THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF?APPELLEE, VS. EPIFANIO FLORES Y MARIKIT ALIAS EDWIN BANATLAO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This case is before this
Court on mandatory review of the judgment of the Circuit Criminal Court of Malolos, Bulacan, imposing upon
the defendant, Epifanio Flores y Marikit,
alias Edwin Banatlao, the penalty of death upon his plea of guilty to
the charge of robbery with homicide.

In the brief filed by the law firm of Burgos and Sarte, counsel de oficio,
it is recommended that the case be remanded to the court a quo so
that the defendant may be arraigned anew and the meaning and possible
consequences of a plea of guilty explained clearly to him in order to preclude
any doubt that if he enters such a plea he does so voluntarily and
intelligently.  The same recommendation
is made by the Solicitor General.

The record does not show
that minutes were taken of the proceedings below.  The decision under review, however, recites
what transpired.  The defendant appeared
for arraignment without counsel.  With
his consent the court appointed de oficio
counsel, who thereupon manifested that the defendant was
intending to plead guilty but would like to have the information read to him in
Pilipino.  This request was complied
with, after which he “intimated that he fully
comprehended the same and signified his willingness to plead guilty to the
offense charged, the consequences of which he likewise understood.”

The trial court then passed sentence, taking into consideration
the aforesaid plea as a mitigating circumstance and the three aggravating
circumstances alleged in the information, namely, superior strength, nocturnity and recidivism.

As pointed out by counsel the terms “nocturnity”
and “superior strength” have each a legal significance not ordinarily
understandable to a layman unless explained to him.  In itself nighttime is not an aggravating
circumstance, and becomes one only where it is especially sought by the
offender or taken advantage of by him to facilitate the commission of the crime
or to avoid discovery and thus minimize the risk of capture.  In the same manner, abuse of superior
strength is a relative factor, and may depend upon other circumstances than
mere numerical superiority of the aggressors^[1]
– circumstances which may be correctly appreciated by a trial judge only upon
searching inquiry.  Such inquiry should
of course include the existence of mitigating circumstances, if any, since they
affect the determination of the proper penalty.

The norm that should be followed where a plea of guilty is
entered by the defendant, especially in cases where the capital penalty may be
imposed, is that the court should be sure that defendant fully understood the
nature of the charges preferred against him and the character of the punishment
provided by law before it is imposed. 
While there is no law requiring it, yet where the penalty may be death,
it is advisable for the court to call witnesses for the purpose of establishing
the guilt and the degree of culpability of the defendant.^[2]
The latest decision on this point is in the case of People vs. Remegio Estebia, G. R. No.
L-26868, July 29, 1971, where this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Enrique
Fernando, stated:  “. . . inasmuch
as judgments of conviction imposing the extreme penalty of death are subject to
review by the Supreme Court as law and justice shall dictate, whether the
defendant appeals or not, which automatic review neither the Court nor the
accused could waive or evade, it would seem that the proper and prudent course
to follow where the accused enters a plea of guilty to capital offenses
especially where he is an ignorant person with little or no education, is to
take testimony not only to satisfy the trial judge but to aid the Supreme Court
in determining whether accused really and truly understood and comprehended the
meaning, full significance and consequences of his plea.”

Wherefore, the decision under review is set aside and the
case remanded to the court a quo for a new arraignment of the
defendant, with assistance of counsel and with the precautions herein
indicated.

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

Villamor, J., took no part.

Dizon, J., on official leave.

^[1]
People vs. Apduhan, 24 SCRA 798; People vs.
Boyles, 11 SCRA 88.

^[2]
People vs. Virgilio Solacito,
G. R. No. L-29209, August 25, 1969,
Citing U.S. vs.
Talbanos, 6 Phil. 541; U.S.
vs. Rota 9 Phil. 426; U.S.
vs. Agcaoili, 31 Phil. 91.