PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MELCHOR ESTOMACA Y GARQUE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Estomaca

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Melchor Estomaca, an illiterate laborer accused of raping his own daughter on five separate occasions. The case matters because the Supreme Court does not decide his guilt on the merits at all. Instead, it confronts a defective arraignment in a capital offense and holds that no valid judgment of conviction can rest on an invalid arraignment. It is a companion to People versus Alicando, decided by the same Court shortly before, involving the same trial judge and substantially the same procedural lapses. The lecture therefore sits at the intersection of the right to be informed of the accusation, the duty of a trial judge to conduct a searching inquiry before accepting a plea of guilty to a capital offense, and the voiding effect of a flawed arraignment.

Procedural History

Five separate complaints for rape were filed in the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 38, against the appellant. At the arraignment, the trial court recorded a plea of guilty to two of the complaints and a plea of not guilty to the other three. The trial court then received the prosecution's evidence and, in a decision dated July 15, 1994, convicted the appellant in the two cases where a plea of guilty had been entered. It imposed reclusion perpetua for the sexual assault supposedly committed in December 1993, and the supreme penalty of death for the rape allegedly committed on March 6, 1994, with an order in each case to indemnify the offended party in the amount of 50,000 pesos and to pay the costs. The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal and automatic review because of the death penalty. The Court did not reach the merits of the conviction. It examined the arraignment, found it defective, and set aside the judgment.

Facts

The complainant, Melita Estomaca, is the eldest daughter of the accused. She testified that she was first raped in July 1993 at their residence in Barangay Tiolas, San Joaquin, Iloilo. The offense was repeated before Christmas of December 1993, then in January 1994, in February 1994, and finally on March 6, 1994. After the last incident she fled from their home and reported the matter to her mother, who was then living separately from them. The appellant was later apprehended and has since been under detention.

On May 24, 1994, five separate complaints for rape were filed against the appellant. On June 14, 1994, he was arraigned with the assistance of his government counsel de oficio. The transcript of that proceeding is the heart of the case. The interpreter's reading of the complaints is recorded in a single cryptic line, and the clerk then announced in cadence that the accused pleaded guilty to all five. When the court questioned him, however, the appellant said he had performed only two acts, in December 1993 and March 1994, and that the other charges were not true. The court then treated the plea as not guilty in three charges and guilty in two.

At a subsequent hearing the trial judge again warned the appellant that the new law carried the death penalty, asked about his educational attainment, which was Grade One, and then allowed the prosecution to present evidence after the appellant declined to present evidence for his defense. The trial court convicted him in the two cases and imposed reclusion perpetua in one and death in the other.

Issues

• Whether or not the arraignment of the appellant was valid, considering that the complaints were not shown to have been read and explained to him in a language or dialect that he knew and understood.
• Whether or not the trial court conducted the searching inquiry required before accepting a plea of guilty to a capital offense, so as to establish the voluntariness of the plea and the accused's full comprehension of its consequences.
• Whether or not a judgment of conviction rendered upon an invalid arraignment is valid.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, paragraph (a) of Rule 116 of the Rules of Court provides:

The arraignment must be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information, reading the same in the language or dialect known to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty.

This is the provision the Court found violated, because the reading must be in a language or dialect known to the accused, and the record did not show that the complaints were read to him in a medium he understood.

Section 3 of Rule 116 provides:

When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of his plea and his full comprehension of the consequences of his plea, and shall require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability.

This is the provision that governs the duty of the trial judge once a plea of guilty to a capital offense is entered, and the Court measured the trial court's questions against it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the arraignment was invalid. The transcript recorded only a bare reading of the complaints, in the singular, although there were five complaints against the appellant. There was no showing that he or his counsel was furnished a copy of each complaint with the list of witnesses. More importantly, the complaints were supposedly read in Ilonggo or local dialect, but the record did not state that the appellant understood that medium. The Court took judicial notice that in San Joaquin, Iloilo, where the offenses were committed and where the appellant and his family are natives, the local dialect is kinaray-a, which is not readily understandable to those born to the Hiligaynon regional language. Since the complaints were in English and in technical legal language, the Court could not determine how they were translated, and the records were silent on the point.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court failed to conduct the requisite searching inquiry. Asking the accused about his educational attainment and warning him that he might have admitted the crime because of poor intelligence is not the logical approach. A mere warning that he could possibly face death or a life sentence is not enough. The trial judge should ascertain and be totally convinced that the plea has all the earmarks of a valid and acceptable confession. The Court suggested that the judge require the accused to narrate the incident, or reenact the manner in which he perpetrated the crime, or explain missing details of significance, and that the judge ascertain whether the accused was coerced, how he was brought into custody, whether he had competent counsel during custodial and preliminary investigation, and the conditions of his detention and interrogation. The Court noted that the appellant's low intelligence quotient and lack of education combined to deprive him of fully understanding what appeared to him as mysterious rituals and unfamiliar jargons, and that his answers were neither responsive nor rational.

On the third issue, the Court held that no valid judgment can be rendered upon an invalid arraignment. Since the arraignment was void, the judgment of conviction was likewise void. The Court stressed that it will not hesitate to impose capital punishment when all the requisites have been met, but it cannot hold a life forfeit when effective protection for basic rights was denied because of poverty or ignorance.

Doctrine

An arraignment is the stage where the issues in a criminal action are joined, and without a valid arraignment the proceedings cannot advance further or, if held, will be void. The reading of the complaint or information must be made in the language or dialect known to the accused, and this is a mandatory requirement that implements the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the precise nature of the accusation against him. When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the trial court must conduct a searching inquiry focused on two things: the voluntariness of the plea, and the full comprehension of the consequences of the plea. A plea of guilty must be based on a free and informed judgment. A judgment of conviction rendered upon an invalid arraignment is void, and the case must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Disposition

The judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant of two crimes of rape was set aside, and the cases were remanded to the trial court for further and appropriate proceedings, with instructions that they be given appropriate priority and conducted with deliberate dispatch and circumspection.

Remember This

Memorize this line: no valid judgment can be rendered upon an invalid arraignment. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory reading of the information in a language or dialect known to the accused, and the searching inquiry required before accepting a plea of guilty to a capital offense.