Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    FACTS: The Accused Appellants Had Kidnapped Lucia Chan and Deprived Her of Her Liberty

    Uploaded by

    Shanielle Qim Cañeda
    The accused appellants had kidnapped Lucia Chan and demanded a ransom of 400,000 pesos for her release. The suspects were apprehended in Pasay City and Calamba Laguna. During trial, the accused pleaded guilty to kidnapping for ransom. However, the trial court failed to ensure the accused fully understood the consequences of their plea. Specifically, the accused had the mistaken belief that pleading guilty would mitigate their penalty, which is not the case for kidnapping under Article 63. While convictions based solely on an improvident guilty plea are normally set aside, in this case the court relied on sufficient evidence to convict so the convictions were sustained.

    Copyright:

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

    FACTS: The Accused Appellants Had Kidnapped Lucia Chan and Deprived Her of Her Liberty

    Uploaded by

    Shanielle Qim Cañeda
    73 views1 page
    The accused appellants had kidnapped Lucia Chan and demanded a ransom of 400,000 pesos for her release. The suspects were apprehended in Pasay City and Calamba Laguna. During trial, the accused pleaded guilty to kidnapping for ransom. However, the trial court failed to ensure the accused fully understood the consequences of their plea. Specifically, the accused had the mistaken belief that pleading guilty would mitigate their penalty, which is not the case for kidnapping under Article 63. While convictions based solely on an improvident guilty plea are normally set aside, in this case the court relied on sufficient evidence to convict so the convictions were sustained.

    Original Title

    Gambao Digest

    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 accused appellants had kidnapped Lucia Chan and demanded a ransom of 400,000 pesos for her release. The suspects were apprehended in Pasay City and Calamba Laguna. During trial, the accused pleaded guilty to kidnapping for ransom. However, the trial court failed to ensure the accused fully understood the consequences of their plea. Specifically, the accused had the mistaken belief that pleading guilty would mitigate their penalty, which is not the case for kidnapping under Article 63. While convictions based solely on an improvident guilty plea are normally set aside, in this case the court relied on sufficient evidence to convict so the convictions were sustained.

    Copyright:

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

    FACTS: The Accused Appellants Had Kidnapped Lucia Chan and Deprived Her of Her Liberty

    Uploaded by

    Shanielle Qim Cañeda
    The accused appellants had kidnapped Lucia Chan and demanded a ransom of 400,000 pesos for her release. The suspects were apprehended in Pasay City and Calamba Laguna. During trial, the accused pleaded guilty to kidnapping for ransom. However, the trial court failed to ensure the accused fully understood the consequences of their plea. Specifically, the accused had the mistaken belief that pleading guilty would mitigate their penalty, which is not the case for kidnapping under Article 63. While convictions based solely on an improvident guilty plea are normally set aside, in this case the court relied on sufficient evidence to convict so the convictions were sustained.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    172707 October 1, 2013

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HALIL GAMBAO Y ESMAIL

    FACTS: The accused appellants had kidnapped Lucia Chan and deprived her of her liberty
    against her will for the purpose of extorting ransom as in fact a demand for ransom
    was made as a condition for her release amounting to FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND
    PESOS (P400,000.00). The surveillance team of in Pasay City, however was able to
    apprehend the suspects in “Chowking” Buendia where the ransom money was
    agreed to be delivered. The other remaining suspects where apprehended in a house in
    Pansol, Calamba Laguna. During the hearing and after the victim and her son testified,
    the accused-appellant changed their plea from not guilty to guilty of the crime of
    Kidnap for Ransom. The trial court separately asked each of the appellants namely if
    they understood the consequence of changing their pleas. All of them answered in the
    affirmative. They were found guilty by the trial court which was affirmed by the CA.

    ISSUE: Whether the plea of guilty was validly entered?

    RULING: No. The duties of the trial court when the accused pleads guilty to a capital
    offense are (1) conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of
    the consequences of the plea of guilt, (2) require the prosecution to still prove the guilt of
    the accused and the precise degree of his culpability, and (3) inquire whether or not the
    accused wishes to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.

    The 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 forfeiting
    his life and liberty without having fully understood the meaning, significance and
    consequence of his plea.

    In this case, the questions propounded by the trial court judge failed to ensure that
    accused-appellants fully understood the consequences of their plea. Appellants’ had the
    mistaken assumption that his plea of guilt would mitigate the imposable penalty and that
    both the judge and his counsel failed to explain to him that such plea of guilt will not
    mitigate the penalty pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.

    As a general rule, convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside and the
    cases are remanded for further proceedings if such plea is the sole basis of judgement. If
    the trial court, however, relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused, as
    it did in this case, the conviction must be sustained, because then it is predicated not
    merely on the guilty plea but on evidence proving the commission of the offense charged.

    You might also like