What is the duty of the trial court when an accused enters a plea of guilt to a capital offense?

When an accused enters a plea of guilt to a capital offense, Section 3 of Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that it is the duty of the trial court to observe the following rules: 

(1) it must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea; 

(2) it must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and 

(3) it must asks the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. (People vs. Principe, G.R. No. 135862. May 2, 2002)


What is the reason for this rule?

The reason for this rule is that courts must necessarily proceed with more care where the possible punishment is in its severest form death for the reason that the execution of such sentence is irrevocable. Experience has shown that innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment, or upon bad advice or because of promises of the authorities or parties of a lighter penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse. An accused might be admitting his guilt before the court and thus forfeit his life and liberty without having fully understood the meaning, significance and consequences of his plea. The judge therefore has the duty to ensure that the accused does not suffer by reason of mistaken impressions. Requiring the trial court to take further evidence would also aid this Court on appellate review in evaluating the propriety or impropriety of the plea. (People vs. Murillo, G.R. No. 134583. July 14, 2004)


How should a trial judge conduct a searching inquiry?

Although there is no definite and concrete rule as to how a trial judge must conduct a "searching inquiry," we have held that the following guidelines should be observed:

1. Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into the custody of the law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations; and (c) under what conditions he was detained and interrogated during the investigations. This is intended to rule out the possibility that the accused has been coerced or placed under a state of duress either by actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent quarters or simply because of the judge's intimidating robes.

2. Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he had conferred with, and completely explained to, the accused the meaning and consequences of a plea of guilty.

3. Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused, such as his age, socio-economic status, and educational background, which may serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilty.

4. Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or nature of the penalty under the law and the certainty that he will serve such sentence. For not infrequently, an accused pleads guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment or upon bad advice or because of promises of the authorities or parties of a lighter penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty of the judge to ensure that the accused does not labor under these mistaken impressions because a plea of guilty carries with it not only the admission of authorship of the crime proper but also of the aggravating circumstances attending it, that increase punishment.

5. Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is charged and fully explain to him the elements of the crime which is the basis of his indictment. Failure of the court to do so would constitute a violation of his fundamental right to be informed of the precise nature of the accusation against him and a denial of his right to due process.

6. All questions posed to the accused should be in a language known and understood by the latter.

7. The trial judge must satisfy himself that the accused, in pleading guilty, is truly guilty. The accused must be required to narrate the tragedy or reenact the crime or furnish its missing details. (People vs. Pastor, G.R. No. 140208, March 12, 2002)


●A mere warning that the accused faces the supreme penalty of death is insufficient. (People vs. Principe)


Why must the court still require the prosecution to present evidence on the accused's culpability?

● It must be stressed that a plea of guilty is only a supporting evidence or secondary basis for a finding of culpability, the main proof being the evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Once an accused charged with a capital offense enters a plea of guilty, a regular trial shall be conducted just the same as if no such plea was entered. The court cannot, and should not, relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability by the requisite quantum of evidence. The reason for such rule is to preclude any room for reasonable doubt in the mind of the trial court, or the Supreme Court on review, as to the possibility that the accused might have misunderstood the nature of the charge to which he pleaded guilty, and to ascertain the circumstances attendant to the commission of the crime which may justify or require either a greater or lesser degree of severity in the imposition of the prescribed penalties. (People vs. Espidol, G. R. No. 150033. November 12, 2004)


● Even in cases in which the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the prosecution is still required to present evidence to prove his guilt and the precise degree of his culpability. In other words, notwithstanding the plea of guilt, evidence must be adduced to determine the precise participation of the accused in the perpetuation of the capital offense whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory as well as the presence or absence of modifying circumstances. And the accused may also present evidence in his behalf either to rebut the prosecutions evidence or to show the presence of mitigating circumstances.(People vs. Francisco, G.R. No. 192818, November 17, 2010)


Must the case be remanded to the trial court if a plea of guilty is found improvidently?

● While accused-appellants improvident plea should be disregarded, nevertheless his conviction cannot be set aside as there is, in addition to his plea, other sufficient and credible evidence on which the judgment of the trial court rests. This evidence consists of accused-appellants extrajudicial confession, his testimony in open court, and the testimony of the other witnesses.  (People vs. Principe)

● While our jurisdiction does not subscribe to a per se rule that once a plea of guilty is found improvidently he is at once entitled to a remand, the circumstances of this case warrant that a remand to the trial court be made. To warrant a remand of the criminal case, the Court has held that it must be shown that as a result of such irregularity there was inadequate representation of facts by either the prosecution or the defense during the trial. Where the improvident plea of guilty was followed by an abbreviated proceeding with practically no role at all played by the defense, we have ruled that this procedure was just too meager to accept as being the standard constitutional due process at work enough to forfeit a human life. What justifies the remand of the criminal case to the trial court is the unfairness or complete miscarriage of justice in the handling of the proceedings a quo as occasioned by the improvident plea of guilt. In this case, apart from the testimony of appellant, the prosecution does not have any other evidence to hold him liable for the crime charged. In view of the foregoing, we find that it is imperative to remand the case for the proper arraignment and trial of the accused, considering not only the accused's improvident plea of guilt but also his lawyers neglect in representing his cause.  (People vs. Murillo)