Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(PEOPLE v. ALICANDO) (Serapio) C2021
(PEOPLE v. ALICANDO) (Serapio) C2021
ARNEL ALICANDO
251 SCRA 293 |. December 12, 1995
Puno, J.
Doctrine: The presumption that the arraignment of the appellant was regularly conducted
will not apply when life is at stake.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Arnel Alicando was charged and convicted for the crime of Rape with
Homicide and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. The information filed against him
stated that the accused raped a 4-year-old child and in the process thereof, chocked her all of
which contributed to her death. On arraignment, the appellant pleaded guilty with the assistance
of Atty. Antiquiera of the PAO. This was followed by the reception of evidence of the
prosecution of the court wherein the prosecution presented several witnesses who attested to the
crime committed by the appellant. In sum, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused was
drinking with the father of the victim but then would occasionally leave the group. At 4:30pm,
the group stopped drinking and left. At around 5:30 p.m., a witness testified that she saw the
victim at the window of appellant’s house and when she tried to talk to her, the latter closed the
window. Moments later, she heard crying and when she peeped through an opening, she saw the
appellant naked on the top of the victim while chocking her neck. The parents of the victim
searched for their child the whole night to no avail.
In the wee hours of the morning, another neighbor discovered the lifeless body of the
victim under his house. At around 9am the same day, appellant confessed his guilt to the victim’s
parents and by virtue thereof, he was arrested by the police. During interrogation, the accused
confessed his guilt without the assistance of counsel and on the basis of such interrogation, the
police found and recovered the victim’s slippers, buri mat, stained pillow and stained t-shirt all
of which were presented to the court as evidence. On the basis of such, the RTC rendered the
decision and sentenced the accused to suffer the penalty of death which prompted this automatic
review by the Court.
SERAPIO C2021 | 1
2. W/N the plea of guilt made by the appellant is valid- NO.
The plea of guilt is likewise null and void for violating Sec 3, Rule 116 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure. According to the said rule, the courts are mandated to
conduct a searching inquiry once the accused pleads guilty to a crime charged in order to
prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. It is elementary that the searching
inquiry of the trial court must be focused on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea, and (2) the
full comprehension of the consequences of the plea.
In the present case, the trial court simply inquired if appellant had physical marks
of maltreatment and did not even asked the appellant regarding the circumstances of his
arrest. It also ignored the fact that when the accused surrendered, he suffered from
hematoma because he was mobbed by fellow inmates. Moreover, the trial court also
failed to determine effectively whether accused had full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea because when he was told that he would suffer the penalty of
mandatory death penalty, the court did not explain the meaning of “mandatory”. It must
be stressed that a conviction in capital offenses cannot rest alone on a plea of guilt. And
since the plea was obtained in violation of several constitutional rights of the accused, the
same must be declared null and void.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision in Criminal Case No. 43663, convicting accused Arnel
Alicando of the crime of Rape with Homicide and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death
is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further
proceedings. No costs.
SERAPIO C2021 | 2