Case Name: People of the Philippines vs Apolonio Apduhan Jr.

, et al

Citation: G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968

Procedural History:

This is a review on the judgment convicting respondent to death and indemnifying

the heirs of the victim.

Facts:

Respondent along with five other persons entered the house of the spouses Miano,

shooting Geronimo Miano and Norberto Aton that killed both and took money amounting

to Php 322.00 belonging to Geronimo Miano. Respondent pleaded not guilty initially and

later after advise from counsel Tirol, pleaded guilty. Judge Hipolito Alo informed

respondent that the penalty imposed might be death and respondent insisted on pleading

guilty with the condition that he be sentenced to life imprisonment instead of death.

Respondent then desisted from his plea of guilt and having made it on record, counsel

Tirol conferred with him and later manifested that respondent will enter the plea of guilty

with the trial court’s ascertainment that he was not forced into pleading guilty. The

mitigating circumstances alleged by respondent were 1) intoxication that was not

corroborated; 2) voluntary plea of guilty; and 3) Lack of intent to commit a grave so

wrong that was withdrawn after prosecution withdrew the fourth aggravating

circumstance abuse of superior strength. The aggravating circumstances alleged by the

prosecution were 1) band; 2) dwelling; 3) nighttime; and 4) abuse of superior strength

that was withdrawn.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent’s voluntary plea of guilty is spontaneous and insistent.

Ratio Decidendi:

No. Respondent’s initial plea was not one of guilty and changed it with the

condition that he be sentenced to life imprisonment and not death since he will plead
guilty. Respondent then desisted from the plea of guilt and stated his plea of not guilty

made in record, going back to plea of guilty only after conferring with his counsel. The

virtue of Judge Alo's efforts in ascertaining whether Apduhan pleaded guilty with full

knowledge of the significance and consequences of his act, recommends itself to all trial

judges who 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. For failure to secure the

required number of votes, the penalty of death cannot be legally imposed. The penalty

next lower in degree - reclusion perpetua - should consequently be imposed on the

accused.

Holding:

The death sentence imposed upon Apolonio Apduhan, Jr. by the court a quo is

reduced to reclusion perpetua, the judgment a quo is affirmed in all other respects.
Case Name: People of the Philippines vs Mariano Oandasan

Citation: G.R. No. L-29532, September 28, 1968

Procedural History:

This is to assail the decision of the trail court’s decision convicting respondent for

homicide without taking notice of some of the mitigating circumstances that took event.

Facts:

Respondent pleaded not guilty during arraignment in the Municipal Court of

Flora, Mountain Province and elevated the case to the Court of First Instance of Cagayan

with a plea of guilty and presented evidence to prove mitigating circumstances of

incomplete self-defense, voluntary surrender aside from the voluntary plea of guilty. The

decision in question, ignoring the plea of guilty in account of his former plea of not guilty

before the Municipal Court and ignored incomplete self-defense as a mitigating

circumstance, merely according defendant the benefits of voluntary surrender as an

ordinary mitigating circumstance. Respondent was sentenced for the crime of homicide

and indemnifying the heirs of the victim with the facts as follows:

Respondent saw the victim chasing his son and throwing a wooden club which

did not hit his son, in order to ask what was happening respondent approached the victim.

The victim hit respondent with the club on the left shoulder and respondent drew his

knife. Again, the victim hit respondent with the club on his head and respondent stabbed

the victim on the front twice, one on the epigastric region and the other on the right hand.

Issue:

1) Whether or not defendant’s plea of guilty should be considered in his favor.

2) Whether or not incomplete self-defense is considered as privileged mitigating

circumstance.
Ratio Decidendi:

A circumstance that mitigates penal liability is when the accused voluntarily

confessed his guilt prior to the presentation of evidence by prosecution and so the

voluntary plea of guilty should be considered in his favor. The facts of the case clearly

demonstrate an act of unlawful aggression by the deceased as well as lack of sufficient

provocation on the part of respondent, and these circumstances carve out a good case of

incomplete self-defense. In view of the plea of guilty and voluntary surrender with no

aggravating circumstance entitles respondent "penalty next lower to that prescribed by

law, in the period that it [the court] may deem applicable, according to the number and

nature of such circumstances." (Article 64(5) Revised Penal Code.). In People vs Maula,

appreciated incomplete self-defense, concurred in by minority of the accused as a

privileged mitigating circumstance and by voluntary surrender. The penalty accused for

homicide was brought down by two degrees.

Holding:

The trial court’s decision is modified sentencing respondent to an indeterminate

penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to two (2) years, four (4)

months and one (1) day of prision correccional as maximum, with the accessories of the

law. In all other respects, the decision below is affirmed.