PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GLENN VELASCO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

This case is before Us on automatic review of the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Eighth Judicial District, Branch XXVII, Catbalogan, Samar, in Criminal
Case No. 2455, finding appellant Glenn Velasco guilty of Murder with Direct
Assault Upon a Person in Authority.  The dispositive portion of the decision reads –

“WHEREFORE, and in view of all the foregoing, the Court finds
accused GLENN VELASCO guilty, beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct
participation, of the complex crime of Murder with Direct Assault Upon a Person
in Authority, with the attendance of the generic aggravating circumstance of
taking advantage of public position and ignominy, without any mitigating
circumstances in offset.  Conformably
with the pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal Code, the Court accordingly
hereby sentences the above-named, accused to the supreme penalty of death, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased Rodolfo Labongcay
in the amount of P12,000.00, and to pay the costs.”

(Decision, p. 6, annexed to Appellant’s Brief, p. 103, Rollo)

The evidence for the prosecution discloses that:

At about 9:00 o’clock in
the evening of November 26, 1983,
in Barangay Guinsorongan, Catbalogan, Samar,
Barangay Chairman Rodolfo Labongcay
was seated in a bench near the
store fronting the house of Glenn Velasco, the appellant.  Labongcay was waiting
for the appellant to arrive.  Earlier
that evening, appellant, a soldier in the Philippine Army stationed at Camp
Lukban, Naulong, had illegally discharged his armalite
rifle behind the Barangay Hall, thereby causing a
commotion in the vicinity.  For which
reason, he was apprehended by a Barangay Tanod and taken to Barangay
Chairman Labongcay (pp. 5-8, tsn,
July 10, 1984).  When appellant arrived, Labongcay
told him to sit down and they talked to each other.  Appellant was warned by Labongcay
not to discharge his firearm again without any reason because such
indiscriminate firing created panic and fear among the residents.  Grudgingly, appellant answered
“yes.” Then, suddenly, appellant stood up from his seat and went
straight into his house.  In a loud voice
he ordered his wife to get his armalite rifle.  Shortly, appellant emerged from his house carrying his rifle and
walked to the middle of the street.  Labongcay calmly approached appellant and after declaring
that he was Barangay Chairman of the area attempted to pacify him.  However, instead of being pacified, appellant
menacingly pointed his rifle at Labongcay and angrily
said “Magdasal ka na”
(“say your prayers
now”) (p. 4, Brief for the Appellee; p. 117, Rollo).  He ordered Labongcay to kneel
down and raise his arms aline with the
shoulders.  Labongcay
offered no resistance and did as he was told. 
Just then, Leo Colocado, a Barangay
Tanod, arrived and interceded on behalf of Labongcay.  Appellant
faced Colocado and told him not to interfere.  Afterwards, he ordered Labongcay
to kiss the cement floor and do push ups. 
When Colocado again butted in, appellant fired
several rounds in his direction.  Colocado who was grazed by ricocheting bullets and fearful
for his life scampered away.  Turning his
ire once more on Labongcay, appellant eventually
fired two successive volleys.  The first
volley hit Labongcay on the thighs and when he
attempted to stand up appellant let loose a
second volley which hit Labongcay on the chest
(tsn., pp. 9-17, July 10, 1984; tsn., pp.
105-106, September 25, 1984).  Later, autopsy findings revealed that Labongcay expired from fatal gunshot wounds inflicted by
appellant on his person (see Exh. A).

Appellant was thus charged with Murder with Direct Assault upon a
Person in Authority.  He was likewise
charged in another information, lodged
in the same lower court and docketed
as Crim. Case No. 2456, with the crime of Frustrated Murder with Direct
Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority. 
Both cases were ordered consolidated.

On March 27, 1984,
appellant was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to both charges.  Thereafter joint trial ensued with the prosecution presenting two (2) of
its witnesses.  During the continuation
of the hearing on September 7, 1984, appellant assisted by his counsel de
parte, Atty. Wayne Villarin,
manifested that the accused desired to withdraw his plea of not guilty and
change it to a plea of guilty.  The trial
court adjourned the session to give appellant sufficient time to consider his
aforesaid decision.  Then on September
12, 1984 appellant
again thru the same counsel de parte
manifested his desire to enter a
plea of guilty.

Appellant was rearraigned.  In Crim. Case No.
2456 he pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of Simple Direct Assault and was
sentenced accordingly.  In Crim. Case No. 2455, he pleaded guilty to the offense as
charged – that of Murder with Direct Assault Upon a Person in Authority and was
sentenced to Death.  This decision is now
before Us for review.  Appellant now thru
a counsel de oficio claims in his lone
assignment of error that the trial court erred in accepting his improvident
plea of guilty.

The records of this case belie the contention of appellant.  The proceedings on September 12, 1984 show that the lower court took
an active role in explaining to appellant the implications of a plea of guilty.  Hereunder are some of the clarificatory
statements of the lower court –

COURT

Q.   Although
the Court has explained before the meaning of the contents of the information,
the Court, considering the gravity of the offense charged, will explain to you,
not only the literal meaning but the legal consequences of your plea.  Your pleas of guilty will not be considered
as a mitigating circumstance and it will not lessen penalty imposed upon you
because the prosecution has already presented a witness … two witnesses in
this case, do you understand that?

A.    Yes, sir.

Q.   The
offense charged is a complex offense actually two grave offenses are charged in
one information and under the law, the penalty that is imposable is the maximum
of the graver offense charged in the information.  The offenses charged are murder and assault
upon a person in authority.  Murder is
the graver offense here.  And the penalty
for murder is from reclusion temporal (maximum) to death and the maximum of
reclusion temporal is 17 years four months and one day to death and because the
law says the penalty to be imposed is the maximum, most probably and I think
the imposable penalty is death.  Do you
understand that?

A.    Yes, sir.

Q.   The
information alleges that you took advantage of your public position, this means
that you abused or took advantage of the ascendancy or influence which you have
in virtue of your position as a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
at the time when you committed
the offense charged?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   The
information also charges, as you
heard when it was read, that you used treachery.  Treachery means that you used in the
commission of the offense … you employed means, methods, or forms … in the
execution of the offense charged which tended directly and especially to ensure
the execution of the felony without risk to yourself in any defense from which
the person whom you attack might make, do you understand that?  Remember you are not being forced.

A.    Yes, sir.

Q.   The
decision of the Supreme Court among others say that in treachery the method
used must be consciously and deliberately adopted by you?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   I
must remind you and you must answer on your own volition.  We are trying to stick to the truth.

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   The
information also alleges that the crime was qualified, attended by the
circumstance of evident premeditation. 
Under the law, it connotes the following elements, 1 – that there was a
time when you decided or determined to commit the crime charged in the
information, 2 – that you did acts which showed that you clung to that
determination to commit the offense charged, 3 – that you were given sufficient
time to meditate and cool off but you still persisted in your determination to
commit the crime charged?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   You
also used a superior and powerful firearm, Armalite
Caliber 5.56 MM rifle?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   The
person whom you killed was a barangay captain by the
name of Rodolfo Labongcay. When you killed him you
knew beforehand that he was a barangay captain?

A.    Yes,
sir, because he is the uncle of my wife.

Q.   You
knew the person in authority?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   Before
killing him you also ordered the Barangay Captain to
kneel down, both arms stretched and to kiss the cemented pavement and he obeyed
and while thus kneeling and pleading not to be killed, the Barangay
Captain was shot by you several times
with your weapon, is it not?

A.    It’s
not that.  At that time there was vehicle
that arrived and the head lights focused while we were having some altercation
with him and when I looked towards the vehicle he approached me and the fact
that I was surprised, I squeezed the trigger of the armalite
rifle which was then pointing towards
the ground and up towards the sky because the tendency of the armalite whenever squeezed is going upwards and not
downwards.

Q.   The
information also said that you killed the Barangay
Captain while he was in the performance or on the occasion of the performance
of his duties as Barangay Captain because he was
trying to pacify you at that time of the commission of the offense?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   You
said that you did not intend to kill the victim Rodolfo Labongcay
because you just accidentally
squeezed the trigger of your armalite and you said
before you chose that particular method of attack in order to ensure the execution. 
Will you explain to the court your apparently inconsistent statement?

A.    Yes,
sir.

Q.   What
is that yes sir?

A.    That
I shot him while he was kneeling down his arms stretched.

COURT

Q.   And
you admit that at the time you killed him the deceased barangay
captain had his arms stretched and he was kneeling and pleading not to be
killed.  This is very important, do you
admit it or not?

A.    Yes,
sir.

COURT

Enter a plea of
guilty for the accused.  The prosecution
has already presented evidence in these cases, two witnesses.  The Supreme Court has admonished Trial
Courts, in the presentation of evidence even … especially when the accused
here is a high school graduate and a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines for quite sometime and reached Private First
Class in rank.  The Court however will
allow counsel for the defense to cross examine the witness, if it so
desires.  The witness for the government
is available for cross examination by counsel for the defense.  The record will show that the doctor …
witness, who was the doctor, Dr. Cordero, was duly cross-examined by counsel
for the accused.

(tsn., pp. 54-57,
Sept. 12, 1984; pp. 7-12, Brief for the Appellee, p.
117, Rollo)

On similar facts this
Court has ruled that:

“xxx exercised that patience and circumspection which is
enjoined of trial judges in explaining to the accused the nature and meaning of
the accusation and the full-import of
their plea of guilty.  This injunction on
trial judges in hearing a capital offense where the accused entered a plea of guilty, reiterated in the case of
People vs. Baluyot (75 SCRA 148, 154) relied upon by
appellant, appears fully complied with in the instant case.  The record speaks for itself, and nothing
more need hardly be said on this score.” (People vs. Pascual,
Jr. 109 SCRA 194, 204).

Of no little significance is the circumstance that appellant’s
decision to change his plea from not guilty to guilty was reached after the prosecution had presented two (2) witnesses, which includes an eyewitness
to the killing.

Admittedly, appellant is a high school graduate who took
up a two-year vocational course in radio communications.  He was a member of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines for quite some time and reached Private
First Class in rank.  He answered
questions propounded to him by the lower court in English.

This Court is satisfied, therefore,
that no error is imputable to the lower court in its determination that the
change by the appellant of his plea from not guilty to guilty had been done
knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily, with full awareness and understanding
of the nature and consequences thereof.

ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED,
with the modification that
the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua^[1] instead of death, in view of the
provisions of the 1987 Constitution, and the indemnity is increased to
P30,000.00.  No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, J., concur.

Melencio-Herrera, J., (Chairman), with the same reservation (Noted) as the ponente.

Sarmiento, J., with the reservations of the ponente
re penalty.

Regalado, J., subject to the same reservations of the ponente.

^[1]
Conformably with the majority opinion in the case of People of the Philippines
vs. Munoz et al., G.R. Nos. L-38968-70 promulgated February 9, 1989, where the present ponente dissented insofar as the penalty imposed is
concerned.