THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAFAEL V. SERNA AND ANTONIO O. CIPRIANO, ACCUSED, RAFAEL V. SERNA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

In Criminal Case No. 150 of the Court of First Instance of Samar, the
accused-appellant Rafael Serna together with Antonio Cipriano were
charged with the crime of Robbery with Double Homicide, allegedly
committed as follows:

“That on or about the 28th day of November, 1970, at nighttime,
in the Municipality of Catbalogan, Province of Samar, Philippines, and
within in the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring, confederating together and mutually helping one
another, with intent to gain, and by means of force, violence against
and intimidation of persons, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and forcibly take, steal and carry away with them money in
cash amounting to Eighty (P80.00) Pesos, from the hands of Romualdo
Villones, belonging to him and one Leonardo Carlos, while said Romualdo
Villones was paying for the fish they bought from a fisherman, to the
damage and prejudice of the said owners in the aforementioned sum of
P80.00, Philippine currency; that on the occasion of the said robbery
and for the purpose of enabling them to take, steal and carry away with
them the said amount, herein accused, in pursuance of their conspiracy,
with treachery and intent to kill, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab several times said
Romualdo Villones and Loneardo Carlos with a dagger and a bolo with
which the said accused had conveniently provided themselves for the
purpose, thereby inflicting upon said Romualdo Vil­lones and Leonardo
Carlos several injuries on their bodies, which injuries caused their
death.

That in the commission of the crime, the aggravating
circumstance that it was committed with the use of a motorized banca as a
means for the flight or concealment of the offenders and also the
aggravating circumstance of recidivism, as regards accused Rafael V.
Serna, were present, the latter having been previously convicted by
final judgment in the Court of First Instance of Manila, and was
sentenced to an imprisonment from Ten (10) years to Seventeen (17) years
in 1958.”^[1]

Upon arraignment, appellant Rafael Serna and co-accused Antonio Cipriano
pleaded guilty to the crime charged. Both invoked the mitigating
circumstance of plea of guilty. Immediately thereafter, the court
rendered judgment convicting the two accused of robbery with double
homicide, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds Rafael V. Serna and Antonio O.
Cipriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals of the consummated
crime of Robbery with double Homicide defined and penalized under
Article 294, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, and considering the
mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty in favor of the accused
Antonio O. Cipriano and the aggravating circumstance of the use of a
motorized banca to offset the same, hereby sentences Antonio O. Cipriano
to Reclusion Perpetua and with respect to the accused Rafael
V. Serna, considering the two aggravating circumstances against him,
namely, recidivism and use of a motorized banca in the commission of the
crime, one of which is offset by the mitigating circumstance of plea of
guilty, hereby sentences Rafael V. Serna to death. Both accused shall
suffer the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the heirs of
Romualdo Villones in the amount of P12,000.00 and the heirs of Leonardo
Carlos in another sum of P12,000.00 plus P80.00 as indemnities. x x x

x x x              x x x                 x x x

Death penalty having been imposed on Rafael V. Serna, the Clerk of
Court shall, pursuant to the Rules of Court, transmit this case to the
Honorable Supreme Court.

SO ORDERED.”^[2]

Thereupon, this case was elevated to the Court for automatic review of the death penalty imposed on the defendant-appellant.

The records of this case show that after the in­formation was read to
the appellant in English and translated in Samar dialect, the appellant
pleaded guilty. Thereafter, the Fiscal asked that the plea of guilty be
considered mitigating, at the same time, the Fiscal asked the Court to
consider two aggravating circumstances against the accused Serna.^[3]

Without explaining the import of the plea of guilty and calling
witnesses to convince itself of the culpability of the
accused-appellant, the court rendered judgment convicting the
accused-appellant Serna and imposing upon him the supreme penalty of
death. The trial judge did not even bother to ask appellant whether he
understood his plea as the transcript merely stated that after the
information was read in English and translated to the Samar dialect,
appellant pleaded guilty.

Considering that the appellant was charged with an offense punishable by
death, the trial court should have required the prosecution to present
its evidence to prove the extent of his culpability. The taking of such
testimony is the prudent and proper course to follow for the purpose of
establishing not only the guilt but also the precise culpability of the
defendant.^[4]

Where a plea of guilty is entered by the defendant, in cases where the
capital penalty may be imposed, the court should make certain that
defendant fully understands the nature of the charge preferred against
him and the character of the punishment provided by law before it is
imposed. The trial court should therefore call witnesses for the
purposes of establishing the guilt and degree of culpability of the
defendant, not only to satisfy the trial judge, but also to aid the
Supreme Court in determining whether the accused really and truly
understood and comprehended the meaning, full significance and
consequences of his plea.^[5]

WHEREFORE, the judgment under automatic review is hereby SET ASIDE and
the case REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Makasiar, Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, and Cuevas, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., no part.

Aquino, J., see dissent.

---

^[1] Original Record, pp. 30-31.

^[2] Original Record, pp. 33-35.

^[3] tsn., Feb. 17, 1971, p. 4.

^[4] People vs. Alibasa, 118 SCRA 183.

^[5] People vs. Gonzales, 92 SCRA 527.

---

DISSENTING OPINION

AQUINO, J.:

I dissent with due deference to Mr. Justice Concepcion Jr.

The trial court convicted Rafael V. Serna and Antonio O. Cipriano of
robbery with double homicide because of their plea of guilty. It
sentenced Cipriano to reclusion perpetua. He did not appeal.

It sentenced Serna to death on the assumption that recidivism and use of
a motorized banca were aggravating. As admitted by the Solicitor
General, recidivism is not aggravating because the information does not
allege the prior crime for which Serna was convicted.

The Solicitor General also admits that use of motorized banca is not
aggravating because it was used as means of flight, not as a means for
the commission of the crime. He says that treachery is generic
aggravating but then it is offset by plea of guilty.

The fact that there was more than one homicide should not be aggravating
because that circumstance is not mentioned in article 14 of the Revised
Penal Code.

So, the Solicitor General recommends that Serna be punished with reclusion perpetua.

There was no improvident plea because Serna understood the consequences
of his plea. The rule is stated in People vs. Palupe, 69 Phil. 703,
705:

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

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

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

In the instant case, the offense was committed in 1970. After 14 years, no purpose would be served in remanding the case to the lower court for the pre­sentation of the prosecution’s evidence.

Serna should be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.