EN BANC

[G.R. No. 134530. December 4, 2000.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee, vs . ROBERTO

SAMONTAÑEZ y DELA VEGA , accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Public Attorney's Office for accused-appellant.

SYNOPSIS

In the early morning of November 25, 1995 Corazon delas Alas saw her 18-year old
daughter, Lolita off to school from their residence. That was the last time she saw her
daughter alive because in the evening of the same day Lolita's lifeless and naked body was
found in the middle of the sugar cane plantation. She was apparently raped before the
attacker ended her life. Nobody witnessed the actual commission of the grisly crime.
However, police investigation revealed that the accused-appellant was seen around 6 in
the evening of November 25, 1995 while he was coming out of the sugar cane plantation
near the place where the body of Lolita was found. Also follow up investigation led to the
recovery of the victim's personal belongings inside the accused bag left at his work place.
Samontañez was formally charged in court with the crime of rape with homicide. He
originally pleaded not guilty to the crime charged but later changed it to that of guilty. Trial
ensued, and thereafter the trial court rendered a decision nding the accused guilty of the
crime charged and was sentenced to death. The case reached the Court on automatic
review.
According to the Supreme Court, the trial court failed to mention and explain clearly
to the appellant the elements of the crime of rape with homicide as charged in the
information. As a result the appellant was not properly accorded his fundamental right to
be informed of the precise nature of the accusation against him, which is an integral part
of the due process clause under the Constitution. Also the trial court considered pieces of
evidence that were inadmissible in evidence for being proverbial "fruit of a poisonous tree."
Ultimately, the conviction of the appellant for the crime charged rested primarily on his
plea of guilty that appeared to be improvidently made. The decision of the trial court was
annulled and set aside by the Supreme Court and the case was remanded to the court of
origin for proper arraignment and trial.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PLEA OF GUILTY TO CAPITAL

OFFENSE; DUTIES OF THE TRIAL COURT. — Section 3 Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure speci cally mandates the course that trial courts should follow in case
where the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, as follows: SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to
capital offense; reception of evidence. — 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 behalf. Based on the aforecited rule, three (3) things are enjoined of the trial court after a
plea of guilty to a capital offense is entered by the accused: 1. The trial court must conduct
a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of
his plea; 2. The trial court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the
guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability through the requisite
quantum of evidence; and 3. The trial court must ask the accused if he desires to present
evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. It must be emphasized that the
said procedure is mandatory and any judge who fails to observe it commits grave abuse of
discretion.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RATIONALE. — The rationale behind the rule is that the courts must
proceed with more care where the possible punishment is in its severest form, namely
death, for the reason that the execution of such a sentence is irrevocable and experience
has shown that innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty. The primordial purpose is
to avoid improvident pleas of guilty on the part of an accused where grave crimes are
involved since by admitting his guilt before the court, he would forfeit his life and liberty
without having fully understood the meaning, significance and consequence of his plea.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SEARCHING INQUIRY; CONSTRUED. — Also, the trial court should have
probed deeper to the extent of securing every material detail of the crime in its lengthy
inquiries to the appellant subsequent to his re-arraignment. Questions tending to elicit
corroborative responses to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses should have
been asked of the appellant. Although there is not de nite and concrete rule as to how a
trial judge may go about the matter of a proper "searching inquiry," it would be well for the
trial court, for instance, to require the appellant to fully narrate the incident that spawned
the charges against him, or by making him re-enact the manner in which he perpetrated the
crime, or by causing him to furnish and explain to the court missing details of signi cance
in order to determine, once and for all, his liability for the crime. As it is, the Decision of the
trial court is devoid of any factual nding relative to the actual commission of the crime of
rape with homicide by the appellant. In the nal analysis, it is the quality rather than the
number of questions propounded during the inquiry that serves the task of ascertaining
the voluntariness and full comprehension by the accused of the consequences of his plea
of guilty to a capital offense.
4. ID.; ID.; CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION; EVIDENCE GATHERED THRU ILLEGALLY
OBTAINED CONFESSION, INADMISSIBLE; THROUGH CASE AT BAR. — Lastly, the trial court
lamentably considered pieces of evidence that are inadmissible in evidence for being the
proverbial "fruit of a poisonous tree." The facts show that the appellant Roberto
Samontañez was actually arrested by police authorities of Nasugbu, Batangas on
November 28, 1995 at his workplace in Barangay Galicia III, Mendez, Cavite. It does not
appear from the record that the appellant was apprised of his constitutional rights during
the police custodial investigation which are enshrined in Article III, Section 12(1) of the
1987 Constitution. It also does not appear that he was assisted by counsel during the said
custodial investigation. In the absence of a valid waiver, any confession obtained from the
appellant during the police custodial investigation relative to the crime, including any other
evidence secured by virtue of the said confession is inadmissible in evidence even if the
same was not objected to during the trial by the counsel of the appellant. Thus, the
personal belongings of the victim namely: Omax wristwatch, gold ring and Joop cologne
were recovered and found inside the bag of the appellant when the police authorities
returned to the appellant's place of work at the Hermogenes Trading in Barangay Galicia
III, Mendez, Cavite after they illegally obtained a confession from the appellant. In the case
o f People vs. Alicando, the Court had opportunity to reiterate the rule that evidence
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 gathered by virtue of an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible, thus: We have not
only constitutionalized the Miranda warnings in our jurisdiction. We have also adopted the
libertarian exclusionary rule known as the " fruit of the poisonous tree," a phrase minted by
Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter in the celebrated case of Nardone vs. United States.
According to this rule, once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been
unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also
inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of
the illegal act, whereas the " fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the same
illegal act. The " fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the illegally
seized evidence, but it is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that
evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because
the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained. EDIHSC

DECISION

DE LEON , JR. , J : p

Before us on automatic review is the Decision 1 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
14, of Nasugbu, Batangas dated May 15, 1998 in Criminal Case No. 1032 convicting the
appellant, Roberto V. Samontañez, of the crime of rape with homicide and sentencing him
to suffer the supreme penalty of death.
In the early morning of November 25, 1995, Corazon delas Alas saw her daughter,
eighteen (18) year-old Lolita delas Alas, off to school from their residence in Sitio Ilaya,
Barangay Bunducan, Nasugbu, Batangas. That was the last time Corazon had seen her alive
because at 8:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day Lolita's lifeless and naked body
was found in the middle of a sugar cane plantation in Sitio Ilaya, Barangay Bunducan,
Nasugbu, Batangas. Lolita was apparently raped before the attacker ended her life.
Nobody witnessed the actual commission of the grisly crime. However, police
investigation reveals that Roberto Samontañez was seen at around 6:30 o'clock in the
evening on November 25, 1995 while he was in the act of coming out of the sugar cane
plantation of Perino Desacola in Sitio Ilaya, Barangay Bunducan, Nasugbu, Batangas near
the place where the dead body of Lolita delas Alas was later found. It also appears that
earlier, at around 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon, Roberto passed by the house of Melecio
Mendoza in Sitio Bulanggutan, Barangay Bunducan and he headed eastward to the
direction of the sugar cane plantation of Desacola. Thirty (30) minutes later, Lolita was
also spotted, and she was likewise heading eastward to her house in Sitio Ilaya. At around
7:00 o'clock in the evening, Roberto returned heading westward and he passed through the
same path along the cane field.
On November 28, 1995, Roberto was fetched by the police authorities of Nasugbu,
Batangas from his workplace at Hermogenes Trading in Barangay Galicia III, Mendez,
Cavite. During the investigation at the Nasugbu Police Headquarters in Nasugbu, Batangas,
Roberto admitted to the police that the other personal belongings of Lolita delas Alas
were inside his bag that was left at his workplace in Mendez, Cavite. A follow-up
investigation conducted by the Nasugbu police authorities at Hermogenes Trading in
Mendez, Cavite led to the recovery of the said personal belongings of the victim.
On January 11, 1996, Roberto Samontañez was formally charged in court with the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 crime of rape with homicide, de ned and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, in an Information that reads:
That on or about the 26th day of November, 1995, at about 6:30 o'clock in
the evening, at Sitio Ilaya, Brgy. Bunducan, Municipality of Nasugbu, Province of
Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of Lolita delas Alas y
Andino against her will and consent and by reason or on occasion of the said
rape accused with intent to kill, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously strangled the
said Lolita delas Alas y Andino with the use of the latter's T-shirt which directly
caused her instantaneous death. Further, the personal properties of Lolita delas
Alas y Andino consisting of a gold ring and a wrist watch in an undetermined
amount were taken by the accused.

Contrary to law. 2

Upon being arraigned on February 1, 1996, accused Roberto Samontañez, assisted

by counsel de oficio, entered the plea of "Not guilty" to the Information in this case.
Pre-trial was scheduled and terminated on March 14, 1996. Before trial on the
merits could ensue the accused, through counsel, manifested his intention of changing his
earlier plea of not guilty to that of guilty. Accordingly, the trial court ordered that the
accused be re-arraigned in Tagalog, a dialect which he understood, and the said accused
then pleaded guilty to the charge of rape with homicide as stated in the instant
information. After being satis ed that the accused entered a voluntary and informed plea
by asking some questions, the trial court required the prosecution to adduce evidence to
prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability pursuant to Rule
116, Section 3 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure. 3
The evidence of the prosecution shows that on November 26, 1995, the victim,
Lolita delas Alas alias Betia, left their house in Sitio Ilaya, Barangay Bunducan, Nasugbu,
Batangas at around 6:00 o'clock in the morning to attend her classes at Kim Harold
Computer School in Poblacion, Nasugbu, Batangas. She was expected to return home at
5:00 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day. Having failed to come home on time, the
victim's mother, Corazon delas Alas, decided to meet Lolita in Barangay Pantalan which
was her usual route in going home from school. Upon her arrival in Barangay Pantalan
however, Corazon was informed that Lolita had already passed by, and that by then she
must have reached their home. Corazon returned to Sitio Ilaya but found that Lolita was
not yet home. Filled with apprehension, Corazon sought the assistance of her neighbors,
Renato Bauyon and Dalmacio Salao, to locate her daughter's whereabouts. At 8:00 o'clock
in the evening Corazon fainted upon being informed by Bauyon and Salao that the dead
body of Lolita was found in the sugar cane plantation of Perino Desacola. The body of her
dead daughter was already inside the house when she regained consciousness. 4
Corazon gave her sworn statement 5 to the police on December 8, 1995 in
connection with the rape-slay case of her daughter Lolita delas Alas. She knew accused-
appellant Roberto Samontañez for the reason that he was a resident of Sitio Balanggutan,
Barangay Bunducan, Nasugbu, Batangas. The death of her daughter was very painful to
Corazon and that she spent about P40,000.00 in connection with her wake and funeral. 6
It appears that on November 26, 1995, Carlito Samontañez, who is a rst cousin of
both the accused-appellant and the victim, was on his way home after gathering fodder for
his animals when, at a distance of twenty (20) arms length, he chanced upon Roberto at
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 around 6:30 o'clock in the evening while the latter was coming out of the sugar cane
plantation of Perino Desacola in Sitio Ilaya, Barangay Bunducan, Nasugbu, Batangas.
Carlito and Roberto were coming from opposite directions. However, when they came
close to two (2) arms length with each other, Carlito observed that Roberto, who was
naked from waist up with his T-shirt placed on his shoulder, was perspiring, somewhat
surprised and looked pale ("medyo po namumutla"). Carlito greeted Roberto and asked
him where he just came from, but the latter did not answer and left hurriedly. Carlito
dismissed his cousin's reaction, thinking that he (Roberto) may have been merely drunk. 7
After reaching his house, Carlito joined in the search for Lolita upon learning that she
was missing. At 8:00 o'clock in the evening, the victim was found dead in the sugar cane
plantation of Perino Desacola in Sitio Ilaya. Lolita was lying on her stomach, naked and a
black T-shirt was tied around her neck. 8
Another prosecution witness, Melecio Mendoza, who is an uncle of Roberto
Samontañez by a nity, saw Roberto walking eastward to Sitio Ilaya in Barangay Bunducan
at about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon on November 26, 1995. Melecio also saw Lolita at
around 6:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day walking home to Sitio Ilaya.
Subsequently, at 7:00 o'clock in the evening, Melecio again saw Roberto passed by his
house, this time heading westward to Sitio Balanggutan in Barangay Bunducan. Roberto
was naked from waist up with his T-shirt placed on his shoulder. 9
Melecio joined in the search for Lolita after having been requested by Renato
Bauyon. Lolita was totally naked and already dead when they found her in the sugar cane
plantation of Perino Desacola in Sitio Ilaya which was approximately one hundred (100)
meters away from his house in Sitio Balanggutan. 1 0
Acting on the report that a dead woman was found in Barangay Bunducan, Nasugbu,
Batangas, SPO2 Buenaventura Masikat and other police o cers of Nasugbu, Batangas,
together with Dra. Estela Hizon, proceeded to the crime scene in Sitio Ilaya, Barangay
Bunducan, Nasugbu, Batangas where the victim, Lolita delas Alas, was found dead and
lying on her stomach totally naked with a black T-shirt tied around her neck. A panty was
stuffed in her anal area. Her hands were stretched upward and her bra was half removed.
11

Dra. Estela Hizon, M.D., Municipal Health O cer of Nasugbu, Batangas, conducted a
post-mortem examination on the cadaver of Lolita delas Alas which was already in a state
of rigor mortis. Her ndings are contained in her post-mortem certi cation 1 2 dated
November 26, 1995, thus:
1. Contusion around the left eye.
2. Contused wounds at the upper and lower lips
3. Presence of mark of strangulation around the neck.

4. Multiple contusions at the anterior aspect of the chest.

5. Multiple laceration of the hymen.

Cause of death : Asphyxia by Strangulation.

Dra. Hizon also prepared an anatomical sketch of the human body 1 3 showing the
location of the injuries indicated in her post-mortem report and another anatomical sketch
showing the hymenal lacerations 1 4 in the vaginal canal of the victim. She explained that the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 contusion on the left eye, the contused wounds on the upper and lower lips with swelling
and blackish discoloration as well as the multiple contusions at the anterior aspect of the
chest of the victim may have been caused by st blows. The horizontal skin depressions
around the victim's neck was caused by ligature possibly with the use of a piece of cloth or
a rope. The protruding tongue of the victim may have been caused by constriction around
her neck. The multiple fresh lacerations of the hymen may have been caused by forcible
penetration of the victim's vaginal canal. There was watery bloodied uid coming out of
the victim's vagina. Finally, the cause of death of the victim was asphyxia by strangulation.
15

Meanwhile, SPO2 Masikat found two (2) short pants and one (1) piece of slipper
that belonged to Lolita delas Alas. 1 6 On the other hand, SPO2 Dionisio Calara took
pictures 1 7 of the deceased victim and the scene of the crime on the same evening. On
November 27, 1995, police o cers Masikat and Calara returned to the crime scene and
found the black bag of the victim containing a lotion, a pair of maong pants and a pair of
shoes. 1 8 They also found the brown bag of the victim which contained her Kim Harold
identi cation card, coin purse, hair pin, powder kit and powder puff. 1 9 In addition, they
prepared a sketch of the scene of the crime 2 0 and its vicinity. Thereafter, SPO2 Masikat
conducted interviews of the persons in the vicinity among whom were the prosecution
witnesses, Carlito Samontañez and Melecio Mendoza. During the interview, SPO2 Masikat
learned, among others, that the suspect, Roberto Samontañez, could possibly be located
at Hermogenes Trading in Barangay Galicia III, Mendez, Cavite where he worked. 2 1
On November 28, 1995, SPO2 Masikat, together with police officers Ramos, Malinay,
Ocoma, Lejano and Ilao, all of the Nasugbu, Batangas police found Roberto Samontañez at
the Hermogenes Trading in Barangay Galicia III, Mendez, Cavite. After talking to his
employer, they invited Roberto to the Nasugbu Police Headquarters. During the
interrogation at the police headquarters, Roberto informed SPO2 Masikat and SPO2 Calara
that some of the personal belongings of Lolita delas Alas were inside his bag that was left
at his workplace in Mendez, Cavite. 2 2
On December 4, 1995 SPO2 Masikat and his group returned to Hermogenes Trading
in Barangay Galicia III, Mendez, Cavite and inquired from Mr. Nelson Hermogenes about
the bag of Roberto. Accordingly, Mr. Hermogenes produced a black bag purportedly
belonging to Roberto containing an Omax wrist watch, a Joop cologne and a pawnshop
receipt for a gold ring that was subsequently redeemed by SPO2 Masikat for P500.00. The
three (3) articles were positively identi ed during the trial of the case by Corazon delas
Alas as belonging to her daughter, Lolita delas Alas. The police also found a fan knife
(balisong ) and a Barangay Clearance inside the black bag of Roberto Samontañez. 2 3
The prosecution rested its case on November 30, 1997. During the scheduled
hearings on January 14 and 29, 1998 for the presentation of evidence of the defense, the
accused took the witness stand and reiterated his previous plea of guilty to the crime
charged in the information. Thereafter, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, accused Roberto
Samontañez is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal, of the crime of
Rape with Homicide as thus penalized and is hereby sentenced to DEATH,
together with the accessory penalties provided for in Article 40 of the same code.
The accused is further condemned to pay to the heirs of the victim the amount of
P40,000.00 by way of compensatory or actual damages; P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity for her death; and P100,000.00 as and for moral damages. The
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 accused should pay costs.

SO ORDERED. 2 4

In his Brief, appellant Roberto Samontañez assails the validity of his plea of guilty to
the charge in the information in this case for having been improvidently made. On the other
hand, the People belie the claim of the appellant by citing portions of the transcript of the
stenographic notes of the hearing during the appellant's re-arraignment on March 14, 1996
and that of the scheduled hearings on January 14 and 29, 1998 to show that he voluntarily
entered the plea of guilty to the crime of rape with homicide as charged in the information
and with full knowledge of the consequences of his plea of guilty. It averred that the guilt
of the appellant was also established beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence
adduced by the prosecution during the trial of the instant case. aDIHTE

The record shows that the trial court relied on a) the appellant's plea of guilty to the
crime of rape with homicide as charged in the information and b) the evidence adduced by
the prosecution during the trial of the instant case.
Section 3, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure speci cally
mandates the course that trial courts should follow in case where the accused pleads
guilty to a capital offense, as follows:
SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. — 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.

Based on the aforecited rule, three (3) things are enjoined of the trial court after a
plea of guilty to a capital offense is entered by the accused: 1. The trial court must conduct
a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of
his plea; 2. The trial court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the
guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability through the requisite
quantum of evidence; and 3. The trial court must ask the accused if he desires to present
evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. 2 5 It must be emphasized that
the said procedure is mandatory and any judge who fails to observe it commits grave
abuse of discretion. 2 6
The rationale behind the rule is that the courts must proceed with more care where
the possible punishment is in its severest form, namely death, for the reason that the
execution of such a sentence is irrevocable and experience has shown that innocent
persons have at times pleaded guilty. The primordial purpose is to avoid improvident pleas
of guilty on the part of an accused where grave crimes are involved since by admitting his
guilt before the court, he would forfeit his life and liberty without having fully understood
the meaning, significance and consequence of his plea. 2 7
The Court notes the trial court's efforts to ensure the propriety of appellant's plea of
guilty to the crime of rape with homicide as evidenced by its lengthy inquiries to the
appellant in separate hearings, the transcript of which were reproduced in its assailed
Decision. Hence, during the scheduled hearing on March 14, 1996, the following
proceedings transpired, to wit:
Court:
Ready?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Atty. Exchaure:
Your honor, just a moment ago I informed the accused the fact that we will now
proceed with the trial on the merits of the case, but as usual, the accused
intimated to this representation that he will be pleading guilty to the
offense charged against him. I informed him the gravity of the offense as
well as the corresponding severe penalty attached to the offense which is
death, considering that there is a new law. But the accused insists on his
desire to plead guilty, in fact I brought that desire of his to the attention of
his mother who is present, as well as his aunt, and grandmother, and
according to them, that is the wish of the accused to plead guilty to the
charge against him.
Court:
The Court is asking the accused.

Q: Is the manifestation of your counsel, Atty. Exchaure true and correct that you
have now made up your mind to plead guilty to the offense as charged?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And you are doing that with your clear mind, nobody forced you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And did you reveal before to your counsel your decision to plead guilty?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where is the mother of the accused?

Atty. Exchaure:
She is here, your honor.
Court: (To the mother Teresita Samontañez)
Q: Are you related to the accused?

A: He is my son, your honor.

Q: Now, is it true that your son has decided to plead guilty?
A: Yes, your honor.
Q: And as mother, did you counsel your son that pleading guilty will mean his
guilt as charged?
A: Yes, your honor.
Court:

The accused can now be re-arraigned, but after his plea of guilty, the prosecution
still has to present evidence as required by the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure.
Prosecutor Marajas:
Yes, your honor.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Court:
Make your motion, Mr. defense counsel.
Atty. Exchaure:

Your honor, the accused, a moment ago, intimated to this representation that he
is changing his former Plea of Not Guilty to that of Guilty, for which reason,
your honor, I move that the accused be re-arraigned so that he could
properly enter his Plea of Guilty.
Court:
Re-arraign the accused.
(The Court Interpreter read the information in Pilipino to the accused.)

Court Interpreter:
(After reading the Information in Pilipino.)
Your honor, the accused entered a Plea of Not Guilty.
Court:
Place the accused on the witness stand. I want to clear this matter very well,
because of the gravity of the offense.
Court:

(To the accused)

Q: Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in this case?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Please state your name and other personal circumstances.
A: ROBERTO SAMONTAÑEZ, 26 years old, single, laborer in a construction, and a
resident of Barangay Bunducan, Nasugbu, Batangas.
Q: You were re-arraigned this morning by reading to you an information in
Pilipino, did you understand the information as read to you?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And you are a Tagalog speaking because you were born and grew up in Brgy.
Bunducan, Nasugbu, Batangas?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you know that by pleading guilty as you did awhile ago, the Court will
impose on you the death penalty as provided for by law for this offense?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: And your pleading guilty was nobody's liking but of your own volition and
spontaneous decision?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did your mother tell you to plead guilty?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 A: No, sir.
Q: Did your counsel, Atty. Exchaure tell you to plead guilty?
A: No, sir.
Q: Did the prosecutor tell you to plead guilty?

A: No, sir.
Q: Did anybody for that matter tell you to plead guilty?
A: None, sir.
Q: When you pleaded guilty, you were in your right senses?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: What grade did you finish in school or what is your educational attainment?
A: Grade IV, sir.
Q: But you can read and write?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: As in fact, you are a registered voter, as you did vote in the last election?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where did you vote?
A: Brgy. Bunducan, Nasugbu, Batangas, sir.
Q: In other words, you are admitting to have raped and killed the victim in this
case, Lolita delas Alas on that date in question and as charged in the
information?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Nobody gave or promised you any reward for your act of pleading guilty?

A: None, sir.
Q: Did anybody threaten or coerce or cajole you to do so?
A: None, sir.
Q: When you pleaded guilty awhile ago, whose decision is that?
A: It's my own decision, sir.

Q: Do you know the consequences of your pleading guilty?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: What is the consequence of your pleading guilty?
A: I will be punished with a grave penalty, sir.
Q: Do you have an idea as to the grave penalty that the Court may impose on
you?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 A: None, sir.
Q: Now, I am sternly and emphatically reminding you that the Court may impose
on you the severe penalty of death if you still maintain your plea of guilty?

A: Yes, sir, despite that I am not changing my plea of guilty, sir. My conscience is
bothering me, for what I did to the victim, sir.

Q: Alright, you sign on the notes together with the assistance of your counsel?
A: (The accused affixed his signature on the notes together with his counsel.) 2 8

During the scheduled hearing on January 14, 1998 for the presentation of evidence
of the defense, the following proceedings were duly recorded, to wit:
Atty. Exchaure:
The witness, your honor, is the accused himself. Although he pleaded guilty to
the crime imputed against him, he will explain to the Honorable Court the
reasons and circumstances, if any, why he pleaded guilty when he was re-
arraigned.

Court:
Proceed.
Atty. Exchaure:

Q: Mr. Witness, is it not a fact that when you were re-arraigned, you pleaded guilty
to the charge against you?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And in fact, you were asked by the Honorable Court if your having pleaded
guilty is of your own voluntary act?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, up to the present time, do you con rm the fact that you pleaded guilty to
the charge against you?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: At the time you pleaded guilty, nobody forced or coerced you to plead guilty?
A: Yes, sir.

Court:

Q: And even now, nobody is threatening you?

A: Nobody, sir.

Atty. Exchaure:

Q: Are you aware of the consequences of your having pleaded guilty?

A: No, sir.

Court:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Q: Why do you say you don't know the consequences?

A: I don't know what will happen to me, sir.

Q: Don't you understand that by pleading guilty, the Court will just penalize you
for the crime that you admitted?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: And in fact, the charge to which you pleaded guilty calls for the supreme
penalty of death?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And still you insist on or maintain your plea of guilty made before and you are
confirming the same this morning?

A: Yes, sir.

Atty. Exchaure:
Q: And you are willing to accept whatever will be the penalty will be imposed by
the Honorable Court for having pleaded guilty, which you still maintain up
to now?

A: Yes, Sir.
Court:

Are you remorseful for the crime imputed to you and which you admitted to have
committed?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: You just pray to God that in the nal day of reckoning, God will still forgive
you?
A: Yes, sir. 2 9

Also, on January 29, 1998, the following verbal exchange were recorded, thus:
Court: (To the accused)

Q: Roberto Samontañez, your counsel this morning manifested that you cannot
furnish him any evidence at least to mitigate the imposable penalty, now
under your same oath, do you confirm that?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: In other words, you have nothing more to say regarding your plea of guilty?
A: None, sir.

Q: You have nothing more to present at least to mitigate your liability for the
offense which you admitted to have committed?
A: I was then high on marijuana, sir.

Q: Were you a user of marijuana?

A: Yes, sir.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Q: And you were repentant of what you did to the victim?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Do you know that your repentance cannot bring back the life of the victim?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: And you leave your fate to this Court?

A: Yes, sir. 3 0

Nevertheless, We are not convinced that such lengthy inquiries conducted by the
trial court during the re-arraignment of the appellant as well as during the subsequent
hearings for the presentation of evidence of both the prosecution and the defense
su ciently established voluntariness and full comprehension of the appellant of his plea
of guilty to the crime charged in the Information. It may be noted that the appellant earlier
entered the plea of "Not guilty" to the Information in this case during his arraignment on
February 1, 1996. Subsequently, the appellant manifested, through his counsel de o cio,
his intention to change his previous plea to that of a plea of guilty to the crime charged in
the Information. After having entered the plea of guilty on re-arraignment, the trial court
proceeded to propound questions on the appellant during which a rmative responses
were elicited from the appellant apparently to show that his subsequent plea of guilty was
his own voluntary decision. The trial court per its Decision under review, however, failed to
dwell on a signi cant development that transpired during the scheduled hearing on
November 13, 1997 when the appellant revealed in open court, through counsel, that his
subsequent plea of guilty was prompted by "pressure" from a certain policeman so that he
(appellant) agreed to admit the commission of the offense charged. The pertinent portion
of the transcript is quoted hereunder, to wit:
Court:

The prosecution having rested, the Court wants to hear from the defense what it
has to offer.
Atty. Exchaure:

I am now in dilemma, your honor, considering that the accused has already
pleaded guilty to the charge against him and the accused intimated to me
this morning that he is changing his plea of guilty because according to
him when he testi ed before this Honorable Court admitted and pleaded
guilty (sic), he was under pressure by a certain policeman to admit the
commission of the offense.

Court:

Well, that is your point, you have to present your evidence.

Atty. Exchaure:

In that case, your honor, considering the recent development on the intention of
the accused, may I be allowed to confer rst with the accused and ask the
Honorable Court to have this case to move for continuance to give us time
to present the accused himself at the next schedule hearing.

Court:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Granted.

Prosecutor Marajas:
I just manifest for the record that the accused is a detention prisoner if what the
defense counsel stated were true and correct that Mr. Roberto Samontañez
was just pressured, the more he should present the . . .

Court:
Precisely, that's why he is asking for postponement. 3 1

The trial court perfunctorily brushed aside the aforesaid disclosure from the
appellant that he was pressured by a policeman to change his earlier plea of not guilty to
that of guilty to the charge in the information. It did not propound any clari catory
questions about the matter on the same occasion such as the identity of the concerned
policeman, the nature of the pressure and the circumstances under which the alleged
pressure was applied on the appellant. Although further inquiries were undertaken by the
trial court in the subsequent hearings on January 14 and 29, 1998, the questions
addressed to the appellant were primarily aimed at eliciting a rmative responses or
con rmations of his plea of guilty. The statement of the appellant that he was pressured
by a certain policeman apparently escaped the memory or concern of the trial court as it
did not crop up in its inquiry during those subsequent hearings. Left unventilated, the
appellant's allegation of pressure generates doubt on the voluntariness of his plea of guilty
to a capital offense.
Certain other considerations pose nagging doubts on the clarity of appellant's grasp
of the true meaning, full signi cance and consequences of his plea of guilty. The trial court
failed to mention and explain clearly to the appellant the elements of the crime of rape with
homicide as charged in the Information. 3 2 As a result, appellant was not properly
accorded his fundamental right to be informed of the precise nature of the accusation
against him, which is an integral aspect of the due process clause under the Constitution.
Notably, the appellant who reached grade IV only stated that he did not know the
consequences of his plea of guilty during the hearing on February 14, 1996 and again,
during the hearing on January 14, 1998. While the trial court informed the appellant that his
plea of guilty meant that he admitted liability for the crime of rape with homicide, as
charged in the information, which carries the penalty of death, it failed to emphasize that
his said plea of guilty would not, under any circumstance, affect or reduce the death
penalty, the imposition of which is mandatory under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659.
3 3 In which event, the appellant must be made to understand in plain and simple language
the precise meaning of the term "mandatory." 3 4 Additionally, the trial court failed to
apprise the appellant of the civil liability (e.g . indemnity, moral damages and exemplary
damages) arising from the crime of rape with homicide which shall be imposed on him as
perpetrator of the crime. 3 5 Despite appellant's apparent willingness to accept the penalty
for his crime, it is not farfetched to say that appellant was actually led to believe that the
penalty for his crime may still be reduced upon his plea of guilty thereto especially when
the trial court informed the appellant, through counsel, that he should adduce evidence.
Also, the trial court should have probed deeper to the extent of securing every
material detail of the crime in its lengthy inquiries to the appellant subsequent to his re-
arraignment. Questions tending to elicit corroborative responses to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses should have been asked of the appellant. Although there is no
de nite and concrete rule as to how a trial judge may go about the matter of a proper
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 "searching inquiry," it would be well for the trial court, for instance, to require the appellant
to fully narrate the incident that spawned the charges against him, or by making him re-
enact the manner in which he perpetrated the crime, or by causing him to furnish and
explain to the court missing details of signi cance in order to determine, once and for all,
his liability for the crime. 3 6 As it is, the Decision of the trial court is devoid of any factual
nding relative to the actual commission of the crime of rape with homicide by the
appellant. In the nal analysis, it is the quality rather than the number of questions
propounded during the inquiry that serves the task of ascertaining the voluntariness and
full comprehension by the accused of the consequences of his plea of guilty to a capital
offense.
Lastly, the trial court lamentably considered pieces of evidence that are inadmissible
in evidence for being the proverbial " fruit of a poisonous tree." The facts show that the
appellant Roberto Samontañez was actually arrested by police authorities of Nasugbu,
Batangas on November 28, 1995 at his workplace in Barangay Galicia III, Mendez, Cavite. It
does not appear from the record that the appellant was apprised of his constitutional
rights during the police custodial investigation which are enshrined in Article III, Section
12(1) of the 1987 Constitution. 3 7 It also does not appear that he was assisted by counsel
during the said custodial investigation. In the absence of a valid waiver, any confession
obtained from the appellant during the police custodial investigation relative to the crime,
including any other evidence secured by virtue of the said confession is inadmissible in
evidence even if the same was not objected to during the trial by the counsel of the
appellant. Thus, the personal belongings of the victim namely: Omax wristwatch, gold ring
and Joop cologne were recovered and found inside the bag of the appellant when the
police authorities returned to the appellant's place of work at the Hermogenes Trading in
Barangay Galicia III, Mendez, Cavite after they illegally obtained a confession from the
appellant. In the case of People vs. Alicando, 3 8 the Court had opportunity to reiterate the
rule that evidence gathered by virtue of an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible,
thus:
We have not only constitutionalized the Miranda warnings in our
jurisdiction. We have also adopted the libertarian exclusionary rule known as the
"fruit of the poisonous tree," a phrase minted by Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter in
the celebrated case of Nardone vs. United States. According to this rule, once the
primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any
secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible.
Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the
illegal act, whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the
same illegal act. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once removed from
the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on
the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to
gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all
evidence subsequently obtained.

The only other evidence of the prosecution are the testimonies of Carlito
Samontañez and Melecio Mendoza, both of which merely seek to establish the presence of
the appellant near the vicinity of the crime scene on or about the time when the crime took
place. Ultimately, the conviction of the appellant for the crime charged in the case at bar
rested primarily on his plea of guilty which appeared to have been improvidently made and
hence, contrary to the letter and spirit of Section 3, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Court,
supra. CaSHAc

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, of Nasugbu,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Batangas dated May 15, 1998 in Criminal Case No. 1032 convicting the appellant, Roberto
V. Samontañez, of the crime of rape with homicide and sentencing him to suffer the
supreme penalty of death is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE; and the case is remanded
to the court of origin for the proper arraignment and trial of the accused until terminated.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Penned by Judge Antonio A. De Sagun. Rollo, pp. 27-61.

2. Rollo, pp. 1-2.

3. TSN dated March 14, 1996, pp. 2-7.

4. TSN dated June 10, 1997, pp. 2-5; Exhibit "S".

5. Exhibit "S".
6. TSN dated June 10, 1997, pp. 9-10.

7. TSN dated March 14, 1996, pp. 9-13; Exhibit "A".

8. Id., pp. 14-15.

9. TSN dated June 26, 1996, pp. 4-8; 10-11.

10. Id., pp. 8-9.

11. TSN dated July 11, 1996, p. 5.

12. Exhibit "B".

13. Exhibit "C".

14. Exhibit "D".

15. TSN dated March 27, 1996, pp. 6-10.

16. Exhibits "Q", "R", "H".

17. Exhibits "F" to "F-4".

18. Exhibits "K" to "K-3".

19. Exhibits "L" to "L-3"; Exhibits "M", "M-1".

20. Exhibit "J".

21. TSN dated July 11, 1996, p. 13.

22. Id., pp. 13-14.

23. Exhibits "N" to "P-3".

24. Rollo, p. 61.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 25. People vs. Camay , 152 SCRA 401, 403 (1987); People vs. Derilo, 271 SCRA 633, 651 (1997);
People vs. Sevilleno, 305 SCRA 519, 528 (1999); People vs. Bello, G.R. Nos. 130411-14,
October 13, 1999.

26. People vs. Dayot, 187 SCRA 637, 641 (1990).

27. People vs. Albert, 251 SCRA 136, 145-146 (1995) citing 14 Am. Jur., Criminal Law, Sec. 271,
p. 951; People vs. Gonzaga, 127 SCRA 158, 163 (1984); People vs. Havana, 199 SCRA
805, 811 (1991).
28. TSN dated March 14, 1996, pp. 2-7.

29. TSN dated January 14, 1998, pp. 2-5.

30. Minutes dated January 29, 1998. Original records, pp. 164-165.
31. Minutes dated November 13, 1997. Original records, pp. 152-153.

32. People vs. Sevilleno, supra, p. 528.

33. People vs. De Luna, 174 SCRA 204, 212 (1989); People vs. Sevilleno, supra, pp. 528-529;
People vs. Bello, supra, G.R. Nos. 130411-14.
34. People vs. Alicando, 251 SCRA 293, 308 (1995).

35. Ibid.
36. People vs. Estomaca, 256 SCRA 429, 437 (1996) citing People vs. Dayot, supra.

37. Article III Section 12 paragraph (1) provides:

SEC. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel,
he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
xxx xxx xxx

38. Supra, pp. 314-315.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com