People v. Apatay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the early evening of October 20, 2000, 77-year-old Catalina Baluran was alone in her house in Sikatuna, Bohol, after her niece was rushed to the hospital. Appellant Rey Apatay was observed standing near her door. The following morning, Catalina was reported missing, and her lifeless body was subsequently discovered on October 22, 2000, inside the hole of an abandoned toilet. A post-mortem examination conducted by Dr. Francisco Romulo D. Villaflor revealed vaginal lacerations at "6, 9, and 12 o’clock positions," indicating forcible sexual assault, and that her death was due to "massive hemorrhage secondary to multiple skull fracture." Overwhelmed by his conscience, appellant surrendered on October 24, 2000, and, assisted by counsel, executed a sworn statement or extra-judicial confession, admitting to raping and killing Catalina Baluran on October 20, 2000, because she recognized him, after which he choked her, struck her head and face with a piece of firewood, and disposed of her body in the abandoned toilet. Procedural History: An Information for Rape with Homicide, defined under Article 266-A and penalized under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, was filed against Rey Apatay y Balo. During his arraignment, appellant, assisted by Atty. Adriano P. Damalerio of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged. The trial judge immediately conducted a searching inquiry to determine the voluntariness and comprehension of his plea and directed the prosecution to present evidence. The prosecution presented testimonies from Francisca Buchan, Odelion Manco, and Dr. Francisco D. Villaflor, confirming the circumstances surrounding the incident and the cause of death. The defense opted not to present any evidence in view of appellant’s plea of guilty. On March 5, 2001, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Tagbilaran City, rendered a Decision convicting appellant of Rape with Homicide and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death, with an order to indemnify the heirs of Catalina Baluran the sum of P100,000.00. The Appeal: Appellant assailed the Decision before the Supreme Court, contending that the trial court failed to conduct a sufficient searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension by him of the consequences of his plea. He further argued that the trial court failed to ask him whether he desired to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desired. The Solicitor General, in his Appellee’s Brief, vehemently disputed appellant’s contentions, asserting that the trial court did not commit any error in convicting appellant of the crime charged and in imposing upon him the death penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court failed to conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension by the appellant of the consequences of his plea. Whether the trial court failed to ask the appellant if he desired to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so.
Ruling
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION the appealed Decision dated March 5, 2001, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Tagbilaran City, in Criminal Case No. 10885. The Court found appellant Rey Apatay y Balo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of DEATH. The Court ordered him to pay the heirs of Catalina Baluran P75,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages, in addition to the trial court’s award of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge faithfully complied with the jurisprudential guidelines for conducting a "searching inquiry" when an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense. The records show that the Information was read and translated to the appellant in his Visayan dialect, which he speaks and understands. After he entered a plea of guilty, the trial judge properly conducted a searching inquiry, translated by the court interpreter, asking questions to which the appellant's answers were spontaneous and categorical. He declared that his confession was voluntary, that nobody forced him, and that he fully understood the consequences of his plea, specifically that the imposable penalty upon him was death, yet he would not change his plea. The Court reiterated, citing People vs. Flaviano R. Segnar, Jr., that there is no hard and fast rule as to how a judge may conduct a "searching inquiry," or as to the number and character of questions, as each case must be measured according to its individual merit, with the singular barometer being that the judge must fully convince himself of the voluntariness and truthfulness of the plea. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellant's contention that the trial court failed to ask him whether he intended to present evidence on his behalf. The records explicitly show that the defense "opted not to present any evidence considering the accused’s plea of guilty." This indicates that the defense counsel, assisting the appellant, made a conscious and deliberate decision not to present evidence, which is a valid strategic choice in legal proceedings. Furthermore, Section 3 of Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states that "The accused may present evidence in his behalf," which implies an option or a right that the accused can exercise, rather than a mandatory requirement for the court to compel or explicitly ask if they desire to present evidence when the defense has already made its position clear. The prosecution, as required by law, presented evidence for the purpose of establishing appellant’s guilt and the precise degree of his culpability, which included the extra-judicial confession and testimonies confirming the rape and homicide.
Main Doctrine
This case reiterates the procedural requirements for accepting a plea of guilty to a capital offense, specifically the "searching inquiry" mandated by Section 3, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. It emphasizes that while there is no rigid formula for conducting such an inquiry, the judge must be fully convinced of the voluntariness of the plea and the accused's full comprehension of its consequences, including the imposable death penalty. Furthermore, it affirms the necessity for the prosecution to present evidence to prove guilt and the precise degree of culpability, even after a guilty plea, especially in capital offenses like rape with homicide.