G.R. No. 146779 - Gatbonton vs. National Labor Relations Commission

The accused, Emiterio Pascual, Jr. y Domingo, was originally arraigned on November 15, 1979, and entered a plea of not guilty with the assistance of counsel de oficio, Atty. Oscar Lorenzo.
On February 5, 1980, during the hearing, the accused, represented by the same counsel, expressed his desire to withdraw his plea of not guilty and instead plead guilty.
The Court, fully aware that the crime charged (rape with homicide) carries the penalty of death, meticulously explained the gravity and consequences of substituting the plea.
Despite multiple explanations by the Court, his counsel, and the interpreter (translating into the Ilocano dialect), the accused insisted on changing his plea to guilty, even when informed of the penalty of death.

On August 17, 1979, at around 4:00 p.m., witness Renato Pavo, aged sixteen, observed from a distance of about 100 meters that the accused was dragging 13-year-old Nida Caranguian from a cornfield towards an area with tall grasses.
Evidence showed that:

The accused was armed with a sheathed bolo;
He used his left arm to forcefully drag the victim and used his right hand to cover her mouth, subduing her with threats delivered via the bolo.

The victim’s struggling and weak protests were clearly audible, though the witness, fearing the accused’s reputed violence, did not intervene or immediately report what he saw.

Following the disappearance of Nida Caranguian, her father discovered her body beside a cornfield amid tall grasses the next day.
Barangay authorities, upon being alerted, instructed that the body should remain in place until the police investigation commenced.
Baggao policemen, including Patrolmen Celso Sorita and Abraham Cudal, initiated an investigation at the scene.
The accused was located at his aunt’s house, and despite his initial denial of involvement, he was later taken to the police station where he voluntarily provided a statement.
During the police investigation conducted in the Ilocano dialect by Patrolman Dominador Suriaga, the accused gave an extra-judicial confession for which:

His answers were recorded in English and translated back for his understanding;
It remains contentious whether he was properly informed about his right to counsel as provided under Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution.

The trial court accepted the accused’s substitute plea of guilty after ensuring that he was fully aware of its consequences, including the possibility of receiving the death penalty.
Despite the plea, the court proceeded to hear the evidence:

The prosecution presented the detailed eyewitness testimony of Renato Pavo which corroborated the accused’s involvement in the crime;
Substantial physical evidence, including the autopsy report by Dr. Salvador C. Pallagao, documented an incised, fatal neck wound along with specific genital lesions consistent with rape;
The extra-judicial confession, although central, raised questions over whether it was procured with the requisite waiver of constitutional rights.

The cumulative evidence pointed to the accused having forcibly raped and then killed the victim by hacking her neck with his bolo.

Whether the trial court properly and prudently accepted the accused’s decision to withdraw his plea of not guilty to plead guilty despite the gravity and bifurcated consequences of such a plea.
Whether the extra-judicial confession of the accused was admissible, considering that he was not adequately informed of his constitutional right to counsel under Section 20, Article IV of the Constitution prior to its taking.
Whether the eyewitness testimony of Renato Pavo, given his evident fear, consistency issues, and the differing accounts over time, was sufficiently credible to support a conviction.
Whether, even assuming the guilt of the accused, the presence of mitigating circumstances such as his voluntary surrender and plea of guilty would justify a reduction of the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.