G.R. No. L-30668 - People vs. Reyes

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30668)

Factual Background

At about 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of July 11, 1968, Judge Ruperto Advincula boarded a north-bound motor train at La Paz, Iloilo City and sat on the first coach immediately behind the engine. Two men boarded the same train and occupied seats near the judge. As the train pulled out of the flag station at Barrio Camoncil, Pototan, one of the men rose, signalled his companion, drew a gun and shot Judge Advincula point-blank in the forehead between the eyes. Both assailants then disembarked from the moving train and fled. The body of Judge Advincula was removed at Pototan and later autopsied; the medico-legal necropsy report confirmed a gunshot wound between the eyes.

Investigation and Arrests

Investigators concluded that the killing was perpetrated by Rodolfo Reyes, Ricardo Mamon, and two unidentified persons. A criminal complaint charging Reyes, Mamon and two John Does with murder was filed in the Municipal Court of Pototan on October 2, 1968. Informants led authorities to arrest Reyes in Las Piñas, Rizal. During interrogation Reyes admitted participation and identified Mamon as the triggerman. A combined Philippine Constabulary–National Bureau of Investigation team searched for Mamon in Panay and Negros Occidental without success until November 30, 1968, when investigators learned that Mamon had surrendered and was in the Iloilo Provincial Jail. When questioned, Mamon confessed to shooting Judge Advincula and recounted that he acted under an agreement with one Federico Baylon to receive P1,500, of which he had been paid P1,000.

Indictment and Arraignment

An information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on February 19, 1969 charging Reyes and Mamon with murder, alleging conspiracy with John Doe and Richard Doe, use of firearms, deliberate intent, abuse of superior strength, treachery, evident premeditation and consideration of a price. Arraignment was initially scheduled for March 8, 1969 but was postponed at the request of court-appointed counsel; both accused were arraigned on March 14, 1969 and pleaded "not guilty." The trial was set for March 27 and 28, 1969.

Pleas and Trial Proceedings

On the date set for trial counsel for Mamon informed the court that Mamon wished to withdraw his plea of "not guilty" and to plead "guilty." The court re-arraigned Mamon and he pleaded "guilty." Counsel announced intent to prove the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and the court scheduled reception of evidence for April 7, 1969. Counsel for Reyes declared unreadiness and the trial date was likewise deferred to April 7 for both accused. On April 7 counsel for Mamon presented witnesses to establish voluntary surrender, and the NBI agent in charge testified to rebut the surrender claim and to recount investigative efforts. On May 2, 1969 Reyes likewise sought and was permitted to change his plea to "guilty."

Evidence Regarding Voluntary Surrender

The witnesses called by Mamon included Rafael Palmares, then Governor of Iloilo; Fortunato Padilla, member of the Iloilo Provincial Board; and Jose Perlas, Jr., Warden of the Iloilo Provincial Jail. Their testimony recounted that Mamon, through relatives, sought the intercession of Board Member Padilla; that Padilla consulted Governor Palmares; that Mamon imposed conditions for surrender; and that on November 30, 1968 he yielded and was brought to the Provincial Jail where the Warden’s blotter entry recorded that at about 8:30 A.M. "Ricardo Mamon surrendered voluntarily to the Provincial Governor, thru the Provincial Warden." NBI Agent Federico Opinion testified to the contrary and detailed the search efforts and expenses of the investigating agencies.

Judgment Below

On June 6, 1969 the trial court rendered judgment finding both accused guilty of murder. The court sentenced Ricardo Mamon to suffer the death penalty and Rodolfo Reyes to suffer reclusion perpetua. The court ordered joint and several indemnity in the amount of P12,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased and imposed proportionate costs. Reyes did not appeal and the case reached the Supreme Court by mandatory review because of the death sentence imposed on Mamon.

Issues Presented on Review

Counsel de oficio for Mamon contended that the trial court had accepted the plea of "guilty" hastily and improvidently and that the case should be remanded for re-arraignment to ensure observance of due process. Counsel also argued that the trial court erred in failing to appreciate voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance.

The Court’s Analysis on the Acceptance of the Plea

The Court observed that trial judges must be solicitous in accepting guilty pleas, citing People vs. Apduhan, but concluded from the record that Mamon understood the meaning and consequences of his plea. The information had charged aggravating circumstances including evident premeditation and consideration of a price, and the aggravating circumstance of treachery which absorbed abuse of superior strength. The Court reasoned that at arraignment Mamon had reason to foresee that conviction would likely entail the maximum penalty of death. The Court found that Mamon had apparently consulted counsel and had considered pleading guilty as a means to reduce exposure to the death penalty. The Court deemed counsel’s presence and assistance persuasive and invoked the presumption that counsel faithfully discharged the duty to warn the accused about the consequences of a guilty plea, citing People vs. Abejero. For these reasons and in view of humane considerations the Cou

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-30668)

Parties and Posture

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES was the Plaintiff-Appellee in the criminal prosecution below.
RICARDO MAMON alias "CADONG" was the Defendant-Appellant whose case was before the Court on mandatory review because of the imposition of the death penalty.
RODOLFO REYES alias "DOLFO" was co-accused and co-defendant whose judgment of reclusion perpetua was not appealed.

Key Facts

Judge Ruperto Advincula boarded a north-bound motor train at La Paz, Iloilo, and occupied the first coach seat behind the engine on July 11, 1968.
Two men boarded the same train, one seated across the aisle from Judge Advincula and the other two seats behind, and one of them rose and shot the judge point-blank in the forehead between the eyes as the train left Barrio Camoncil, Pototan.
The killers jumped off the moving train and fled, and the judge died immediately; a medico-legal necropsy confirmed the fatal gunshot wound between the eyes.
Investigations identified RODOLFO REYES, RICARDO MAMON, and two unidentified persons as perpetrators, and RODOLFO REYES subsequently implicated RICARDO MAMON as the triggerman.
RICARDO MAMON allegedly surrendered to provincial authorities on November 30, 1968, and later confessed to shooting Judge Advincula and to an agreement with one Federico Baylon to receive P1,500, of which P1,000 was paid.

Procedural History

A criminal information charging murder was filed in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on February 19, 1969.
The accused were arraigned on March 14, 1969, and both initially pleaded not guilty.
At the scheduled trial date, RICARDO MAMON withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty, and the trial court set April 7, 1969 for reception of evidence on mitigating circumstances.
On May 2, 1969, RODOLFO REYES likewise withdrew his not guilty plea and pleaded guilty.
On June 6, 1969, the trial court convicted both accused of murder, sentenced RICARDO MAMON to death and RODOLFO REYES to reclusion perpetua, ordered joint and several indemnity of P12,000 to the heirs, and assessed proportionate costs.
The case reached the Court on automatic review because of the death sentence imposed on RICARDO MAMON.

Issues Presented

Whether the trial court improvidently or hastily accepted RICARDO MAMON's plea of guilty without ensuring that he understood its import and consequences.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to regard RICARDO MAMON's surrender as a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Contentions

Counsel de oficio contended that the trial court accepted the plea of guilty with undue haste and that the case should be remanded for re-arraignment to safeguard due process.
Counsel de oficio also contended that the trial court should have given weight to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.