PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO SEE, ACCUSED WHOSE DEATH SENTENCE IS UNDER REVIEW.

The issue in this case of robbery with homicide and rape is whether
Francisco See made an improvident plea when he changed his plea of not
guilty to guilty after the prosecution had presented as evidence his extrajudicial confession (Exh. A), whose voluntariness and due execution he has not questioned, and
the testimonies of Isabelo Secuya,
the robbery victim; Fiscal Pedro Casia who
administered the oath to accused confessant; Patrolman Amador T. Taroy who took the confession, and the health officer who
examined the rape victim, Adela S. Estrella.

Two hearings were held during which the prosecution’s evidence
was presented.  The evidence was not complete.  The rape victim was scheduled to testify and
the death certificate of the person killed on the occasion of the robbery and
the medical certificate as to
wounds which caused his death have still to be presented.

At that stage, or during the third hearing, counsel de oficio asked the lower court
for leave to confer with accused See. 
After the conference, counsel de oficio manifested that See
wanted to change his plea.  So, See was
re-arraigned.  He entered a plea of guilty.

The evidence already presented by the prosecution (particularly
the accused’s confession), shows that See was a
twenty-three-year-old convict at the Kapalong Sub-Penal Colony who was a “living-out”
prisoner (he could leave the colony anytime without guard).  He finished Grade four.  He was a Catholic, a native of Casiguran, Sorsogon and a former
resident of 946 Epifanio de Los Santos Avenue, Quezon City.  He was serving sentence for
robbery committed in 1968 in Quezon City.

He admitted that with Federico Silvestre, one Falconit
and Boy Paco he committed robbery in the house of Isabelo Secuya at Pagsabangan, Tagum.  On the occasion of the robbery, Roque Estrella was killed and his wife Adela
was raped by the malefactors.

He said that in the afternoon of June 11, 1970, Silvestre fetched him from the penal colony
so that they could look for money.  They
met at Barrio Carmen one Falconit, a civilian from Cotabato, and Boy Paco, an
escapee from the penal colony.  The four
proceeded to the house of Secuya in Pagsabangan.

Falconit and Boy Paco
forcibly opened the door and entered the house. 
They brought out of the house a man who turned out to be Roque Estrella.  As Estrella
resisted, See was going to shoot him with his Garand
rifle but Silverio grabbed the weapon and instead
shot Estrella (Exh. A).

Secuya, who executed a sworn statement
as to the crime, recounted that at about one
o’clock in the morning of June
12, 1970 he and his son Geronimo and son-in-law, Roque, were awakened by the barking
of dogs.  The three went out of
the house but saw nobody.  Then, he heard
a gunshot.  He saw two persons go near
the body of Roque
who was hit by the gunshot.

One of the persons was See whom he identified in court.  Secuya dived into
the canal.  The two malefactors found him
in the canal.  He surrendered.  They ordered him to carry the cadaver of Roque to the house.  Secuya was later hogtied upstairs.  They brought his daughter, Adela, downstairs where she was raped.  The malefactors took cash amounting to two
hundred pesos and the wedding suit of Roque valued at
P90.

The health officer testified on his medical examination of Adela S. Estrella (Exh. B).  As already
stated, See changed his plea and the trial court found him guilty of robbery in
band with homicide and rape, sentenced him to death, and ordered him to pay an
indemnity of twelve thousand pesos to the heirs of Roque
Estrella and five thousand pesos to Adela S. Estrella.  See did not appeal.

His counsel de oficio in this automatic review of the death penalty contends
that See was convicted without due process of law because he made his plea of
guilty at the time when the prosecution had not finished the presentation of
its evidence and there was no showing that he understood the consequences of
his plea.  (People vs. Apduhan, L-19491, August 30, 1968, 24 SCRA 798; People vs. Baylosis, L-34014, September 8, 1972, 47 SCRA 5 and People
vs. Flores, L-32692, July 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 230).

It should be noted that of
the four malefactors only See
and Silvestre were arrested.  At
their arraignment on June 8, 1971,
Silvestre, conscientiously assisted by
counsel de oficio, Jose B. Guyo, pleaded guilty. 
According to lawyer Guyo, what surprised him was that Silvestre
insisted on pleading guilty and on being sentenced to death.  Silvestre gave to him information which he
could not reveal because of its confidential nature (See Guyo’s
manifestation of July 11, 1973, Rollo of
L-33821, People vs. Silvestre).

The prosecution did not present its evidence after Silvestre’s
plea.  Judge Alejandro E. Sebastian
in a decision dated June 9, 1971
sentenced him to death.  On automatic
review of the death penalty, this Court set aside the judgment of conviction
and remanded the case for trial on the ground that the trial court’s acceptance
of the plea of guilty was “inordinately hasty” (People vs. Silvestre,
L-33821, June 22, 1973, 51 SCRA 286).

The instant case is obviously different from the Silvestre
case.  Here, the accused at first
pleaded not guilty.  He pleaded guilty after
the prosecution had presented the major portion of its evidence which includes
his extrajudicial confession.

The rule is judiciously
stated by Justice Diaz as follows:

“Cuando un acusado
admite libre y voluntariamente su delito con pleno conocimiento de la indole exacta
del mismo, su admision, o mejor dicho, su confesion,
hecha en dichas circunstancias, es suficiente para
justificar la imposicion de
la pena que para dicho delito
hay prescrita por la ley.

“Es discrecional
en los juzgados permitir la presentacion de pruebas adicionales despues que el acusado haya confesado
formalmente su delito.

“Tan solo es prudente y necesario
tal vez, requerir, la presentacion de otras pruebas ademas
de las que el mismo acusado suministra
mediante su confesion libre y voluntaria, cuando hay un asomo de duda de que al hacerla, no la hace estando bien
impuesto de los verdaderos hechos, y de las consecuencias de su acto.” (People vs. Palupe, 69 Phil.
703.  See People vs. Duaban,
L-31912, August 24, 1979, 92 SCRA 743).

We hold that there was no improvident plea nor
denial of due process.  Even without the
plea of guilty, the prosecution’s evidence, though not complete, proves beyond
reasonable doubt See’s guilt.  His confession, which was corroborated by evidence of the corpus delicti, was executed in 1971.  Its admissibility is not barred by section
20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution.

The crime committed was robbery with homicide and rape.  Band was not proven because it was not shown
that the four malefactors were all armed. 
Plea of guilty is not
mitigating.  It was given after the
prosecution had presented its evidence.

To be appreciated against See are the special qualifying
circumstance of quasi-recidivism, treachery, which absorbs nocturnity,
and dwelling.  Rape has been considered
aggravating in some cases.  The
appropriate penalty is death but as there are no sufficient votes, it is
commuted to reclusion perpetua.

WHEREFORE, the trial court’s decision is modified.  Accused Francisco See is convicted of robbery
with homicide and rape, sentenced to reclusion perpetua
and ordered to pay an indemnity
of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) to the heirs of Roque
Estrella, twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) to Adela Secuya Vda.
de Estrella and P290 to Isabelo Secuya as the
value of the loot.  Costs
de oficio.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., concurs but reserves
his vote on the question of the indemnity imposed.

Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Escolin, Relova, and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.,
concur.

Melencio-Herrera, J., concur but reserves his
vote as to the amount of damages for death, and the indemnity to the offended
woman for the crime of rape.

Plana, J., concur but vote to award P25,000 as indemnity
for death and P20,000, for rape.

Makasiar, J., reserves his vote.

Teehankee, J., no part.