People v.

Magat
G.R. No. 130026 – May 31, 2000
Per Curiam

Topic: Arraignment and Plea

Doctrine: Whatever procedural infirmity in the arraignment of the accused-appellant was rectified
when he was re-arraigned and entered a new plea.

Complainant: People of the Philippines

Accused: Antonio Magat

Case Summary: Magat was accused of raping his daughter, Ann Magat, on two occasions (when she
was 17 years old and 19 years old). Upon arraignment Antonio pleaded guilty but bargained for a
lesser penalty for each case. RTC sentenced him to suffer a jail term of ten (10) years imprisonment
for each case. After three (3) months, cases were revived by Ann on the ground that the penalty
imposed was “too light.” Antonio was rearraigned: plea of not guilty and then he entered anew a plea
of guilty. The trial court imposed death penalty on him. Antonio appealed, contending that (1) the trial
court erred in rearraigning and proceeding into trial despite the fact that he was already convicted; (2)
the prosecution did not appeal nor move for reconsideration or took steps to set aside the order; (3) the
conviction has attained finality; and (4) the rearraignment violated his right against double jeopardy.

The SC ruled that the first arraignment was void, but whatever procedural infirmity in the arraignment
of the Antonio was rectified when he was rearraigned and entered a new plea. The first arraignment
void because Antonio’s plea of guilty is undoubtedly a conditional plea. Hence, the RTC should have
vacated such a plea and entered a plea of not guilty for a conditional plea of guilty. The void plea
bargaining amounts to a void judgment. Antonio did not question the procedural errors in the first
arraignment and having failed to do so, he is deemed to have abandoned his right to question the same
and waived the errors in procedure. Furthermore, RTC judge discharged burden of determining
voluntariness and full understanding of Antonio of his plea of guilty; and even assuming that there
was an improvident plea of guilt, the evidence on record can sustain the conviction. He did not present
any evidence to rebut the prosecution’s evidence nor testified in his behalf. Finally, his second plea of
guilty validated his first plea of guilt. It removed any reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

Facts:

Crime Charged Qualified Rape

Accused Antonio Magat
Complainant People of the Philippines
Where First Filed QC RTC, Branch 103

 Two Informations were filed charging Antonio Magat with rape committed against his
daughter on two occasions: one when she was 17 years old and the other when she was 19
years old.

 January 10, 1997: Antonio pleaded guilty (1st plea) but bargained for a lesser penalty for each
case.

o RTC issued an Order, finding Antonio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Violation of Article 335, RPC in relation to RA 7659 and sentencing him to suffer
a 10 years imprisonment for each case.
  After three months, the cases were revived at the instance of Ann on the ground that the
penalty imposed was too light.

 April 15, 1997: Antonio was re-arraigned on both Informations on where he entered a plea of
not guilty (2nd plea).

o Trial on the merits ensued.

 July 3, 1997: Antonio entered anew a plea of guilty (3rd plea).

o The court read to him the Informations in English and Tagalog and repeatedly asked
whether he understood his change of plea and propounded questions as to his
understanding of the consequences of his plea (just like what happened during his 1 st
arraignment).

 RTC then required the taking of Ann's testimony. Antonio did not present any evidence.

o July 15, 1997: RTC ruled that Magat is guilty of the said crime beyond reasonable
doubt and sentenced him to death by lethal injection on the two Informations. He was
also ordered to pay Ann of P50,000 as compensatory damages; P200,000 as moral
damages; and P500,000 as exemplary and corrective damages.

Issue + Holding: WON the RTC erred in re-arraigning Antonio and proceeding into trial despite his
prior conviction based on his plea of guilty. NO.

 Antonio: Conviction has attained finality and can no longer be set aside or modified even if
the prosecution later realizes that the penalty imposed was too light.

o SC: RTC’s Order of convicting Antonio on his own plea of guilt is void ab initio on
the ground that his plea is not the plea bargaining contemplated and allowed by law
and the rules of procedure. The only instance where a plea bargaining is allowed
under ROC, Rule 116, Sec. 21 is when an accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense.

o Antonio did not plead to a lesser offense but pleaded guilty to the rape charges and
only bargained for a lesser penalty. He did not plea bargain but made conditions
on the penalty to be imposed. This is erroneous because by pleading guilty to the
offense charged, Antonio should be sentenced to the penalty to which he pleaded.

 Antonio: The re-arraignment and trial on the same information violated his right against
double jeopardy.

1
Sec. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. — The accused, with the consent of the offended party and the fiscal, may be
allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense, regardless of whether or not it is necessarily included in the crime
charged, or is cognizable by a court of lesser jurisdiction than the trial court. No amendment of the complaint or information is
necessary.

A conviction under this plea shall be equivalent to a conviction of the offense charged for purposes of double jeopardy.
 o SC: Antonio's plea of guilty is a conditional plea. RTC should have vacated such a
plea and entered a plea of not guilty. The judgment rendered by RTC which was
based on a void plea bargaining is also void ab initio and cannot be considered
to have attained finality. Double jeopardy will not lie.

o Whatever procedural infirmity in Antonio’s arraignment was rectified when he was

re-arraigned and entered a new plea. He did not question the procedural errors in the
1st arraignment and having failed to do so, he is deemed to have abandoned his right
to question the same and waived the errors in procedure.

 Antonio: RTC erred in not finding that he made an improvident plea of guilty, and in not
complying with the procedure laid down in ROC, Rule 116, Sec. 32.

o SC: Under the present rule, if the accused pleads guilty to capital offense, trial courts
are now enjoined to: (a) conduct searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
comprehension of the consequences of his plea; (b) require the prosecution to present
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability;
and (c) ask the accused if he so desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow
him to do so if he desires.

o RTC judge has faithfully discharged his bounden duty to determine the voluntariness
and full understanding of Antonio's plea of guilty. The absence of the transcript of
stenographic notes of the proceedings during the arraignment do not make the
procedure flawed. Antonio could have known of the consequence of his plea having
pleaded twice to the charges against him.

o Even assuming that there was an improvident plea of guilt, the evidence on record
can sustain Antonio’s conviction. He did not even present any evidence to rebut the
prosecution's evidence nor testified in his behalf to deny the culpatory testimony of
the complainant, giving us the impression that he acknowledges the charges against
him.

o When the RTC in obedience to SC's injunction, receives evidence to determine

precisely whether or not the accused has erred in admitting guilt, the manner in
which the plea of guilty is made loses legal significance, for the simple reason that
the conviction is predicated not on the plea but on the evidence proving the
commission by the accused of the offense charged. Antonio’s second plea of guilty
validated his first plea of guilt. It removed any reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

Ruling: Affirmed the sentence of death penalty to the Information on rape committed when Ann was
17 years old. Modified to reclusion perpetua the penalty for the rape committed when Ann was
already 19 years old.

2
Sec. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. – When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the
court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and shall
require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his
behalf.