This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2004-02-05 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| Therefore, given the attendant circumstances, we are constrained to remand these cases to the court a quo for further reception of evidence. No matter how outrageous the crimes charged might be or how depraved the offender would appear to be, the uncompromising demand of due process and of the rule of law must still prevail.[35] | |||||
|
2003-07-11 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| While awaiting resolution of the instant appeal, appellant Samuel Dellona y Bebing filed on February 2, 1999, an "Urgent Motion to Withdraw Appeal" from the trial court's May 6, 1994 judgment. The Court, in a Resolution dated June 9, 1999,[15] dismissed | |||||
|
2002-05-29 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Solemn and inflexible is the constitutional behest that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Absolute heedfulness of this constitutional injunction is most pronounced in criminal cases where the accused is in the gravest jeopardy of losing his life. It constantly behooves every court to proceed with utmost care in each of such cases before it, and nothing can be more demanding of judges in that respect than when the possible punishment would be in its severest form like death -- a penalty that, once carried out, is irreversible and irreparable.[40] | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Equally distressing is the correlated omission of the transcripts of stenographic notes of the supposed re-arraignment or plea colloquy of accused-appellant. We have emphasized the need for and importance of such transcripts,[28] and even more in the instant case where accused-appellant manifested his desire to change his plea on the condition that the death penalty would not be imposed. Thus the trial court deferred the hearing on 29 August 1999 precisely to give the prosecution time to "x x x determine whether the proposal of the accused to withdraw his plea of not guilty and change the same to guilty could have the effect of lowering the penalty attached to the offense charged to reclusion perpetua."[29] If the searching inquiry were reduced into writing, this Court would have been duly informed of accused-appellant's sincere intention to change his plea despite the imposition of the capital penalty and the legal impossibility of any promise of reward. | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| It is also urged in the Brief for the Appellant that an improvident plea of guilty per se results in the remand of the criminal case(s) to the trial court for the re-arraignment of accused-appellant and for further proceedings. We hold that this argument does not accurately reflect the standing principle. Our jurisdiction does not subscribe to a per se rule that once a plea of guilty is deemed improvidently made that the accused-appellant is at once entitled to a remand. To warrant a remand of the criminal case, it must also be proved that as a result of such irregularity there was inadequate representation of facts by either the prosecution or the defense during the trial. In People v. Abapo[31] we found that undue reliance upon an invalid plea of guilty prevented the prosecution from fully presenting its evidence, and thus remanded the criminal case for further proceedings. Similarly in People v. Durango[32] where an improvident plea of guilty was followed by an abbreviated proceeding with practically no role at all being played by the defense, we ruled that this procedure was "just too meager to accept as being the standard constitutional due process at work enough to forfeit a human life" and so threw back the criminal case to the trial court for appropriate action. Verily the relevant matter that justifies the remand of the criminal case to the trial court is the procedural unfairness or complete miscarriage of justice in the handling of the proceedings a quo as occasioned by the improvident plea of guilty,[33] or what People v. Tizon[34] encapsulizes as the "attendant circumstances." | |||||
|
2000-04-05 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| This Court, in the recent case of People vs. Tizon,[5] has expressed the rationale behind the rule and it is, at bottom - | |||||