This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-10-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| (1) to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the plea of guilt, (2) to require the prosecution to still prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability, and (3) to inquire whether or not the accused wishes to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.[38] 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 irreversible. The primordial purpose is to avoid improvident pleas of guilt on the part of an accused where grave crimes are involved since he might be admitting his guilt before the court and thus forfeiting his life and liberty without having fully understood the meaning, significance and consequence of his plea.[39] Moreover, the requirement of taking further evidence would aid this Court on appellate review in determining the propriety or impropriety of the plea.[40] | |||||
|
2011-02-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Thirdly, it is notable that the RTC outrightly concluded that the crime committed on January 22, 1998 constituted attempted rape, after quoting the testimony of AAA and BBB. It offered no analysis or discussion of why the accused was criminally liable for attempted rape. The omission contravened Section 14,[23] Article VIII of the Constitution, as reiterated in Section 1,[24] Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, which enjoined that decisions should state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which they are based.[25] | |||||