2. Searching Inquiry

Duty of the Court When Accused Pleads Guilty to a Capital Offense:

• Conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the plea.
• Require prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt and precise degree of culpability of the accused.
• Ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires (People v. Gumimba, 517 SCRA 25, Feb. 25, 2007).

The raison d’etre for the rule is that the courts must proceed with extreme care where the imposable penalty is death, considering that the execution of such sentence is irrevocable. Experience has shown that even innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty. Improvident pleas of guilty to a capital offense on the part of the accused must be averted since by admitting his guilt before the trial court, the accused would forfeit his life and liberty without having fully understood the meaning, significance and the dire consequences of his plea. (People v Ulit, G.R. Nos. 131799-801, 2004)

The absence of the transcript of stenographic notes of the proceedings during the arraignment do not make the procedure flawed. The minutes of the proceedings indubitably show that the judge read the Informations to the accused-appellant both in English and Tagalog, asked him questions as to his understanding of the consequences of his plea, his educational attainment and occupation. Accusedappellant could have known of the consequence of his plea having pleaded twice to the charges against him (People v Magat, G.R. No. 130026, 2000).

Elements of “Searching Inquiry”

• Judge must convince himself that accused is entering the plea voluntarily and intelligently.
• Judge must convince himself that there exists a rational basis for the finding of guilt based on accused’s testimony.
• Inform the accused of the exact length of imprisonment and the certainty that he will serve it in a national penitentiary (People v. Dayot, G.R. No. 88281, July 20, 1990).

Mandatory Nature of Searching Inquiry

It is generally mandatory on the RTC to conduct such especially in a hearing for re-arraignment. This requirement is NOT deemed complied when it was the defense who explained the consequences of the guilty plea.

However: [The SC ruled in a case] that the accused had already pleaded guilty to a much graver offense (multiple murder) based on the same act relied upon in the multiple frustrated murder charge. Prior to the change of plea, the accused had already made two confessions of guilt (1) through exclusive media interviews, and (2) through judicial admission in pretrial. Under these circumstances, it is unnecessary to rule on the sufficiency of the "searching inquiry." Remanding for re-arraignment is not needed anymore as this plea of guilt is NOT the sole basis for the judgment. (People v. Baharan, G.R. No. 188314, 2011)