Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4K views

    People Vs Pagal

    Uploaded by

    jason lagger15
    The RTC convicted Brendo P. Pagal of murder solely based on his plea of guilty during arraignment. However, the CA held that the RTC failed to comply with requirements to conduct a searching inquiry for pleas to capital offenses. The issues are: (1) Whether the RTC erred in convicting without a searching inquiry; (2) Whether an accused who enters an improvident plea to a capital offense like murder is entitled to acquittal on appeal. The rule is that for capital offenses like murder, the court must conduct a searching inquiry to ensure the plea is voluntary and the accused understands consequences, and the prosecution must prove guilt and degree of culpability. On appeal of an improvident plea to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Pagal

    Uploaded by

    jason lagger15
    4K views1 page
    The RTC convicted Brendo P. Pagal of murder solely based on his plea of guilty during arraignment. However, the CA held that the RTC failed to comply with requirements to conduct a searching inquiry for pleas to capital offenses. The issues are: (1) Whether the RTC erred in convicting without a searching inquiry; (2) Whether an accused who enters an improvident plea to a capital offense like murder is entitled to acquittal on appeal. The rule is that for capital offenses like murder, the court must conduct a searching inquiry to ensure the plea is voluntary and the accused understands consequences, and the prosecution must prove guilt and degree of culpability. On appeal of an improvident plea to

    Original Description:

    A Digest of the case of People vs Pagal

    Original Title

    People vs Pagal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The RTC convicted Brendo P. Pagal of murder solely based on his plea of guilty during arraignment. However, the CA held that the RTC failed to comply with requirements to conduct a searching inquiry for pleas to capital offenses. The issues are: (1) Whether the RTC erred in convicting without a searching inquiry; (2) Whether an accused who enters an improvident plea to a capital offense like murder is entitled to acquittal on appeal. The rule is that for capital offenses like murder, the court must conduct a searching inquiry to ensure the plea is voluntary and the accused understands consequences, and the prosecution must prove guilt and degree of culpability. On appeal of an improvident plea to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4K views1 page

    People Vs Pagal

    Uploaded by

    jason lagger15
    The RTC convicted Brendo P. Pagal of murder solely based on his plea of guilty during arraignment. However, the CA held that the RTC failed to comply with requirements to conduct a searching inquiry for pleas to capital offenses. The issues are: (1) Whether the RTC erred in convicting without a searching inquiry; (2) Whether an accused who enters an improvident plea to a capital offense like murder is entitled to acquittal on appeal. The rule is that for capital offenses like murder, the court must conduct a searching inquiry to ensure the plea is voluntary and the accused understands consequences, and the prosecution must prove guilt and degree of culpability. On appeal of an improvident plea to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LCP

    SUBJECT: Consti 2
    TOPIC: Art 14-15

    People vs Pagal
    Gr. No. 241257 Sept 29,2020

    FACTS
    Brendo P. Pagal( Brend) was indicted under information for the crime of murder. During his arraignment, he
    pleaded guilty to the crime charged. The RTC found the plea to be voluntary and with full understating of its
    consequences. Hence, the RTC found Brendo guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on solely on his plea of guilty.

    The CA held that the RTC failed to comply with the requirements of sec 3, rule 116 of the 2000 resived criminal
    procedure regarding the conduct of a searching inquiry. Thus it remanded the case to the RTC

    ISSUE
    1. Did the RTC erred in convicting Brendo on the sole basis of his plea of guilty

    2. On appeal, in cases of improvident plea of guilt to a capital offense like this case, is the accused
    entitled to an acquittal?

    RULE
    1.Yes. it must be noted that murder remains a capital offense despite the proscription against the imposition of a
    death as punishment. Thus when Brendo pleaded guilty during arraignment, he pleaded to a capital offence. For
    this sec 3 rule 116 of the 2000 revised rules is relevant since it provides that when the accused pleaded guilty to a
    capital offence, 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

    2. Yes, the primordial purpose is to avoid improvident pleas of guilt on the part of an accused where
    grave crimes are involved since he 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.

    1
    <Consti 2>
    < People vs Pagal > by <Jason>

    You might also like