MURAO, JOSE PEPITO III

I. Article III Section 17, Right Against Self- Incrimination:

People v. Besonia G.R. No. 151284-85

Facts:
Jonathan Besonia was charged with murder in two separate informations to which he pleaded not guilty on
his August 22, 2000 arraignment. Before the trial started however, Besonia relayed to his counsel that he
would enter a plea of guilty to receive a lesser penalty for the offense of homicide. After doctors, medico-
legal officers, and PNP officials testified to the extent of injury and cause of death of victims Ernesto
Nieles and Jerry Sampiano, Besonia officially pleaded guilty to the two charges of murder. Thereafter, the
prosecution presented two policemen to testify on the matter that an unlicensed firearm was used in
perpetrating the murders, which is a valid aggravating circumstance. The Regional Trial Court of Iloilo
sentenced Jonathan Besonia to death for two counts of murder as the killings were also attended by evident
premeditation.
Issue: W/N the trial court erred in violating Besonia’s constitutional right against compulsion to testify
against him?
Held:
NO. Besonia, through his judicial confession, pleaded guilty to the killings, which were attended by evident
premeditation and the aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm. In the searching inquiry
into the voluntariness of Besonia’s confession, he was asked whether he fully understood what entering a
plea of guilty to murder entailed. There is nothing in records that would indicate Besonia was forced or
intimidated to admit to the commission of such crimes. It is important to note that a plea of guilty is ony
secondary evidence behind evidence given by the prosecution, which supposed to prove the accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
However, the trial court did err in not ordering the prosecution to present such evidence to prove the use of
an unlicensed firearm as it merely relied on testimonies of policemen. Since the trial court withheld other
testimonies after Besonia had already pleaded guilty to the offense, the full appreciation of his guilt was not
manifested by evidence or testimonies. Regional Trial Court decision is SET ASIDE and the criminal cases
are REMANDED to the trial court for further reception of evidence and rendition of a new judgment.