PEOPLE VS BESONIA

Besonia was charged with murder in two separate informations, Besonia

entered a plea of not guilty in each case. Pre-trial was then held, where the
following facts were admitted by both the prosecution and the defense:
[3]

1. The identities of the victims Ernesto Mospa Nie[l]es and Jerry Sampiano as well as
that of the accused Jonathan Besonia;
2. The date and time of the incident, which is June 27, 2000 at 3:30 oclock in the
afternoon;
3. The place of the incident which is at Guzman Street, Mandurriao, Iloilo City;
4. That the weapon used during the incident which resulted to the killing of the
victims Ernesto Mospa Nie[l]es and Jerry Sampiano was an unlicensed firearm; and
5. That Jerry Sampiano was a construction worker of the aunt of the accused at the
time of the incident.
[

Besonia, through his counsel Atty. Calixto Perez, manifested that he would enter a plea
of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide after a medical operation on his gall bladder.
Besonia claims that his re-arraignment was notoriously flawed in that despite his
endeavor to plead guilty to the lesser crime of homicide, the trial court paid no attention
to it, thus depriving him of the opportunity to make such plea. Moreover, there is no
basis for the recommendation of the OSG to hold Besonia guilty of the lesser crime of
homicide because of the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise
degree of his culpability. The only support for such recommendation is the testimony of
Besonia himself, which was obtained in gross violation of his right not to be compelled
to testify against himself. He then prays that the judgment in these cases be set aside

and that the cases be remanded to the trial court for re-arraignment and further
proceedings.
Besonia argues that the finding of guilt by the trial court was based mainly on his
confession, which is inadmissible for having been obtained in gross violation of his
constitutional right against self-incrimination.
We cannot subscribe to Besonias claim that his confession and admissions during the
searching inquiry were elicited in violation of his constitutional right not to be compelled
to testify against himself. The right against self-incrimination is intended to prevent the
State, with all its coercive powers, from extracting from the suspect testimony that may
convict him and to avoid a person subjected to such compulsion to perjure himself for
his own protection
[23]

it must be stressed 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 accuseds 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
Apparently, the trial court and the prosecution unduly relied on Besonias plea of guilty
and his admissions made during the searching inquiry. The prosecution did not
discharge its obligation as seriously as it would have had there been no plea of guilt on
the part of Besonia. Its presentation of its case was lacking in assiduity that is
necessarily expected in a prosecution for a capital offense; it was too meager to be
accepted as being the standard constitutional due process at work enough to forfeit a
human life. It has been held that where the plea of guilt to a capital offense has
adversely influenced or impaired the presentation of the prosecutions case, the remand
of the case to the trial court for further proceedings is imperative.
[28]

[29]

[30]

Chavez vs. Court of Appeals

Posted on April 2, 2013 by winnieclaire

24 SCRA 663 (1968)

Facts: Judgment of conviction was for qualified theft of a motor vehicle(thunderbird car
together with accessories). An information was filed against the accused together with other
accused,that they conspired, with intent to gain and abuse of confidence without theconsent of
owner Dy Lim, took the vehicle.All the accused plead not guilty. During the trial, the fiscal
grecia (prosecution) asked roger Chavez to be thefirst witness. Counsel of the accused opposed.
Fiscal Grecia contends that the accused (Chavez) will only be an ordinary witness not an state
witness. Counsel of accused answer that it will only incriminate his client. But the jugde ruled in
favor of the fiscal.
Petitioner was convicted.
ISSUE: Whether or not constitutional right of Chavez against self incrimination had been
violated to warrant writ of HC?
HELD: YES. Petitioner was forced to testify to incriminate himself, in full breach of his
constitutional right to remain silent. It cannot be said now that he has waived his right. He did
not volunteer to take the stand and in his own defense; he did not offer himself as a witness;
Juxtaposed with the circumstances of the case heretofore adverted to, make waiver a shaky
defense. It cannot stand. If, by his own admission, defendant proved his guilt, still, his original
claim remains valid. For the privilege, we say again, is a rampart that gives protection even to
the guilty
Habeas corpus is a high prerogative writ. It is traditionally considered as an exceptional
remedy to release a person whose liberty is illegally restrained such as when the accuseds
constitutional rights are disregarded. Such defect results in the absence or loss of jurisdiction
and therefore invalidates the trial and the consequent conviction of the accused whose
fundamental right was violated. That void judgment of conviction may be challenged by
collateral attack, which precisely is the function of habeas corpus. This writ may issue even
if another remedy which is less effective may be availed of by the defendant. Thus, failure by the
accused to perfect his appeal before the Court of Appeals does not preclude a recourse to the
writ. The writ may be granted upon a judgment already final. For, as explained in Johnson vs.
Zerbst, the writ of habeas corpus as an extraordinary remedy must be liberally given effect so as
to protect well a person whose liberty is at stake. The propriety of the writ was given the nod in
that case, involving a violation of another constitutional right, in this wise:
A courts jurisdiction at the beginning of trial may be lost in the course of the proceedings due
to failure to complete the court as the Sixth Amendment requires by providing Counsel for

an accused who is unable to obtain Counsel, who has not intelligently waived this constitutional
guaranty, and whose life or liberty is at stake. If this requirement of the Sixth Amendment is not
complied with, the court no longer has jurisdiction to proceed. The judgment of conviction
pronounced by a court without jurisdiction is void, and one imprisoned thereunder may obtain
release of habeas corpus.
Under our own Rules of Court, to grant the remedy to the accused Roger Chavez whose
case presents a clear picture of disregard of a constitutional right is absolutely proper.
Section 1 of Rule 102 extends the writ, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, to all
cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or
by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.
About these ads