ISSUE: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY CONVICTEDTHE APPELLANT AND IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF DEATHHELD: No.Section 1(a) of Rule 116 requires that the arraignment should bemade in open court by the judge himself or by the clerk of court furnishing the accused a copy of the complaint or information with the list of witnesses stated therein, then reading the same in the language or dialect that is known to him, and asking him what his plea is to the charge. The requirement that the reading be made in a language or dialect that the accused understands and knows is a mandatory requirement, just as the whole of said Section 1 should be strictly followed by trial courts. This the law affords the accused by way of implementation of the all-important constitutional mandate regarding the right of an accused to be informed of the precise nature of the accusation leveled at him and is, therefore, really an avenue for him to be able to hoist the necessary defense in rebuttal thereof. It is an integral aspect of the due process clause under the Constitution. At threshold, what strikes this Court as peculiar is that the arraignment appears to have consisted merely of the barereading of the five complaints, synthetically and crypticallyre ported in the transcript, thus: (Reading the information/complaint to the accused in Ilonggo/local dialect). Since what was supposed to have been read was stated in the singular, but there were five criminal complaints against appellant, this Court is then left to speculate on whether all five criminal complaints were actually read, translated or explained to appellant on a level within his comprehension, considering his limited education.

There is no showing whether or not appellant or his counsel deoficio was furnished a copy of each complaint with the list of witnesses against him, in order that the latter may duly prepareand comply with his responsibilities. Of more troublous concernis the fact that appellant was not specifically warned that on hisplea of guilty, he would definitely and in any event be given thedeath penalty under the New Law, as the trial court calls Republic Act No. 7659. He was also not categorically advised that his plea of guilty would not under any circumstance affect or reduce the death sentenceas he may have believed or may havebeen erroneously advised.The significance of this distinction is found right in the provisionsof Section 1(a) of Rule 116 which, cognizant of the aforestated linguistic variations, deliberately required that the complaint or information be read to the accused in the language or the dialect known to him, to ensure his comprehension of the charges. The Court takes judicial notice, because it is either of public knowledge or readily capable of unquestionable demonstration, that in the central and northwestern part of Iloilo province andall the way up to and throughout Antique, including necessarilySan Joaquin where the offenses were committed and of whichappellant and his family are natives, the local dialect is known as kinaray a. Barring previous exposure to or as a consequence of extended social or commercial intercourse,kinaray -a is not readily understandable to nor spoken by those born to the Hiligaynonregional language or who have lived in the areas under its swayfor an appreciable period of time. The converse is true for thosewhose native tongue is the dialect of kinaray -a, since they aregenerally not well-versed in Ilonggo, or Hiligaynon. Since all thecomplaints are not only in English but in technical legal language, we are again at sea as to whether and how the indictments weretranslated to Ilonggo and/or tokinaray -a,or that the appellant was truly and honestly made of the charges and, especially, the consequences of his guilty plea thereto. The records are silent and do not reveal anything on this point, nor how the dialogue between the presiding judge and appellant was translated. Yet a mans life is at stake while this Court wrestles with that dilemma created by an omission of official duty. The trial court should also be convinced that the accused has not been coerced or placed under a state of duress either by actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent or avenging quarters and this it can do, such as by ascertaining from the accused himself the manner in which he was subsequently brought into the custody of the law; or whether he had the assistance of competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations; and, ascertaining from him the conditions under which he was detained and interrogated during the aforestated investigations. Likewise, a series of questions directed at defense counsel as to whether or not said counsel had conferred with, and completely explained to the accused the meaning of a plea and its consequences, would be a well-taken step along those lines. Questions of these nature are undoubtedly crucial and no truer is this than in the case of appellant for, again, the original records and rollo of this case now under review are completely bereft of any document or record concerning his apprehension, detention and prior investigation, whether custodial or preliminary. The foregoing circumstances must be taken in addition to the appropriate forewarnings of the consequences of a plea of guilty, as well as the questions by the court regarding the age, educational attainment and socio-economic status of the accused which may reveal contributory insights for a proper verdict in the case. The searching inquiry of the trial court must be focused on: (1)the voluntariness of the plea; and (2) the full comprehension of the consequences of the plea. The questions of the trial court failed to show the voluntariness of the plea of guilt of the appellant nor did the questions demonstrate appellants full comprehension of the consequences of the plea. The records donot reveal any information about the personality profile of theappellant which can serve as a trustworthy index of his capacityto give a free and informed plea of guilt. The age, socio-economicstatus, and educational background of the appellant were not plumbed by the trial court WHEREFORE

, the judgment of the court a quo in Criminal CasesNos. 43568 and 43571 convicting accusedappellant MelchorEstomaca y Garque of two crimes of rape is hereby SET ASIDE.Said cases are REMANDED to the trial court for further andappropriate proceedings, with instructions that the same begiven appropriate priority and the proceedings therein beconducted with deliberate dispatch and circumspection..

PEOPLE VS. BONIFACIO DURANGO G.R. NO. 135438-39 (2000) Facts: A was charged with rape. During arraignment, A entered a plea of not guilty. During the trial, As defense counsel manifested to the court that A wanted to withdrew his earlier plea of not guilty and substitute it with a plea of guilty. On the basis of the manifestation, A was re-arraigned, and this time A pleaded guilty. After the prosecution had concluded its presentation, the RTC rendered a decision finding the accused guilty and sentencing him to death. Issue: Whether the RTC erred in convicting A despite his improvident plea of guilty Held: Yes. When an accused enters a plea of guilty, the trial court is mandated to see to it that the exacting standards laid down by the rules therefore are strictly observed. It cannot be said that when a person pleads guilty to a crime there is no chance at all that he could, in fact, be innocent. The improvident plea, followed by an abbreviated proceeding, with practically no role at all played by the defense is just too meager to accept as being the standard constitutional due process at work enough to forfeit human life. ______________
People vs alberto chua G.R. No. 137841 (October 1, 2001) Held: In Philippine society, the father is considered the head of the family, and the children are taught not to defy the fathers authority, even when this is abused. They are taught to respect the sanctity of marriage and to value the family above everything else. Hence, when the abuse begins, the victim sees no reason or need to question the righteousness of the father whom she had trusted right from the start. The value of respect and obedience to parents instilled among Filipino children is transferred into the very same value that exposes them to risks of exploitation by their own parents. The sexual relationship could begin so subtly that the child does not realize that it is abnormal. Physical force then becomes unnecessary. The perpetrator takes full advantage of this blood relationship. Most daughters cooperate and this is one reason why they suffer tremendous guilt later on. It is almost impossible for a daughter to reject her fathers advances, for children seldom question what grown-ups tell them to do.

But incest, no matter how despicable, hateful and revolting it is both to the victim and society, is not a crime in our statute books. There is no law that specifically defines and penalizes incest. The case at bar involves rape.