THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARLON PARAZO Y FRANCISCO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Parazo

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Marlon Parazo y Francisco, a criminal case for rape and frustrated homicide in which the accused was condemned to death. The case matters because the Supreme Court confronts a question every trial judge must answer: what happens when the accused is a deaf-mute who is also a mental retardate, tried without a sign language expert, and therefore unable to understand the charge against him or to make himself understood? The Court answers that such a trial is no trial at all, and that the conviction must fall for want of due process.

Procedural History

Marlon Parazo was charged before Branch 27 of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, in two cases, one for rape and one for frustrated homicide. After trial, the court rendered a joint decision dated March 24, 1995, convicting him and imposing the supreme penalty of death in the rape case. Because the penalty imposed was death, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review. On May 14, 1997, the Supreme Court affirmed the joint decision with modification, sustaining the conviction for rape under Section 11 of Republic Act Number 7659 amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and sentencing him to death, while modifying the frustrated homicide conviction to an indeterminate penalty. On May 29, 1997, the appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, bringing to the Court's attention the absence of a sign language expert at his trial. The Court granted his urgent omnibus motion, held the motion for reconsideration in abeyance, ordered his medical examination, and later allowed him to be brought to the University of the Philippines Philippine General Hospital for neurologic and otolaryngologic evaluation. After receiving the medical reports, the Court resolved the motion for reconsideration.

Facts

Marlon Parazo was born deaf and mute. His mother testified that day to day communication in the family relied on a pat on the back, a tap on the lap, or the most basic signs. He never had any formal education, and medical intervention never crossed the family's mind because of poverty. The barangay chairman knew him since childhood and testified that in the locality he was called "Pipi" because of his inability to communicate. A retired schoolteacher confirmed that he never completed even a full Grade One term.

He was tried for rape and frustrated homicide. The records showed that he was tried without the benefit of a sign language expert. The trial court noted that he was helped and assisted by a person known to him since 1983, but there was no clear showing that this person was a competent sign language expert able to fully understand and interpret his actions and mutterings.

After his conviction was affirmed on automatic review, the Court ordered a medical examination. Psychologists found his intelligence quotient at 60, with a mental age equivalent to seven years and nine months, and assessed him as suffering from mild mental retardation. Otolaryngologists certified profound hearing loss in the left ear and severe hearing loss in the right, and concluded that he could not possibly understand conversational speech without powerful amplification. A psychiatrist reported that he was unable to understand both written and spoken language and needed repetitive sign language instructions and demonstration to understand any task. The Supreme Court medical team concluded unanimously that he is deaf and mute with mild mental retardation.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial of a deaf-mute accused without the assistance of a competent sign language expert deprived him of a full and fair trial and of due process of law.
• Whether or not the conviction may stand, or whether the accused is entitled to a re-arraignment and re-trial with the assistance of counsel and a competent sign language expert.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the constitutional guarantee of due process, which secures to every accused the right to be heard by himself and counsel and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The Court states the guarantee in these words:

The accused could not be said to have enjoyed the right to be heard by himself and counsel, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him in the proceedings where his life and liberty were at stake.

This guarantee bears directly on the case because a deaf-mute who cannot understand the charge and cannot convey his defense is denied exactly these rights.

The decision also construes the statutory framework under which the appellant was convicted, namely Section 11 of Republic Act Number 7659 amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, which governs the crime of rape and its penalties. The Court refers to this provision in describing the conviction below:

WHEREFORE, the joint decision appealed from dated March 24, 1995, is hereby AFFIRMED with respect to Crim. Case No. 6167, and accused Marlon Parazo y Francisco is found guilty of the crime of rape under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659 amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, with the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, and is sentenced to the penalty of death.

This provision matters because it is the very conviction the Court later vacates upon finding that the trial that produced it was fundamentally defective.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the absence of a sign language interpreter deprived the accused of a full and fair trial and of a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. It relied on its earlier ruling in People versus Crisologo, which it quoted with approval:

The absence of an interpreter in sign language who could have conveyed to the accused, a deaf-mute, the full facts of the offense with which he was charged and who could also have communicated the accused's own version of the circumstances which led to his implication in the crime, deprived the accused of a full and fair trial and a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.

The Court stressed that not even the accused's final plea of not guilty could excuse these inherently unjust circumstances. The absence of a qualified interpreter, and of any other means whether in writing or otherwise to inform him of the charges, denied him his fundamental right to due process. The accuracy and fairness of the factual process by which his guilt or innocence was determined was not safeguarded. The fact that he was helped by a person known to him since 1983 was of no moment, absent any clear showing that the helper was a competent sign language expert able to fully understand and interpret his actions and mutterings.

On the second issue, the Court concluded that the appellant richly deserved a re-arraignment and re-trial, so that only upon proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt may he be consigned to the lethal injection chamber. The medical findings of deafness, muteness, and mild mental retardation confirmed that he could not have understood the proceedings against him.

Doctrine

A deaf-mute accused is entitled to the assistance of a competent sign language expert during arraignment and trial. Without such assistance, he cannot be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, cannot be heard by himself and counsel, and is denied due process of law. A conviction obtained under such circumstances is void and must be set aside, and the accused must be re-arraigned and re-tried with the assistance of counsel and a competent sign language expert. The presence of a helper known to the accused is not enough; there must be a clear showing that the helper is a competent sign language expert able to fully understand and interpret the accused's actions and utterances. The plea of not guilty does not cure the defect.

Disposition

The Supreme Court vacated its own earlier decision, set aside the joint decision of the trial court, and granted the appellant a re-arraignment and re-trial with the assistance of counsel and a competent sign language expert before the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a deaf-mute tried without a competent sign language expert is denied due process, and the conviction must be vacated for a re-arraignment and re-trial. Examiners use this case to test the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and the right to be heard, especially where the accused's disability prevents him from understanding the proceedings.