PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. KHADDAFY JANJALANI, GAMAL B. BAHARAN a.k.a.

Tapay, ANGELO TRINIDAD a.k.a. Abu Khalil, GAPPAL BANNAH ASALI a.k.a. Maidan or Negro, JAINAL
SALI a.k.a. Abu Solaiman, ROHMAT ABDURROHIM a.k.a. Jackie or Zaky, and other JOHN and JANE DOES,
Accused,GAMAL B. BAHARAN a.k.a. Tapay, ANGELO TRINIDAD a.k.a. Abu Khalil, and ROHMAT
ABDURROHIM a.k.a. Abu Jackie or Zaky, Accused-Appellants.

Facts:

Members of the Abu Sayyaf Group - Janjalani, Baharan, Trinidad, Gappal Bannah Asali, Jainal Asali, Rohmat
Abdurrohim a.k.a. Abu Jackie or Zaky, and other "John" and "Jane Does" - were then charged with multiple
murder and multiple frustrated murder in connection with their involvement with the Valentine’s Day
Bombing of an RRCG bus during the time of President Macapagal Arroyo.

Only Baharan, Trinidad, Asali, and Rohmat were arrested, while the other accused remain at-large.

During pretrial, accused Trinidad gave ABS-CBN News Network an exclusive interview some time after the
incident, confessing his participation in the Valentine's Day bombing incident. In another exclusive
interview on the network, accused Baharan likewise admitted his role in the bombing incident. Finally,
accused Asali gave a television interview, confessing that he had supplied the explosive devices for the 14
February 2005 bombing. The bus conductor identified the accused Baharan and Trinidad, and confirmed
that they were the two men who had entered the RRCG bus on the evening of 14 February.

On their arraignment for the multiple murder charge, Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali all entered a plea of
guilty. On the other hand, upon arraignment for the multiple frustrated murder charge accused Asali pled
guilty. Accused Trinidad and Baharan pled not guilty. Rohmat pled not guilty to both charges.

During the pretrial hearing, the parties stipulated the following:

1.) The jurisdiction of this court over the offenses charged.
2.) That all three accused namely alias Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali admitted knowing one another before February 14, 2005.
3.) All the same three accused likewise admitted that a bomb exploded in the RRCG bus while the bus was plying the EDSA route fronting the
MRT terminal which is in front of the Makati Commercial Center.
4.) Accused Asali admitted knowing the other accused alias Rohmat whom he claims taught him how to make explosive devices.
5.) The accused Trinidad also admitted knowing Rohmat before the February 14 bombing incident.
6.) The accused Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali all admitted to causing the bomb explosion inside the
RRCG bus which left four people dead and more or less forty persons injured.
7.) Both Baharan and Trinidad agreed to stipulate that within the period March 20-24 each gave
separate interviews to the ABS-CBN news network admitting their participation in the commission of
the said crimes, subject of these cases.
8.) Accused Trinidad and Baharan also admitted to pleading guilty to these crimes, because they were guilt-stricken after seeing a man
carrying a child in the first bus that they had entered.
9.) Accused Asali likewise admitted that in the middle of March 2005 he gave a television news interview in which he admitted that he
supplied the explosive devices which resulted in this explosion inside the RRCG bus and which resulted in the filing of these charges.
10.) Finally, accused Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali admitted that they are members of the Abu Sayyaf.

In the light of the pretrial stipulations, the trial court asked whether accused Baharan and Trinidad were
amenable to changing their "not guilty" pleas to the charge of multiple frustrated murder, considering
that they pled "guilty" to the heavier charge of multiple murder, creating an apparent inconsistency in
their pleas. Defense counsel conferred with accused Baharan and Trinidad and explained to them the
consequences of the pleas. The two accused acknowledged the inconsistencies and manifested their
readiness for re-arraignment. After the Information was read to them, Baharan and Trinidad pled guilty
to the charge of multiple frustrated murder.

Transcript shows:

Court : Anyway, I think what we should have to do, considering the stipulations that were agreed upon during the last hearing, is to
address this matter of pleas of not guilty entered for the frustrated murder charges by the two accused, Mr. Trinidad and Mr.
Baharan, because if you will recall they entered pleas of guilty to the multiple murder charges, but then earlier pleas of not guilty for
the frustrated multiple murder charges remain… [I]s that not inconsistent considering the stipulations that were entered into during
the initial pretrial of this case? [If] you will recall, they admitted to have caused the bomb explosion that led to the death of at least
four people and injury of about forty other persons and so under the circumstances, Atty Peña, have you discussed this matter with
your clients?

Atty. Peña : Then we should be given enough time to talk with them. I haven’t conferred with them about this with regard to the
multiple murder case.
Court : Okay. So let us proceed now. Atty. Peña, can you assist the two accused because if they are interested in withdrawing their
[pleas], I want to hear it from your lips.

Atty. Peña : Yes, your Honor.

(At this juncture, Atty. Peña confers with the two accused, namely Trinidad and Baharan)

I have talked to them, your Honor, and I have explained to them the consequence of their pleas, your Honor, and that the plea of
guilt to the murder case and plea of not guilty to the frustrated multiple murder actually are inconsistent with their pleas.

Court : With matters that they stipulated upon?

Atty. Peña : Yes, your Honor. So, they are now, since they already plead guilt to the murder case, then they are now changing their
pleas, your Honor, from not guilty to the one of guilt. They are now ready, your Honor, for re-arraignment

INTERPRETER: (Read again that portion [of the information] and translated it in Filipino in a clearer way and asked both accused
what their pleas are).

Your Honor, both accused are entering separate pleas of guilt to the crime charged.

COURT : All right. So after the information was re-read to the accused, they have withdrawn their pleas of not guilty and changed it
to the pleas of guilty to the charge of frustrated murder. Thank you. Are there any matters you need to address at pretrial now? If
there are none, then I will terminate pretrial and accommodate…5

Accused-appellants Baharan and Trinidad argue that the trial court did not conduct a searching inquiry
after they had changed their plea from "not guilty" to "guilty."

Issues:

1. W/N the trial court gravely erred in accepting accused-appellants' plea of guilt despite
insufficiency of searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of the said plea. – (COURT DID NOT RULE ON THIS, but made )
2. W/N The trial court gravely erred in finding that the guilt of accused-appellants for the crimes
charged had been proven beyond reasonable doubt

Held:

1. The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry should not be deemed satisfied in cases in which
it was the defense counsel who explained the consequences of a "guilty" plea to the accused, as
it appears in this case. In People v. Alborida, this Court found that there was still an improvident
plea of guilty, even if the accused had already signified in open court that his counsel had
explained the consequences of the guilty plea; that he understood the explanation of his counsel;
that the accused understood that the penalty of death would still be meted out to him; and that
he had not been intimidated, bribed, or threatened

The Supreme Court has ruled that "all trial judges ... must refrain from accepting with alacrity an
accused's plea of guilty, for while justice demands a speedy administration, judges are duty bound
to be extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty, he understands fully the
meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable conviction."6 Thus, trial court judges are
required to observe the following procedure under Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. - When the accused pleads guilty
to a capital offense, 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. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf.

in a long line of cases that the conduct of a searching inquiry remains the duty of judges, as they
are mandated by the rules to satisfy themselves that the accused had not been under coercion or
duress; mistaken impressions; or a misunderstanding of the significance, effects, and
consequences of their guilty plea.10 This requirement is stringent and mandatory

Nevertheless, we are not unmindful of the context under which the re-arraignment was
conducted or of the factual milieu surrounding the finding of guilt against the accused. The Court
observes that accused Baharan and Trinidad previously pled guilty to another charge - multiple
 murder - based on the same act relied upon in the multiple frustrated murder charge. The Court
further notes that prior to the change of plea to one of guilt, accused Baharan and Trinidad made
two other confessions of guilt - one through an extrajudicial confession (exclusive television
interviews, as stipulated by both accused during pretrial), and the other via judicial admission
(pretrial stipulation). Considering the foregoing circumstances, we deem it unnecessary to rule on
the sufficiency of the "searching inquiry" in this instance. Remanding the case for re-arraignment
is not warranted, as the accused's plea of guilt was not the sole basis of the condemnatory
judgment under consideration.

2. Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside ONLY if such plea is the sole
basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the
accused, the conviction must be sustained, because then it is predicated not merely on the guilty
plea of the accused but on evidence proving his commission of the offense charged.

Insofar as accused-appellants Baharan and Trinidad are concerned, the evidence for the
prosecution, in addition to that which can be drawn from the stipulation of facts, primarily
consisted of the testimonies of the bus conductor, Elmer Andales, and of the accused-turned-
state-witness, Asali. Andales positively identified accused Baharan and Trinidad as the two men
who had acted suspiciously while inside the bus; who had insisted on getting off the bus in
violation of a Makati ordinance; and who had scampered away from the bus moments before the
bomb exploded. On the other hand, Asali testified that he had given accused Baharan and Trinidad
the TNT used in the bombing incident in Makati City. The guilt of the accused Baharan and Trinidad
was sufficiently established by these corroborating testimonies, coupled with their respective
judicial admissions (pretrial stipulations) and extrajudicial confessions (exclusive television
interviews, as they both stipulated during pretrial) that they were indeed the perpetrators of the
Valentine's Day bombing.15 Accordingly, the Court upholds the findings of guilt made by the trial
court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Anent accused Rohmat, the evidence for the
prosecution consisted of the testimony of accused-turned-state-witness Asali

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, as affirmed with
modification by the Court of Appeals, is hereby AFFIRMED.