Karapatan ng akusadong umamin sa krimen na may capital offense

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | September 15, 2024

Ang bawat akusado, gaano man kabigat ang krimeng nagawa, ay may mga karapatan ding iginagawad ng batas. Isa na rito ang karapatang ituring na inosente hanggang sa mapatunayan ang kanyang pagkakasala. Gayunpaman, ang isang akusado ay may karapatan ding umamin sa kanyang pagkakasala kung kanya itong nanaisin. Sa ganitong pagkakataon ay kinakailangan na mabigyan siya ng hukuman ng gabay tungo sa kanyang pag-amin.  

Sa isang kasong pinamagatang People of the Philippines vs. Brendo P. Pagal, G.R. No. 241257, September 29, 2020, na isinulat ni Honorable Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, tinalakay ng Korte Suprema ang tungkulin ng hukuman hinggil sa pagsusuri ng akusadong umamin sa isang “capital offense” gaya ng Murder. Ayon sa Korte Suprema:

“The searching inquiry requirement means more than informing cursorily the accused that he faces a jail term but also, the exact length of imprisonment under the law and the certainty that he will serve time at the national penitentiary or a penal colony. The searching inquiry of the trial court must be focused on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea, and (2) the full comprehension of the consequences of the plea.

Not infrequently indeed, an accused pleads guilty in the hope of 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 see to it that the accused does not labor under these mistaken impressions.

A searching inquiry likewise compels the judge to content himself reasonably that the accused has not been coerced or placed under a state of duress — and that his guilty plea has not therefore been given improvidently — either by actual threats of physical harm from malevolent quarters or simply because of his, the judge’s, intimidating robes.

Further, a searching inquiry must not only comply with the requirements of Sec. 1, par. (a), of Rule 116 but must also expound on the events that actually took place during the arraignment, the words spoken and the warnings given, with special attention to the age of the accused, his educational attainment and socio-economic status as well as the manner of his arrest and detention, the provision of counsel in his behalf during the custodial and preliminary investigations, and the opportunity of his defense counsel to confer with him. These matters are relevant since they serve as trustworthy indices of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilt. Lastly, the trial court must explain the essential elements of the crime he was charged with and its respective penalties and civil liabilities, and also direct a series of questions to defense counsel to determine whether he has conferred with the accused and has completely explained to him the meaning of a plea of guilty. This formula is mandatory and absent any showing that it was followed, a searching inquiry cannot be said to have been undertaken.” 

Batay sa mga nabanggit, ang pag-amin ng isang akusado sa salang ibinibintang sa kanya ay nangangailangan ng masusing pagtatanong o pagsusuri kung boluntaryo itong ginawa. Kailangan din ng masusing pagpapaliwanag at pagpapaintindi ng hukuman sa akusado kung ano ang eksaktong parusa sa kanya at ang haba ng kanyang pagkakakulong sa national penitentiary. Higit pa rito, idinagdag ng Korte Suprema na ang tungkulin ng prosekusyon na patunayan beyond reasonable doubt ang krimen ay hindi naaalis dahil sa pag-amin ng akusado. Ito ay nangangahulugan na dapat magkaroon pa rin ng pagdinig ukol sa kaso. Gaya rin sa sitwasyon na hindi umamin ang akusado. Ayon sa Kataas-taasang Hukuman:

“The reason behind this requirement is that the plea of guilt alone can never be sufficient to produce guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It must be remembered 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.” 

Kaya marapat lamang na ang hukuman ay magsagawa ng tinatawag na ‘searching inquiry’ upang masiguro na naiintindihan ng isang akusado ang kanyang ginagawang pag-amin at ang mga kahihinatnan ng kanyang desisyon. Dapat ay maipaliwanag sa kanya ang kanyang inaamin, maging ng kaakibat na epekto nito. Sang-ayon din sa nasabing desisyon, kinakailangan pa rin magkaroon ng pagdinig sa kaso at mapatunayan ang sakdal upang magkaroon ng tamang paghatol ang korte.