PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.

188314
Plaintiff-Appellee,

- versus

KHADDAFY JANJALANI, GAMAL B. BAHARAN Present:

a.k.a. Tapay, ANGELO TRINIDAD a.k.a. Abu
Khalil, GAPPAL BANNAH ASALI a.k.a. Maidan CARPIO MORALES, J.,
or Negro, JAINAL SALI a.k.a. Abu Solaiman, Chairperson,
ROHMAT ABDURROHIM a.k.a. Jackie or Zaky, BRION,
and other JOHN and JANE DOES, BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
SERENO, JJ.

Accused,

GAMAL B. BAHARAN a.k.a. Tapay, ANGELO

TRINIDAD a.k.a. Abu Khalil, and ROHMAT Promulgated:
ABDURROHIM a.k.a. Abu Jackie or Zaky,
January 10, 2011
Accused-Appellants.

Statement of Facts

An RRCG bus was at EDSA, when around 6:30 to 7:30 pm, while they were about to move out of
the Guadalupe-EDSA southbound bus stop, the bus conductor noticed two men running after the bus. The
two insisted on getting on the bus, so the conductor obliged and let them in.

According to Elmer Andales, the bus conductor, he immediately became wary of the two men,
because, even if they got on the bus together, the two sat away from each other one sat two seats behind
the driver, while the other sat at the back of the bus. The witness also noticed that the man at the back
appeared to be tinkering with something.
As soon as the bus reached the stoplight at the corner of Ayala Avenue and EDSA, the two men
insisted on getting off the bus. According to Andales, the bus driver initially did not want to let them off
the bus, because a Makati ordinance prohibited unloading anywhere except at designated bus stops.
Eventually, the bus driver gave in and allowed the two passengers to alight. Moments after, Andales felt
an explosion.
The prosecution presented documents furnished by the Department of Justice, confirming that
shortly before the explosion, the spokesperson of the Abu Sayyaf Group Abu Solaiman announced over
radio station DZBB that the group had a Valentines Day gift for former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
After the bombing, he again went on radio and warned of more bomb attacks.
 As stipulated during pretrial, accused Trinidad and Baharan, in two separate exclusive interviews,
confessed in ABS-CBN News Network his participation in the Valentines Day bombing incident. Also,
accused Asali gave a television interview, confessing that he had supplied the explosive devices for the 14
February 2005 bombing. The bus conductor identified the accused Baharan and Trinidad, and confirmed
that they were the two men who had entered the RRCG bus on the evening of 14 February.

Members of the Abu Sayyaf Group named herein, and other John and Jane Does were then
charged with multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. Only Baharan, Trinidad, Asali, and Rohmat
were arrested, while the other accused remain at-large.

On their arraignment for the multiple murder charge, Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali all entered a
plea of guilty. On the other hand, upon arraignment for the multiple frustrated murder charge, accused
Asali pled guilty. Accused Trinidad and Baharan pled not guilty. Rohmat pled not guilty to both charges.

In the light of the pretrial stipulations, the trial court asked whether accused Baharan and Trinidad
were amenable to changing their not guilty pleas to the charge of multiple frustrated murder, considering
that they pled guilty to the heavier charge of multiple murder, creating an apparent inconsistency in their
pleas. Defense counsel conferred with accused Baharan and Trinidad and explained to them the
consequences of the pleas. The two accused acknowledged the inconsistencies and manifested their
readiness for re-arraignment. After the Information was read to them, Baharan and Trinidad pled guilty
to the charge of multiple frustrated murder.[2]

Accused-appellants assigned two errors in the conduct of the court. Baharan and Trinidad argue that the
trial court did not conduct a searching inquiry after they had changed their plea from not guilty to guilty.
Second, accused-appellants assert that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. They pointed out
that the testimony of the conductor was merely circumstantial, while that of Asali as to the conspiracy
was insufficient.

Issues:
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in accepting accused-appellants plea of guilt despite
insufficiency of searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of
the said plea.

Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding that the guilt of accused-appellants for the
crimes charged had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.[4]

Ruling:

1.

The Supreme Court has ruled that all trial judges must refrain from accepting with alacrity an
accused's plea of guilty, for while justice demands a speedy administration, judges are duty bound to be
extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty, he understands fully the meaning of his
plea and the import of an inevitable conviction ( Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court).

The conduct of a searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they are mandated by the rules
to satisfy themselves that the accused had not been under coercion or duress; mistaken impressions; or
a misunderstanding of the significance, effects, and consequences of their guilty plea.[10] This requirement
is stringent and mandatory.[11]
Nevertheless, we are not unmindful of the context under which the re-arraignment was
conducted or of the factual milieu surrounding the finding of guilt against the accused. The Court observes
that accused Baharan and Trinidad previously pled guilty to another charge multiple murder based on the
same act relied upon in the multiple frustrated murder charge. The Court further notes that prior to the
change of plea to one of guilt, accused Baharan and Trinidad made two other confessions of guilt one
through an extrajudicial confession (exclusive television interviews), and the other via judicial admission
(pretrial stipulation). Considering the foregoing circumstances, we deem it unnecessary to rule on the
sufficiency of the searching inquiry in this instance. Remanding the case for re-arraignment is not
warranted, as the accuseds plea of guilt was not the sole basis of the condemnatory judgment under
consideration.[12]

2.

In People v. Oden, the Court declared that even if the requirement of conducting a searching
inquiry was not complied with, [t]he manner by which the plea of guilt is made loses much of great
significance where the conviction can be based on independent evidence proving the commission by the
person accused of the offense charged.[13]

Insofar as accused-appellants Baharan and Trinidad are concerned, the evidence for the
prosecution, in addition to that which can be drawn from the stipulation of facts, primarily consisted of
the testimonies of the bus conductor, Elmer Andales, and of the accused-turned-state-witness, Asali.
Andales positively identified accused Baharan and Trinidad as the two men who had acted suspiciously
while inside the bus; who had insisted on getting off the bus in violation of a Makati ordinance; and who
had scampered away from the bus moments before the bomb exploded. On the other hand, Asali testified
that he had given accused Baharan and Trinidad the TNT used in the bombing incident in Makati City. The
guilt of the accused Baharan and Trinidad was sufficiently established by these corroborating testimonies,
coupled with their respective judicial admissions (pretrial stipulations) and extrajudicial confessions
(exclusive television interviews) that they were indeed the perpetrators of the Valentines Day
bombing.[15] Accordingly, the Court upholds the findings of guilt made by the trial court as affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED.