This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-07-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In his lone assignment of error, appellant faults the trial court for convicting him on the basis of an improvident plea of guilt as it failed, so he claims, to judiciously follow the guidelines set forth in People v. Pastor.[10] | |||||
|
2004-07-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides: 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 shall require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf. The reason for this rule is that courts must necessarily proceed with more care where the possible punishment is in its severest form death for the reason that the execution of such sentence is irrevocable. Experience has shown that innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment, or upon bad advice or because of promises of the authorities or parties of a lighter penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse. An accused might be admitting his guilt before the court and thus forfeit his life and liberty without having fully understood the meaning, significance and consequences of his plea. The judge therefore has the duty to ensure that the accused does not suffer by reason of mistaken impressions.[16] Requiring the trial court to take further evidence would also aid this Court on appellate review in evaluating the propriety or impropriety of the plea.[17] | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The Constitution ordains that due process must be observed in cases involving a possible deprivation of life, liberty or property.[36] More important than convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent is the courts' duty of ensuring that justice is done.[37] Hence, courts must proceed with extreme caution and observe strictly the rules on criminal procedure in cases where the possible penalty is in its severest form; that is, death, because the execution of such a sentence is irrevocable.[38] Any departure from the regular course of trial should be probed into to protect an accused from deprivation of liberty or worse, life itself, on the basis of evidence which cannot establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | |||||
|
2003-07-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| In the absence of any other competent evidence, such as the baptismal certificate, school records or the testimony of the victim's relatives, the testimony of the private complainant was not sufficient proof of her actual age without an express and clear admission thereof by the appellant, pursuant to our ruling in People vs. Pruna.[27] Since it was the prosecution that had the burden of proving the age of the offended party, the failure of the appellant to object to the testimonial evidence regarding the victim's age could not be taken against him. The prosecution failed to prove the actual age of the private complainant as alleged in the separate informations, thus the appellant should be convicted of simple rape and sentenced accordingly to reclusion perpetua in each case. | |||||
|
2003-03-05 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Clearly, the rationale behind the foregoing requirements is that 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 thrown caution to the wind and given up defending themselves out of ignorance or desperation.[20] Moreover, the necessity of taking further evidence would aid this Court in determining on appellate review the propriety or impropriety of the waiver.[21] | |||||