Title
People vs. Pascual, Jr. y Domingo
Case
G.R. No. L-53403
Decision Date
Nov 12, 1981
Accused pleaded guilty to rape with homicide; death penalty upheld despite inadmissible confession, based on credible eyewitness testimony and sufficient evidence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-53403)

Key Dates

  • Date of Arraignment: November 15, 1979
  • Date of Plea Change: February 5, 1980
  • Date of Incident: August 17, 1979

Applicable Law

The case is adjudicated under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines and references the constitutional rights provided under the 1973 Philippine Constitution, particularly concerning the right to counsel during custodial investigations, as it predates the 1987 Constitution.

Case Background

Emiterio Pascual, Jr. was initially arraigned on November 15, 1979, pleading not guilty to the charges of rape with homicide. However, on February 5, 1980, he withdrew this plea and entered a guilty plea to the charges. The court, recognizing the seriousness of the charges which carried the death penalty, ensured that Pascual was fully aware of the implications of his guilty plea. This included a clear understanding that a death sentence could be imposed if found guilty.

Evidence and Detailed Findings

The prosecution's evidence included eyewitness testimony from Renato Pavo, who observed the appellant dragging the thirteen-year-old victim, Nida Caranguian, towards tall grasses after initially seeing her gathering peanuts. Pavo testified that he saw Pascual physically overpower the victim while armed with a bolo and heard her protests. The victim's lifeless body was discovered the next day, showing signs of sexual assault and an incised wound on her neck, confirming the brutality of the assault. The autopsy further corroborated the findings of sexual assault.

Appellant's Confession

Pascual subsequently confessed to law enforcement in a recorded statement. However, he argued that his confession was inadmissible due to a lack of proper advisement of his rights, including the right to counsel. Under the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, individuals under investigation must be informed of their right to silence and to counsel. The court acknowledged this violation in the confession's admission.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Pascual contended several points of error: (1) the trial court's acceptance of his guilty plea without sufficient safeguards; (2) the admissibility of his confession given the violation of his rights; (3) the credibility of the eyewitness testimony; and (4) a plea for a reduced penalty (from death to reclusion perpetua) on the basis of his guilty plea and voluntary surrender.

Court's Analysis

The court found that the trial judge had not improvidently accepted the guilty plea as due diligence was observed in ensuring that Pascual understood the consequences. While the admissibility of the confession was questioned, the court held that there was substantia

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.