G.R. No. 202704 - People vs. Abat y Cometa

On November 26, 1983, at about 9:00 p.m., in Barangay Guinsorongan, Catbalogan, Samar, Barangay Chairman Rodolfo Labongcay was waiting outside the house of Glenn Velasco.
Prior to this meeting, Velasco—then a soldier stationed at Camp Lukban, Naulong—had illegally discharged his armalite rifle behind the Barangay Hall, causing a commotion and prompting his apprehension by a Barangay Tanod.
The apprehended Velasco was taken to Barangay Chairman Labongcay, where an initial conversation took place. Labongcay warned Velasco against the indiscriminate discharge of firearms to avoid public panic.

Shortly after the discussion, Velasco abruptly left the seat, returned to his house, and ordered his wife to bring his armalite rifle.
Armed and visibly agitated, Velasco emerged and confronted Labongcay in the middle of the street.
In a menacing tone, he pointed his rifle at Labongcay while uttering “Magdasal ka na” (“say your prayers now”).
Velasco then ordered Labongcay to kneel with his arms extended.
Upon the intervention of Barangay Tanod Leo Colocado, Velasco first ordered Labongcay to perform degrading acts, specifically to kiss the cement floor and do push ups.
When Colocado attempted to intercede a second time, Velasco fired several rounds at him, graze-injuring Colocado, before turning his gun back toward Labongcay.
Velasco discharged two successive volleys at Labongcay:

Subsequent autopsy findings confirmed that Labongcay died from fatal gunshot wounds inflicted during this encounter.

Criminal Case No. 2455 for Murder with Direct Assault Upon a Person in Authority.
Criminal Case No. 2456 for Frustrated Murder with Direct Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority.

On March 27, 1984, Velasco was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to both charges.
During the trial, after the prosecution had presented two witnesses (including an eyewitness to the killing), Velasco, assisted by his counsel de parte, expressed his desire to change his plea from not guilty to guilty.
After a recess to allow Velasco time to reflect on his decision, he reaffirmed his wish to plead guilty on September 12, 1984.
In Criminal Case No. 2456, he pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of Simple Direct Assault, while in Criminal Case No. 2455 he pleaded guilty to Murder with Direct Assault Upon a Person in Authority.
The trial court subsequently sentenced Velasco:

To death for the murder conviction.
To pay indemnity to the heirs of the deceased (initially P12,000.00) and the costs of the proceedings.

The trial court took an active role in ensuring that Velasco understood the full implications of his plea.
Through a series of detailed questions and explanations, the court elucidated the gravity of the charges—highlighting that:

The plea of guilty would carry the maximum penalty for the graver offense charged (murder, with penalties ranging from reclusion temporal to death).
The generic aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position was noted.
The definitions and legal consequences of using treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior position were clearly articulated.

Velasco answered affirmatively to the court’s questions, thereby confirming his understanding of his actions and the legal consequences, which the court deemed as evidence that his plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

Whether the trial court erred in accepting Velasco’s change of plea from not guilty to guilty.

The appellant argued that his plea should be considered improvident, asserting that proper voluntariness and comprehension of the legal consequences might have been lacking.
Whether the clarificatory sessions and the Q&A conducted by the trial court sufficed in ensuring that Velasco fully understood the gravity of his plea, including the implications on penalty and rights under the law.

The appropriateness of the imposition of the penalty of death given the constitutional amendments under the 1987 Constitution.

Although Velasco pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death, the modification of the penalty needed to be considered in light of evolving constitutional standards.