THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LUCIO AGUILAR, AND TOMAS MENDEZ, ALIAS BILLY BILLINGER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

The information under which the above-named defendants were
accused reads as follows:

“The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses Lucio
Aguilar, Tomas Mendez alias Billy Bilinger, and Jesus
Dugang alias Jessie of the crime of attempted robbery
in band with homicide, committed as fol­lows:

That on or about the 17th day of July, 1966, in the Municipality of
Culaba, Subprovince of Biliran, Province of Leyte,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together with Estanislao Delda, Alfredo Veloso and Vedasto Borromeo, who are still at large, and mutually helping one
another, all armed with unlicensed firearms, with deliberate intent to gain,
did then and there wil­fully, unlawfully and
feloniously, by means of force and violence against persons, demand money from
one Luis Gandalla; thus, the accused commenced the
commission of robbery directly by overt acts, but did not perform all the acts
of execution which would have produced the crime of robbery, by reason of some
cause or accident other than their own spontaneous desistance; that by reason
or on the occasion of the attempted robbery, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together with Estanislao
Delda, Alfredo Veloso and Vedasto Borromeo, who are still
at large, and mutually helping one another, all armed with unlicensed firearms,
with deliberate intent to kill, did, then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot the said Luis Gandalla with the firearms which the accused have pro­vided
themselves for the purpose, there­by inflicting upon the offended party the
following wounds, to wit:

“‘Wound, gunshot, chest, point of entrance, left parastersal line, 3rd, ICS 1/2″ diameter, and point of
exit, left anterior axiliary line, 3rd, ICS.

Wound, gunshot, right abdomen point of entrance near navel,
1/2″ in diameter, pene­trating, perforating cocon
(5) small intestines (3), point of exit right
buttocks.

Wound gunshot right arm, point of entrance anterior portion middle 3rd., 1/2″ in diameter and point to exit, posterior
aspect 1-1/2″ in diameter with complete fracture of the humeros.

Wound, gunshot, left fore­arm, 1/2″ in diameter, point of
entrance, postero-lateral aspect middle 3rd., and
point of exit postero-medial aspect upper 3rd., 3/4
in diameter.'”

which wounds
caused the instantaneous death of Luis Gandalla.

That the crime was committed with the aggravating circumstances of
abuse of superior strength; that the act was committed with insult or utter disregard
of the respect due the offended party on account of the age of the victim, he,
being 70 years old at the time of his death; and that the crime was com­mitted
in the dwelling of the offended party and during nighttime.  The accused Lucio
Aguilar is a recidivist having been charged and convicted of the crime of
robbery before the Court of First Instance of Borongan,
Samar, in the year 1960 and was only released from
con­finement on December 17, 1965.  The
accused Tomas Mendez is also a recidi­vist having been convicted by final
judgment of the crime of robbery before the Court of First Instance of Cebu in the year 1963 and also sentenced to an imprisonment
of one (1) year, eight (8) months and three (3) days.

Contrary to Article 297 of the Revised Penal
Code.”

Upon arraignment the said defendants pleaded guilty and were
sentenced to the penalty of death.  Their
co-accused, Jesus Dugang, pleaded not guilty, and
after trial was sentenced in a separate decision to a term of im­prisonment.

The case of Lucio Aguilar and Tomas
Mendez is before this Court for automatic review by reason of the penalty
imposed.  In the brief filed in their
behalf by Attorney William H. Quasha, who had been
appointed counsel de officio, he assigned only one error, as
follows:

“The lower court erred in not taking such evidence as were
available and necessary in support of the material allegations of the
information, including the aggravating circumstances there­in enumerated for
the purpose of establishing beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused
and deter­mining the nature and extent of the penalty to be imposed upon them,
considering that the accused were charged with a capital offense.”

The Solicitor General, instead of filing a brief in reply,
submitted manifestation and motion joining with counsel for the defendants in
his prayer that the case be remanded to the court a quo for
further proceed­ings – “specifically, to have the accused arraigned once
more, with assistance of counsel, and with full informa­tion regarding the
nature and gravity of the offense charged, the penalty that might be imposed
upon them should they plead guilty; and of all other rights that they might be
entitled to under the law.”

There is no record of the proceedings had in the trial court,
other than what is stated in the decision itself, concerning the arraignment
and plea of the herein accused, no stenographic notes having been taken
thereof.  The decision shows, however,
that when the said accused appeared for arraignment they manifested that they
had no lawyer, whereupon the court appointed one to represent them de oficio; that after conferring with his clients, the
lawyer manifested that they were ready to be arraigned; that the information
was read to them in the local dialect, and they then spontaneously pleaded
guilty; and that the court thereupon proceeded to pronounce sentence, taking
into consideration their plea as lone mitigating circums­tance and appreciating
against them all the aggravating circumstances alleged in the information, thus:

“In meting out stiff penalties to the accused, Lucio Aguilar and Tomas Mendez, alias Billy Billinger, the court takes into consideration the previous
conviction of the ac­cused; their incorrigibilities
and notoriousness in that whenever they gained their freedom and liberties they
have no more compunctions and second thought to commit a brutal crime; that the
killing of the deceased, the late Luis Gandalla who
was then 70 years old by the accused was characterized with murder in that the
late Luis Ganda­lla was made a target practice for
being shot four (4) times; the multiple aggravating circumstances, and under
the principle that, ‘great crime deserves greater penalty’.

Wherefore, the court finds the accused, Lucio
Aguilar and Tomas Mendez, alias Billy Billinger
guilty beyond reason­able doubt of the crime of at­tempted robbery in band with
homicide with the attendant aggra­vating circumstances of:  with insult or utter disregard of the respect
due the offended party on account of the old age of the victim, he being
already 70 years old at the time he was shot; that the crime was perpetrated in
the dwelling of the offended party; that nightime was
sought by the accused in the commission of the crime; that the accused, Lucio Aguilar, is a recidivist, having been charged and
convicted of the crime of robbery before the Court of First Instance of Borongan, Samar, in the year
1960, and was only released from confinement on Dec. 17, 1965, while the
accused Tomas Mendez alias Billy Billinger is also a
recidivist, having been con­victed by final judgment of the crime of robbery
before the court in Cebu City in the year 1963, and
was sentenced to an imprison­ment of one (1) year, eight (8) months and three
(3) days; hereby sentences the accused, Lucio Aguilar
and Tomas Mendez, alias Billy Billinger, to suffer
the maximum penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code which is DEATH, to
indemnify the heirs of Luis Gandalla the sum of
P6,000.00, jointly and severally, and to pay the costs.”

In U.S.
vs. Agcaoili, 31 Phil. 92, where the accused was
convicted upon his plea of guilty without any evidence taken, we said:

“We are inclined to think that while, he undoubtedly intended
on that occasion, as also when he entered his plea of guilty, to confess and
admit that he took the lives of the persons mentioned in the information, he
did not intend to admit that he committed the offense with the aggravating cir­cumstances
mentioned therein.  x x
x

While it is true that a judgment convicting and sentencing a
defendant may lawfully be pronounced upon a solemn plea of ‘guilty’ in open
Court and on arraignment entered by the accused with full knowledge of the
meaning and effect of his plea, nevertheless, where the complaint charges a
capital offense, the possibility of misunderstanding or mistake in so grave a
matter justifies and in most instances requires the taking of such available
evidence in support of the allegations of the in­formation as the trial judge
may deem necessary to remove all reasonable possi­bility that the accused might
have en­tered his plea of ‘guilty’ improvidently, or without a clear and
precise understand­ing of its meaning and effect.”

In People vs. Andrecito
Bulalake et al., G.R. No. L-14190, December 28, 1959, this Court made
the fol­lowing observations:

“x x x
while it appears that the accused, with the assistance of his counsel de
oficio, pleaded guilty to the information,
voluntarily and spontaneously, the records do not disclose that its contents
enumerating several aggravating circumstances, were read and translated or
clearly explained to him.  Neither does
it appear that he fully and completely understood the precise nature of the
charges preferred against him and the consequences of his plea.  No inquiry whatsoever was made by the trial
judge in this respect notwithstanding the fact that the accused was assisted
only by an attorney de oficio whose
appointment by the court for this purpose might have been extended only on the
date of the arraignment, x x x“.

In People vs. Apduhan,
G.R. No. L-19491, August 30,
1968, this Court, speaking through Justice Fred Ruiz Castro,
cautioned trial judges “to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when
an accused pleads guilty he under­stands fully the meaning of his plea and the
import of an inevitable conviction.” A similar advertence was made through
Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, in People vs. Solacito, G.R. No, L-29209, August 25, 1969.

The present case comes within the purview of our consistent
ruling in those cases.

Wherefore,
pursuant to the prayer in the brief of defense counsel de oficio, concurred in by the Solicitor General, the
judgment appealed from is set aside and the case is remanded to the Court a
quo for further proceedings in conformity with the views expressed
herein.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.