People of the Philippines vs Freddie Murillo

G.R. No. 134583 – 478 Phil. 446 – 434 SCRA 342 – Legal Ethics – Diligence – Duty of Counsel to Represent Client Despite Personal Differences

In 1997, Freddie Murillo was arraigned for the murder of Paz Abiera. With the assistance of Atty. Dante Garin, Murillo pleaded guilty of committing murder. Thereafter, the prosecution, in order to present proof of Murillo’s guilt other than his plea of guilt as required by the Rules, presented the Accused as hostile witness and four other witnesses. In June 1998, Murillo was convicted.

ISSUE: Whether or not Murillo’s conviction should be sustained.

HELD: No. Based on the record, there was an improvident plea of guilt. In compliance with Sec. 3, Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the following are mandatory when an accused enters a plea of guilty to a capital offense:

(1) the court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea and the accused’s full comprehension of the consequences thereof;

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

(3) the court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.

Further, the searching inquiry must 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. The trial court must also explain to the accused the essential elements of the crime he is charged with as well as its respective penalties and civil liabilities. The exact length of imprisonment under the law and the certainty that he will serve time at the national penitentiary or a penal colony must be fully explained to the accused. The court must also explain to the accused that once convicted, he could be meted the death penalty and that it is a single and indivisible penalty that will be imposed regardless of any mitigating circumstance that may have attended the commission of the felony. The court must also direct a series of questions to the defense counsel to determine whether he has conferred with the accused and has completely explained to the latter the meaning of a plea of guilt. This formula is mandatory and absent any showing that it has been followed, a searching inquiry cannot be said to have been undertaken.

In this case, the court never conducted any of the foregoing.

The Supreme Court also noted that Atty. Garin was remiss in his duty as defense counsel for Murillo. Atty. Garin never cross-examined three of the four witnesses of the prosecution. The only prosecution witness he cross-examined was the investigating police officer to whom he asked four questions pertaining only as to how the police came to the conclusion that the body parts belong to Paz Abiera. Apart from these, no other questions were ever offered. Atty. Garin, had the duty to defend his client and protect his rights, no matter how guilty or evil he perceives appellant to be. The performance of this duty was all the more imperative since the life of appellant hangs in the balance. As a defense counsel, he should have performed his duty with all the zeal and vigor at his command to protect and safeguard appellant’s fundamental rights. The case was remanded to the trial court for further trial.

Read full text.