This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2007-02-27 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| that the accused faces the supreme penalty of death is insufficient.[32] Such procedure falls short of the exacting guidelines in the conduct of a "searching inquiry," as follows:(1) Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into the custody of the law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations; and (c) under what conditions he was detained and interrogated during the investigations. This is intended to rule out the possibility that the accused has been coerced or placed under a state of duress either by actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent quarters or simply because of the judge's intimidating robes. | |||||
|
2007-02-27 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused, the conviction must be sustained, because then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the accused but on evidence proving his commission of the offense charged.[36] Thus, as we have ruled in People v. Derilo:[37] | |||||
|
2003-06-18 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Even assuming that Julian made an improvident plea of guilty and subsequently withdrew it, such fact does not operate to automatically exculpate him from criminal liability. Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilty are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused, the conviction must be sustained because then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the accused but on evidence proving his commission of the offense charged.[32] | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Under established principles, a searching inquiry must not only comply with the requirements of Sec. 1, par. (a), of Rule 116 but must also expound on the events that actually took place during the arraignment, the words spoken and the warnings given,[20] with special attention to the age of the accused, his educational attainment and socio-economic status[21] as well as the manner of his arrest and detention, the provision of counsel in his behalf during the custodial and preliminary investigations, and the opportunity of his defense counsel to confer with him.[22] These matters are relevant since they serve as trustworthy indices of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilt.[23] Lastly, the trial court must explain the essential elements of the five (5) crimes he was charged with and their respective penalties and civil liabilities,[24] and also direct a series of questions to defense counsel to determine whether he has conferred with the accused and has completely explained to him the meaning of a plea of guilty.[25] This formula is mandatory and absent any showing that it was followed, a searching inquiry cannot be said to have been undertaken.[26] | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Lastly, the idea that in our midst runs a paucity of facts is substantiated by the assailed Decision of the trial court itself. It bewailed the sloppy pacing of the trial proper, but in coming up with the judgment of conviction barely summed up the testimony of the private complainant and other prosecution evidence. No reason is given why the trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses credible except for the bare statement that Brenda wept while on the witness stand and the inadmissible letter allegedly from accused-appellant admitting the charges against him. The assailed Judgment fails to state, in short, the factual and legal reasons on which the trial court based the conviction, contrary to Sec. 2 of Rule 120, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.[52] Thus even the Decision lacks the "assurance to the parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge did so through the processes of legal reasoning x x x a safeguard against the impetuosity of the judge, preventing him from deciding by ipse dixit."[53] | |||||
|
2000-10-18 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In the case of People vs. Nadera,[18] we explained the importance of the trial court conducting a searching inquiry, thus: "The warnings given by the trial court in this case fall short of the requirement that it must make a searching inquiry to determine whether accused-appellant understood fully the import of his guilty plea. As has been said, a mere warning that the accused | |||||