G.R. No. 149152 - Mamangun vs. People

The case involves Benjamin Retania y Rodelas, accused of committing robbery with homicide.
On or about January 21, 1972, in Barrio San Pedro, Municipality of Rizal, Occidental Mindoro, the accused allegedly used violence against Jerry Casidsid, an 11‑year‑old helper in the house of Benjamin Tordesillas.
The violent acts included striking the victim with a water pipe and a pike (“piko”) on the face and various parts of the body, causing injuries that resulted in the victim’s death.
After the fatal assault, the accused allegedly entered the dwelling, without the owner’s consent, and unlawfully took a personal property – a transistor radio (NANAOLA, Model 6 NH‑140) valued at P65.00.

The crime being committed within the dwelling of the offended party without any provocation.
The use of violence and abuse of superior strength during the commission of the crime.
Quasi‑recidivism, since the accused was already serving a sentence for a previous conviction when he allegedly committed the offense.

Mitigating circumstance noted was the accused’s plea of guilt, which was entered after the Information was read to him.

Upon arraignment on February 7, 1972, the accused was assisted by a counsel de oficio, Atty. Alfonso Adora, who was granted a five‑minute consultation with him before arraignment.
The accused voluntarily pleaded guilty after the Information was read twice (in a dialect he understood, Tagalog) and after being apprised of the gravity of the charges and the possibility of the death penalty.
During the trial, the court took additional steps by requiring the accused to take the witness stand to verify that his plea of guilt was both voluntary and informed.
The record includes a detailed transcript of the accused’s interrogation, where he consistently confirmed understanding of the charges, admitted his guilt, and affirmed that no coercion or inducement took place.

On May 20, 1972, a new counsel de oficio, Atty. Teresita Cruz Sison, filed an omnibus motion requesting:

A mental examination of the accused, who exhibited signs suggestive of a possible mental disorder, during an interview at the National Penitentiary.
A suspension of the filing period for the appellant’s brief pending the outcome of the mental examination.

The Office of the Solicitor General provided a certification by Dr. Ester B. Cordero of the Neuro‑Psychiatric Ward that the accused was found mentally normal with no evidence of psychoses.
The accused’s brief later raised several points of error, including:

Alleged denial of due process during the extremely brief (five‑minute) consultation with his counsel.
Contentions that the Information failed to properly segregate the charges of robbery and homicide, asserting that two separate offenses were being charged.
Arguments that the penalty imposed (death) was excessive, taking issue with the application of aggravating circumstances and the insufficiency of mitigating factors such as lack of intent or deficient understanding due to allegedly limited education.

The trial record includes an extra‑judicial confession executed by the accused on January 31, 1972, prior to his arraignment and sentencing.
This detailed written confession, covering the commission of the crime with specifics of time, place, circumstances of arrest, and the sequence of events, was admitted as evidence by the Fiscal.
The confession confirmed many of the facts as set out in the Information and was supported by the medical certificate and other documentary evidence in the record.

The trial court, through multiple readings of the Information and careful questioning of the accused, ensured that the accused fully understood the nature of the charges, the evidence against him, and the severe penalty (i.e., the death sentence) that might be imposed.
The court’s record illustrated that the accused’s guilty plea was made with full awareness of its consequences, and the brief consultation with counsel was determined to be within the discretionary bounds provided by Rule 16, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
The decision of the trial court included imposition of the death penalty, civil indemnity of P12,000.00 for the heirs of the victim, and an order for the return of the stolen transistor radio.

Whether the five‑minute consultation granted to the counsel de oficio prior to arraignment violated the accused’s due process rights by not affording a “reasonable time” to prepare his defense, as mandated under Rule 16, Section 5 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the brief consultation impeded the accused’s opportunity to fully understand the charges and prepare a meaningful defense.

Whether the Information, by incorporating the word “thereafter” to link the acts of homicide and the subsequent taking of the radio, improperly combined two separate offenses or whether it properly charged the complex special crime of robbery with homicide.
Whether the accused’s failure to object initially to the charge of multiple offenses constituted a waiver of any subsequent challenge regarding the separability of the crimes.

Whether the imposition of the death penalty was excessive and erroneous considering the mitigating circumstances (such as the plea of guilt, alleged lack of intent to commit a grave wrong, and alleged mental incapacity).
Whether the aggravating circumstances of superior strength, the crime being committed in the dwelling, and quasi‑recidivism justified the imposition of the maximum penalty.