Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27 views

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARNEL ALICANDO y BRIONES, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 117487 December 12, 1995 Puno, J. Case Facts

    Uploaded by

    Samin Apurillo
    The lower court committed errors in convicting the accused of rape with homicide. Specifically, the court erred by 1) accepting the accused's plea of guilty without conducting a thorough inquiry to ensure it was voluntary and that he understood the consequences, 2) failing to read the information against the accused in his own dialect to ensure he understood the charges, and 3) admitting the accused's uncounseled verbal confession obtained during custodial interrogation as evidence. These violations denied the accused his constitutional rights to due process and to be informed of the charges against him. The lower court's conviction is therefore null and void due to these errors.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARNEL ALICANDO y BRIONES, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 117487 December 12, 1995 Puno, J. Case Facts

    Uploaded by

    Samin Apurillo
    27 views3 pages
    The lower court committed errors in convicting the accused of rape with homicide. Specifically, the court erred by 1) accepting the accused's plea of guilty without conducting a thorough inquiry to ensure it was voluntary and that he understood the consequences, 2) failing to read the information against the accused in his own dialect to ensure he understood the charges, and 3) admitting the accused's uncounseled verbal confession obtained during custodial interrogation as evidence. These violations denied the accused his constitutional rights to due process and to be informed of the charges against him. The lower court's conviction is therefore null and void due to these errors.

    Original Title

    PP VS ALICANDO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The lower court committed errors in convicting the accused of rape with homicide. Specifically, the court erred by 1) accepting the accused's plea of guilty without conducting a thorough inquiry to ensure it was voluntary and that he understood the consequences, 2) failing to read the information against the accused in his own dialect to ensure he understood the charges, and 3) admitting the accused's uncounseled verbal confession obtained during custodial interrogation as evidence. These violations denied the accused his constitutional rights to due process and to be informed of the charges against him. The lower court's conviction is therefore null and void due to these errors.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    27 views3 pages

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARNEL ALICANDO y BRIONES, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 117487 December 12, 1995 Puno, J. Case Facts

    Uploaded by

    Samin Apurillo
    The lower court committed errors in convicting the accused of rape with homicide. Specifically, the court erred by 1) accepting the accused's plea of guilty without conducting a thorough inquiry to ensure it was voluntary and that he understood the consequences, 2) failing to read the information against the accused in his own dialect to ensure he understood the charges, and 3) admitting the accused's uncounseled verbal confession obtained during custodial interrogation as evidence. These violations denied the accused his constitutional rights to due process and to be informed of the charges against him. The lower court's conviction is therefore null and void due to these errors.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

    vs.
    ARNEL ALICANDO y BRIONES, accused-appellant.
    G.R. No. 117487

    December 12, 1995

    PUNO, J.
    CASE FACTS:
    On June 12, 1994 accused Arnel Alicando joined the the drinking
    spree of Romeo Penecilla ( the father of the victim) and Ramil Rodriguez at
    Barangay Rizal, Zone 1, Pulo Bala, Iloilo. Accused-Apellant joins them but
    every now and then he would take then leave then return. The appellant was
    living with his uncles house five-arms arm's length from Penecilla's house. At
    about 4pm that day they stopped the drinking spree.
    Luis Rebada lives in Penecilla neighborhood about 1-1/2 arms length
    away, At about 5:30 p.m. of that day, he saw the victim at the window of
    appellant's house. The victim offered the accused to buy her "yemas" but
    appellant closed the window. Soon he heard the victim crying. he approached
    appellant's house and peeped through an opening between its floor and door.
    The sight shocked her appellant was naked, on top of the victim, his left hand
    choking her neck. he retreated to her house in fright. he gathered her children
    together and informed her compadre, Ricardo Lagrana, then in her house,
    about what she saw. Lagrana was also overcome with fear and hastily left.
    Romeo Penecilla returned to their house at 8 o'clock in the evening. He did not
    find Khazie Mae (victim). He and his wife searched for her until 1 o'clock in the
    morning. Their effort was fruitless. Rebada was aware that the Penecillas were
    looking for their daughter but did not tell them what she knew. Instead, Relada
    called out appellant from her window and asked him the time Khazie Mae left
    his house. Appellant replied he was drunk and did not know.
    As the sun started to rise, another neighbor, Leopoldo Santiago went down
    from his house to answer the call of nature. He discovered the lifeless body of
    Khazie Mae under his house. Her parents were informed and so was the police.
    At 9:00 a.m., Rebada out of conscience informed Romeo Penecilla and his wife
    Julie Ann, that he committed the crime. Forthwith, He was arrested and
    interrogated by PO3 Danilo Tan. He verbally confessed his guilt without the
    assistance of counsel. On the basis of his uncounseled verbal confession and
    follow up interrogations, the police came to know and recovered from
    appellant's house, Khazie Mae's green slippers, a pair of gold earrings, a buri
    mat, a stained pillow and a stained T-shirt all of which were presented as
    evidence for the prosecution.
    After thorough examination and evidences presented the accused was
    convicted by the Lower court for the crime of Rape with homicide beyond
    reasonable doubt.
    An automatic review of the case was done considering death penalty was
    imposed by the trial court and found errors to wit;
    Records shows that it violated the implementing rules of the constitutional
    right of the appellant to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
    against him. It also denied him of his constitutional right to due process of law.
    The plea of guilty made by the appellant is likewise null and void. The trial
    court violated section 3 of Rule 116 when it accepted the plea of guilt of the
    appellant. Said section provides When the accused pleads guilty to a capital
    offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and
    full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution
    to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also
    present evidence in his behalf but records reveal how the trial judge
    inadequately discharged the duty of conducting a "searching inquiry." In the
    hearing of June 28, 1994, Some prosecution evidence, offered independently of
    the plea of guilt of the appellant, were inadmissible, yet, were considered by the
    trial court in convicting the appellant.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or Not the lower court committed lone error in convicting the accused
    WON the accused the lower court committed lone error in admitting the “verbal
    confession of guilt of the accused without the assistance of a council.

    HELD:

    YES, the lower court committed lone error in convicting the accused. The
    records also do not reveal that the Information against the appellant was read
    in the language or dialect known to him. Their was no record showing that the
    Information couched in English was translated to the appellant in his
    own dialect before his plea of guilt. The lower court violated the rule on
    implementing the constitutional right of the appellant to be informed of the
    nature and cause of the accusation against him. It also denied appellant his
    constitutional right to due process of law. The trial court violated section 3 of
    Rule 116 when it accepted the plea of guilt of the appellant. Said section
    requires that the court shall conduct a searching inquiry the voluntariness and
    full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution
    to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The trial court simply
    inquired if appellant had physical marks of maltreatment. It did not ask
    the appellant when he was arrested, who arrested him, how and where he was
    interrogated, whether he was medically examined before and after his
    interrogation,. It limited its efforts trying to discover late body marks of
    maltreatment as if involuntariness is caused by physical abuse alone.
    Further, there are physical evidence to prove Khazie was raped. These consists
    of a pillow with bloodstains in its center 14 and the T-shirt 15 of the accused
    colored white with bloodstains on its bottom. These physical evidence are
    evidence of the highest order. They strongly corroborate the testimony of Luisa
    Rebada that the victim was raped.These are inadmissible evidence for they
    were gathered by PO3 Danilo Tan of the Iloilo City PNP as a result of custodial
    interrogation where appellant verbally confessed to the crime without the
    benefit of counsel which is also a violation of the rights of the accused.

    You might also like