PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

ANTONIO MAGAT y LONDONIO

[GR No. 130026 | May 31, 2000 | Per Curiam | Rai Rai]
Crime: Two counts of rape
FACTS
Two informations filed, charging accused-appellant with rape
On arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded guilty but bargained for a lesser
penalty
o The mother of complainant and the public prosecutor agreed with the plea
bargain
o TC issued an Order finding accused Magat guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of rape and sentencing him to a jail term of 10 years per case (January 10,
1997)
After 3 months cases were revived on instance of complainant on the grounds
that the penalty imposed was too light
o Accused-appellant re-arraigned on both informations, to which he pleaded
NOT GUILTY
o Trial on merits ensued
The prosecution presented two witnesses: the medico-legal officer of NBI and the
complainants mother
July 3, 1997 about a month after, the accused-appellant entered again a plea of
GUILTY
o The informations were read to him in both English and Tagalog and he was
repeatedly asked as to whether he understood his change of plea and the
consequences of said plea
TC found Magat guilty of crime of rape and was sentenced to death by lethal
injection
Sent to SC on automatic review
ARGUMENT ONE
that the TC erred in re-arraigning and proceeding into trial despite the fact that he
had already been convicted based on his plea of guilt
o the original order had attained finality since the prosecution didnt appeal or
move for reconsideration or moved to set aside the order
o therefore, the order should no longer be set aside or modified even if the
penalty imposed in the said order was too light
he also posits that the re-arraignment and trial on the same information violated
his right against double jeopardy
HOLDING
The Jan 10, 1997 order of TC convicting A/A on his own plea of guilt is VOID AB
INITIO because the A/As plea is not the plea bargaining contemplated and allowed by
law and rules of procedure
When is plea bargaining allowed?
o Sec 2, Rule 116 when an accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense
o Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. The accused, with the consent of the
offended party and the fiscal, may be allowed by the trial court to plead

guilty to a lesser offense, regardless of whether or not it is necessarily

included in the crime charged, or is cognizable by a court of lesser
jurisdiction than the trial court. No amendment of the complaint or
information is necessary.
o A conviction under this plea shall be equivalent to a conviction of the offense
charged for purposes of double jeopardy.
In instant case: the A/A did NOT plead to a lesser offense but pleaded guilty to rape
charges and only bargained for a lesser penalty.
he did not plea bargain but made conditions on the penalty to be imposed
ERRONEOUS because by pleading guilty to the offense charged, A/A should be
sentenced to the penalty which he pleaded
Essence of a plea of guilty that accused admits ABSOLUTELY and UNCONDITIONALLY
his guilt and responsibility for the offense imputed to him.
an accused MAY NOT admit guilt provided that a certain penalty will be given to
him this is a conditional plea of guilty (NOT ALLOWED)
In instant case: this was undoubtedly a conditional plea
TC should have vacated such a plea and entered a plea of not guilty
Also in effect, judgment rendered by TC based on a void plea bargaining is also VOID AB
INITIO, thus cannot be considered to have attained finality
since judgment of conviction rendered against A/A is void, double
jeopardy will not lie
HOWEVER, whatever were the errors in the arraignment of A/A are considered waived
because of the re-arraignment, since he did not question the procedural errors in his first
arraignment
ARGUMENT TWO
there was proper basis for setting aside Jan 10, 1997 order because the TC erred in
not finding that he made an improvident plea of guilty
o TCs fault because they did not comply with procedure in Rule 116, Sec 3
o Records of the case fails to support TCs assertion that they conducted a
searching inquiry to determine that the A/A voluntarily entered his plea of
guilty with full understanding and consequences of his plea
o No evidence that the TC conducted searching inquiry according to the rules
HOLDING
Present rule if accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, TC is supposed to
Conduct searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea
Require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and
the precise degree of his culpability
To ask the accused if he so desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him
to do so if he wants
In instant case: SC is convinced that TC judge faithfully discharged this duty

absence of transcript of stenographic notes of the proceedings during arraignment

do not make the procedure flawed
minutes of proceedings show that the judge read informations to A/A in both
English and Tagalog, asked him questions about his understanding of the
consequences of his plea, his educational attainment and occupation

Also prosecution has already presented its evidence. Even if there was an improvident
plea of guilt, the evidence on record can sustain the conviction of the A/A.
A/A also didnt present evidence to rebut prosecutions evidence nor testified on
his behalf to deny the testimony of the complainant
Gives impression that he acknowledges the charges against him
There have been times when the SC set aside cases based on improvident pleas of
guilty, but this was because the plea is the SOLE BASIS of the judgment of conviction.
in this case, theres evidence plus A/A was fully informed of the nature of the
charges against him and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances recited in
the information
ALSO A/As second plea of guilty validated his first plea of guilty. It removed any
reasonable doubt as to his guilt.