Title
People vs. Mengote
Case
G.R. No. L-30343
Decision Date
Jul 25, 1975
Two illiterate men pleaded guilty to robbery with homicide; trial court imposed death penalty without ensuring comprehension of plea or examining evidence. Supreme Court remanded for proper arraignment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30343)

Factual Background

On the evening of December 6, 1968, in an isolated area of Catubig, Northern Samar, the accused, armed with bolos, attacked and killed Francisco Lambino. In furtherance of their intent to gain, they stole a pig valued at P100. Mengote and Pajares were subsequently charged with robbery with homicide and entered a plea of guilty to the charge during their arraignment on February 25, 1969.

Proceedings and Pleas

The arraignment included a discussion led by Atty. Manuel Hechanova, who served as the counsel de officio for both defendants. The court allowed time for the defense counsel to complete discussions with the accused, after which they were essentially confirmed to plead guilty. The court accepted their plea without sufficient examination to ensure that the defendants understood the implications of such a plea, especially their admission of committing a capital offense.

Trial Court's Decision

The trial court, in rendering its decision on February 28, 1969, declared the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on their plea. It found the existence of aggravating circumstances such as the crime's commission at night and the use of craft and fraud, while only acknowledging the mitigating factor of their guilty plea. The court sentenced them to death, along with an indemnity of P6,000 to the heirs of the victim, and placed the costs proportionately on the accused.

Review of the Trial Court's Procedure

On review, it was noted that the lower court failed to ascertain whether Mengote and Pajares fully understood the nature of their plea and the consequences of their actions. The judgment highlighted the necessity for trial courts to ensure defendants, particularly those who are illiterate or unschooled, fully comprehend the charges against them and the implications of their pleas. The records showed no inquiry into whether the defendants understood the material allegations in the information or the potential existence of aggravating circumstances.

Conclusion

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.