A.M. No. P-137 - De Dios vs. Alejo

The case is a mandatory review of a death sentence imposed on Teodoro del Rosario for the crime of murder.
The information dated January 10, 1968, filed with the Court of First Instance of La Union, Second Judicial District, charged that on or about January 14, 1968, in San Fernando, La Union, the accused (including Eloy Magsi, Juan Ponce y Billon alias Johnny, Perfecto Arce alias Peping, and others) conspired to kill Jesus Gallardo.
The accused, armed with firearms (carbine, pistols, and revolvers), allegedly entered the house where Jesus Gallardo and his family resided, attacked Gallardo, and inflicted multiple gunshot wounds that resulted in his instantaneous death.
Aggravating circumstances in the information included:

Teodoro del Rosario was arraigned on October 19, 1970, and initially entered a plea of guilty.
The defendant-appellant later raised several allegations:

The trial court imposed the death penalty on the plea of guilty without first ensuring that del Rosario fully understood the charges and the penalty.
The trial court failed to investigate the extent of duress allegedly imposed on him by his co-accused (including Eloy Magsi) when ordered to kill Jesus Gallardo.
The appointment of an attorney de officio, who was a known acquaintance (“compadre”) of the victim’s family and allegedly reluctant to discharge his duties, was improper.

The case was rescheduled for six separate hearing dates due to various procedural issues and changes in counsel:

At the first hearing (August 1, 1970), Atty. Mario Rivera was appointed as de officio counsel but subsequently requested a delay for the accused to have a de parte counsel.
At subsequent hearings, issues arose when Atty. Rivera moved to withdraw and was replaced by Atty. Dominador Cariaso, only for further complications to develop when neither counsel appeared at some hearings.

On the first instance when a qualified plea of guilty was recorded (September 9, 1970), it was noted that the court’s prompting played a significant role, rather than a spontaneous, well-informed decision by the accused.
During the subsequent (sixth) hearing on October 19, 1970, after further re-arraignment procedures, del Rosario entered an unqualified plea of guilty without adequate inquiry into his understanding of the consequences and the mitigating circumstances.

The trial court did not allow any evidence to be presented on either the alleged aggravating circumstances or the mitigating circumstances (including the allegation of duress).
Despite the inadequacies in the proceedings, the trial court rendered a decision on October 20, 1970, convicting del Rosario and sentencing him to death.
The record reflects that on two separate instances a plea of guilty was made—one qualified (under duress) and one unqualified—without the required judicial inquiry to ensure that the accused truly comprehended the gravity of the plea and charges.

Whether the trial court properly ensured that Teodoro del Rosario fully understood the charges against him and the repercussions of a guilty plea in a capital offense case.

Did the court sufficiently inquire into the accused’s understanding of the charges and the severity of the potential penalty, notably the death sentence?
Was the accused’s consent to the plea genuinely voluntary and informed?

Whether the trial court erred by failing to investigate the alleged duress used by co-accused, particularly concerning how the accused was allegedly forced to plead guilty under pressure.

Should the court have conducted a more thorough inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the accused’s decision to plead guilty?

Whether the appointment and conduct of the attorney de officio met the requirements for effective counsel, particularly given the conflict of interest and procedural irregularities noted in the case.

Was the repeated reappointment and rotation of de officio counsel prejudicial to the accused’s right to a fair trial?
Did the attorney’s known association with the victim’s family compromise his ability to provide an unbiased defense?