Plea of Guilt

1) X was charged with murder attended by treachery and evident premeditation. During arraignment, X
assisted by counsel, pleaded guilty with the qualification “hindi ko sinadya patayin.” X’s counsel assured the court
that he fully apprised X of the information, the nature of the charge, and the consequences of his plea. X even waived
the prosecution’s presentation of evidence against him. The court convicted X of murder.
a) Was the plea of guilty entered valid? Explain.

Answer:
No, the plea of guilty by X with the qualification “Hindi ko sinadya patayin” was a conditional
plea of guilty and hence a plea of not guilty should be entered for him.

Alternative Answer:
No, because when the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plead. The
court should not rely on the assurance of the counsel of the accused for this purpose.

b) May the prosecution dispense with the presentation of evidence despite the waiver of the accused?
Explain. (1996, #13)

Answer:
The court should require the prosecution to prove the guilt and precise degree of culpability of
the accused.

2. Crisanto is charged with murder. At his arraignment, the prosecution witnesses appeared in court
together the heirs of the victim. Realizing the gravity of the offense and the number of witnesses against him,
Crisanto consulted his counsel de oficio who explained to him the nature of the charge and the consequences of his
plea. Crisanto then manifested his readiness for arraignment. The Information was read to him in a language he
clearly understood after which he pleaded guilty. To be sure, the judge forthwith asked him if indeed he fully
understood the implications of his plea and Crisanto readily and without hesitation answered in the affirmative. The
judge, fully convinced that the plea of the accused was made with the latter’s full knowledge of the meaning and
consequences of his plea, then pronounced sentence on the accused.
a) Comment on the action of the judge. Explain.

Answer:
The judge erred in pronouncing sentence on the accused without previously conducting a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the plea of guilty
and requiring the prosecution to prove the guilt and the precise degree of culpability.

b) Suppose Crisanto with the assistance of counsel waives the presentation of evidence by the prosecution
saying that, after all, he has already entered his plea, may the court insist on the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution? Explain.

Answer:
Yes, in accordance with the above rule.

c) Suppose upon plea bargaining Crisanto decides to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, may the
court still require presentation of evidence? Explain.

Answer:
Although Crisanto pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, the court may still require evidence to
determine the penalty to be imposed.
 2

d) After the Information was read to Crisanto upon arraignment and he pleaded guilty to the charge but
the facts did not sufficiently constitute an offense, did his plea of guilt, which has already been entered in the
records, have the effect of supplying what was not alleged in the Information to complete the elements of the offense
to justify his conviction? Explain. (1995, #11)

Answer:
No, his plea of guilty did not have the effect of supplying what was not alleged in the
information to complete the elements of the offense to justify his conviction. His plea merely admits the
truth of the facts alleged in the information.

3. Charged with the crime of murder before the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, the accused, assisted by
counsel, pleaded guilty to the charge. Thereupon, the trial court rendered a judgment convicting the accused for the
crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua and to pay civil indemnity to the heirs of the
victim.
Did the trial court act properly? Why? (1993, #2)

Answer:
Yes, because it is only when the accused is charged with a capital offense punishable with death
that the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of the plea of guilty and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of
culpability. The crime charged of murder is not a capital offense, because the death penalty cannot be
imposed under the Constitution.