G.R. No. L-68898 & G.R. No. 70445 March 31, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISTOTO LAPAZ alias TOTONG, JOHNSON BARLESO and PAULINO LAPAZ, JR., defendants.

FACTS

On the evening of April 14, 1984, 70-year-old Eulalia Cabunag was brutally beaten to death in her home in Bohol. The investigation led to three suspects: Johnson Barleso, who resented the victim after she publicly called him a thief; Cristoto Lapaz; and Paulino Lapaz, Jr. Barleso proposed the killing to Cristoto, who agreed and enlisted Paulino. The trio fortified themselves with wine, armed themselves with pieces of wood and a bolo, and entered the victim’s house through a forced opening. Barleso and Cristoto proceeded to beat the victim until she slumped to the floor. When she cried out, the three panicked and fled. Aurelio Gaudicos, the victim’s son-in-law, witnessed the three men hurriedly leaving the scene and reported their identities to the police.
Paulino Lapaz, Jr. was discharged to become a state witness. During arraignment, Cristoto Lapaz initially pleaded not guilty but later changed his plea to guilty. The trial court, after a careful inquiry ensuring he understood the consequences of his plea to a capital offense, accepted it. Johnson Barleso pleaded not guilty and underwent trial. The trial court found both appellants guilty of Murder and sentenced them to death.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the trial court correctly accepted Cristoto Lapaz’s change of plea to guilty and whether the guilt of both appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalty. The trial court did not err in accepting Cristoto Lapaz’s plea of guilty. The record shows the judge conducted a meticulous inquiry, ensuring the appellant fully understood the nature of the charge and the consequences of his plea, which was made with the assistance of counsel. His subsequent testimony during Barleso’s trial, where he admitted to the killing and detailed the circumstances, further validated the voluntariness and factual basis of his plea. For Johnson Barleso, his guilt was established through the credible testimony of the discharged state witness, Paulino Lapaz, Jr., and the corroborating testimony of eyewitness Aurelio Gaudicos. Barleso’s own extrajudicial confession and judicial admission during the preliminary investigation further cemented his culpability.
The Court found the qualifying circumstance of treachery present, as the attack was sudden and deliberate, rendering the elderly victim defenseless. However, the Court modified the penalty imposed. Citing the 1987 Constitution , which prohibits the death penalty, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence for both appellants to reclusion perpetua. The indemnity to the victim’s heirs was also increased to P30,000.00. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed with these modifications.