THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MAURICIO PETALCORIN ALIAS JUNIO BUDLAT AND BERTOLDO ABAIS ALIAS TOLDONG, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

It was about 2:00 o’clock in
the afternoon of April 18, 1979 when Joemarico Porcadilla and Bonifacio Paden
were riding on a pumpboat called LOU JR from Cebu City bound for Banacan Island in the Municipality of Jetafe, Province of Bohol.  The pumpboat was owned by Luis Miasco
and was at that time loaded with assorted cargoes.

While negotiating the seawaters at Pandanon Island
said pumpboat was bumped by another pumpboat piloted by Bertoldo Abais.  Aboard said pumpboat were Mauricio Petalcorin
and Paul Sagarino. 
Immediately thereafter, Petalcorin fired at
Paden three times who was hit at
the back and as a consequence thereof, he fell into the sea.  Petalcorin then
boarded the pumpboat of Paden and pointed and fired
his gun at Porcadilla who was hit on the right
arm.  When Petalcorin attempted to fire for the second time, Porcadilla rushed at him and grappled for the possession of
the gun.  Petalcorin
shouted for help.

Sagarino boarded the pumpboat where Petalcorin and Porcadilla were and fired his gun at Porcadilla.  However, the gun jammed so Sagarino picked up an empty liter size soft drink bottle
and struck Porcadilla on the head which made him
dizzy.  Upon the latter’s recovery, Sagarino tried to hit Porcadilla
again with the same bottle but the latter parried the same and fought
back.  Petalcorin
and Sagarino ganged up on Porcadilla
so he fell into the sea.  The two sped
away in the pumpboat of Paden.  Paden was able to hold on to the outrigger of
the pumpboat and was dragged along.  Abais operated the
other pumpboat and left.

Porcadilla who floated on the water for
sometime was later rescued by a pumpboat which
happened to pass by.  He was brought to
the house of the barangay captain in Nasingin Island.  He was later brought to Banasan Island
where he received medical treatment for his injuries.  Bonifacio Paden
died due to the wounds he suffered.

The commission of this offense was discovered only in January,
1983 when Vicente Evardo, Station Police Commander of
Jetafe Police Station, Jetafe,
Bohol, apprehended Abais in the Island
of Cotoban,
Talibon, Bohol
as one of the suspects in a series of burglaries committed in Jetafe
and Talibon. 
In the course of the investigation Abais
revealed the commission of piracy in the island
of Pandanon,
Jetafe, Bohol
sometime on April 18, 1979.  Accompanied by the policemen they were able
to recover the engine block and fuel tank of the pumpboat
from Felix Estillore at St. Bernard, Southern
Leyte.^[1]
Estillore gave a statement that was sworn to before
Judge Gervasio.^[2]
Similarly, Abais was investigated and he gave a written statement that was sworn
to before Judge Romualdo Buno.^[3]

In due course, an information was filed in
the Regional Trial Court of the City of Tagbilaran against Mauricio Petalcorin and Bertoldo Abais alias Toldong, which reads
as follows:

“The undersigned, Acting Third Asst. Provincial Fiscal, hereby
accuses Mauricio Petalcorin alias Junior Budlat and Bertoldo Abais alias Toldong of the crime
of PIRACY, committed as follows:

That on or about the 18th day of April, 1979, in the seawaters of Pandanon and Nasingin Islands,
municipality of Jetafe, province of Bohol, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, together with Paul Sagarino alias Polan and Felix Estillore who are
still at large and whose case is still
pending preliminary investigation before the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court of Talibon-Jetafe, Bohol,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with each other, with intent to
gain, with the use of firearms, not being members of the crew nor passengers of
the pumpboat named LOU JR owned by and belonging to
Luis Miasco, by means of violence against or
intimidation, attacked, shot and hit Joemarico C. Porcadilla and Bonifacio Paden who, on the occasion thereof, were
seriously injured and killed, respectively; and, thereafter, the abovenamed accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously seize said pumpboat, and,
without the consent of the owner, forcibly take and carry away the following
properties, viz.:

in the total amount of ELEVEN THOUSAND
SEVEN HUNDRED AND SEVENTY PESOS (P11,770.00),
Philippine Currency; to the damage and prejudice of Luis Miasco,
Joemarico Porcadilla and
the heirs of Bonifacio Paden; with the special qualifying aggravating circumstances of (1) abandoning
the victims without means of saving themselves and (2) seizure of the pumpboat accomplished by firing upon or boarding the same.

Acts committed contrary to Presidential Decree No. 532.”^[4]

Upon arraignment each of the accused assisted by a counsel de oficio entered a plea of
guilty to the information.  Nevertheless,
the trial court directed the prosecution to present its evidence in order to
establish the guilt and degree of culpability of the accused.

Witnesses Vicente Evardo and Joemarico Porcadilla testified
for the prosecution while the accused did not present any evidence in their
defense.  On September 15, 1983, the trial court rendered a
decision finding both accused guilty of the crime of piracy as follows:

“After due deliberation of the evidence presented during the
trial, the Court is convinced that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt
of the herein accused beyond reasonable doubt thru the following findings:

1. That in the commission of the offense as charged in the
Information, conspiracy among the accused existed which was clearly shown and
proven thru the acts and conducts of the accused:

(a)   That
accused Petalcorin and Abais
together with Paul Sagarino were riding on one (1) pumpboat when they chased and overtook the pumpboat named LOU JR of
Paden and Porcadilla;

(b)   That
accused Abais did not do anything to prevent accused Petalcorin in inflicting injuries on Porcadilla
and/or killing Bonifacio Paden;

(c)  
That accused Petalcorin
and Abais were the ones who left the engine block, plywheel cover and the fuel tank with Felix Estillore (Exhs. F and F-1) and as a matter of fact, it was accused Abais who accompanied
the police authorities in recovering some of the stolen articles, now marked as
Exhs. F and F-1;

(d)  
That there was an active cooperation by all the accused in the perpetration
of the crime of piracy.

and
since conspiracy existed, the principle of the ‘act of one is the act of all,’
is applicable in this case.

2.  
That the accused, after wounding Porcadilla, operated the latter’s pumpboat
named LOU JR and brought it with them, leaving behind Porcadilla in the seawater, wounded and without any
means of saving himself while the deceased Bonifacio
Paden who was wounded was hanging on the outrigger of the pumpboat
and that was the last time that Paden was seen alive.

3.  
That when accused Petalcorin
boarded the pumpboat named LOU JR of Paden and Porcadilla,
he immediately fired at Paden and Porcadilda without
any reason at all thus, hitting Paden resulting in his falling into the
seawater and later on, his death.

The crime of piracy carries the penalty of death under PD 532, Section 3, par.
(a) last sentence, which provides:

‘SEC. 3. 
x x x x x x x x x x x x

‘a) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

‘If rape, murder or homicide is committed as a result or on the
occasion of piracy, or when the offenders abandoned the victim without means of
saving themselves, or when the seizure is accomplished by firing upon or
boarding a vessel, the mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.’

even without the
presence of the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, the penalty
prescribed by law that is death, being a single penalty, must be applied
regardless of the presence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance that
may have attended the commission of the deed (Article 63, Revised Penal Code).

WHEREFORE, finding both accused Mauricio Petalcorin
and Bertoldo Abais GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Piracy, they are hereby sentenced to the penalty of DEATH and to pay severally and
jointly the following damages, to wit:

1.     
Twelve Thousand (P12,000.00) Pesos by reason of
the death of Bonifacio Paden, to be paid to his legal
heirs;

2.      One
Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos in concept of actual damages, to be paid to offended
party, Joemarico Porcadilla;

3.      Eleven
Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy (P11,770.00) Pesos for the value of the stolen
goods including the pumpboat, to be paid to offended
party Luis Miasco; and

4.      To pay the Costs.

The engine block and the fuel tank marked as Exhibits F and F-1 are
hereby ordered return(ed) to the offended party Luis Miasco
after signing a receipt of the same with the Officer-in-Charge of this Court.

SO ORDERED.”^[5]

The case was elevated to this Court for automatic review.  As the death penalty may no longer be imposed
under the 1987 Constitution there is no more automatic review hence this case
is now considered to be brought by ordinary appeal interposed by the accused.

In the brief of appellants, it is alleged that the trial court
committed the following assigned errors:

1.     
The court erred in imposing the death penalty on
the accused notwithstanding the fact that they did not comprehend the
consequence of their plea.

2.     
The court erred in giving weight and credence to
the sworn statements of Felix Estillore and accused
appellant Bertoldo Abais.

3.     
The court erred in convicting accused-appellants
notwithstanding that their guilt had not been not proved beyond reasonable
doubt.

However, appellant Mauricio Petalcorin
manifested the withdrawal of his appeal and his willingness to serve the
sentence of reclusion perpetua.  This was approved by this Court on September 8, 1987.  Thus, only the appeal of Bertoldo
Abais shall be determined.

The appeal is devoid of merit.

Upon the arraignment of the appellant the court appointed a
counsel de oficio who conferred with him.  During the arraignment the information was
translated to the appellant in the Visayan dialect
which is the language he understood, after which the following proceedings took
place:

“Court:

Mauricio
Petalcorin, what is your plea guilty or not guilty?

Mauricio Petalcorin:

Guilty.

Court:

Bertuldo
Abais, what is your plea guilty or not guilty?

Bertuldo
Abais:

Guilty Your Honor.

Court:

Do you
know the implication of your plea of guilty to the offense as charged in the
information Mauricio?

Mauricio Petalcorin:

Yes Your Honor.

Court:

What
would be the consequence of your plea of guilty?

A     We will wait for the
decision Your Honor.

Court:

Being guilty to the
offense as charged, do you admit that you have committed such crime, Mauricio?

Mauricio Petalcorin:

Yes Your Honor.

Court:

How
about you Bertuldo Abais,
do you admit that you have committed such crime?

Bertuldo
Abais:

Yes, Your Honor.

Atty. Magallano:

Your Honor please, with
the spontaneous plea of guilty entered by both accused, we pray that this
mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty be considered.

Fiscal Vestal:

Your Honor please,
considering that the penalty imposed on the accused is serious, I ask the Court
that the accused in the interest of justice be given another day(s) to reflect
on their respective plea.

Atty. Magallano:

I have already conferred
with both accused and they have no second thoughts and they said they would plea
guilty.

Court:

I think
it is better to set this case to another day for the reception of the evidence
for the prosecution.

Fiscal Vestal:

Yes
Your Honor.”^[6]

The case was reset for the reception of the evidence for the
prosecution and to enable the appellant to ponder on the consequences of his
plea.  As above related, the prosecution
presented two witnesses.  Porcadilla who was present during the incident gave a blow
by blow account of what happened and as to the participation of the
appellant.  His account is corroborated
by Evardo who investigated appellant and who executed
an extrajudicial statement admitting his complicity after he was informed of
his constitutional rights.

It is observed that the proceeding undertaken during the
arraignment leaves much to be desired. 
The court did not impress on the appellant the consequences of his plea
of guilty and the probable penalty that may be imposed on them.  Its duty is to conduct a searching inquiry
into the voluntariness and full consequences of the
plea.^[7]
Although it may be assumed that the counsel de oficio
of the appellant may have duly warned him of the effect of his plea when he
conferred with him, one cannot dispel the possibility that said counsel may
have advised the appellant that due to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
plea of guilt, he may be imposed only the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua and not death.  Such assumption of course is erroneous as
brought out in the sentence imposed by the trial court as the circumstances of
the case warrant that regardless of the attending circumstances the imposable
penalty was death.  Thus, there was the
need for the trial court to take the necessary measures to see that the accused really and truly comprehended the
meaning, full significance, and consequence of his plea.

Nevertheless, even without considering said plea of guilty on the
part of the appellant, as above discussed there is adequate evidence on the
record on which to predicate the conviction of the appellant.  In People vs. Nismal,^[8]
this Court under similar circumstances held as follows:

“As a rule, this Court has set aside convictions based on
pleas of guilty in capital offenses because of improvidence of the plea only
when such plea is the sole basis of the judgment of the condemnatory judgment.  When, as
in this case, the trial court in obedience to this Court’s injunction in Apduhan and
similar cases, receives evidence to determine precisely whether or not the
accused has erred in admitting guilt, the manner in which the plea of guilty is
made loses legal significance, for the simple reason that the conviction is, as in this case, predicated not on
the plea but on the evidence proving the commission by the accused of the
offense charged.  In the instant case,
ten witnesses testified for the prosecution, all of them cross examined by the
defense counsel.  More than that, the
accused submitted the case without presenting any evidence.  He did not dare to testify to deny the inculpatory testimonies and documents and real evidence
presented against him.  Verily, under
these circumstances, to insist on the invalidity of the plea of the accused can
serve no more effect than to deprive
the accused of the credit of the mitigating circumstance that such plea
connotes.”

WHEREFORE, with the modification that the penalty imposed
is reduced to reclusion perpetua and
the indemnity to be paid by
appellant to the heirs of victim is increased to P30,000.00, the decision appealed
from is AFFIRMED in all other respects,
with costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Exhibits F and F-1.

^[2]
Exhibit A.

^[3]
Exhibit C.

^[4]
Pages 6-7, Rollo.

^[5]
Pages 11 to 12, Rollo.

^[6]
TSN, July 14, 1983, pages 3
to 5.

^[7]
People vs. Verano, G.R. No. 45589, July 28, 1988.

^[8]
114 SCRA 487 (1982).