People v.

Holgado
GR No. L-2809. March 22, 1950

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. FRISCO HOLGADO, defendant and appellant.

Facts:
Appellant Frisco Holgado was charged with slight illegal detention. During trial, Holgado was merely asked,
“Do you have an attorney or are you going to plead guilty?” After which, Holgado pleaded guilty without a
lawyer but by the instruction of a Mr. Ocampo. The provincial fiscal confirmed that Ocampo had nothing to
do with the case. He was thereafter found guilty of a capital offense and imposed the penalty of ten to
twenty years.

Issue:
Whether or not defendant’s plea of guilty without a lawyer should be given merit

Ruling:
No. When an accused unaided by counsel qualifiedly admits his guilt to an ambiguous or vague information
from which a serious crime can be deduced, it is not prudent for the trial court to render a serious judgment
finding the accused guilty of a capital offense without absolutely any evidence to determine and clarify the
true facts of the case.

Duties of the court if no counsel

Under Rule 112, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court, when a defendant appears without an attorney, the court has
four important duties to comply with: (1) it must inform the defendant that it is his right to have an attorney
before being arraigned; (2) after giving him such information, the court must ask if he desires the aid of an
attorney; (3) if he desires and is unable to employ attorney, the court must assign an attorney de oficio to
defend him; (4) and if the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own the court must grant him a
reasonable time therefor.

In this case, none of the duties were complied with by the trial court. The question asked to accused failed
to inform him of his right to an attorney before arraignment, and could have been construed as a suggestion
from the court that he plead guilty if he had no attorney. This is a denial of fair hearing in violation of the
due process clause under the Constitution.

Right to be heard by counsel

In criminal cases, the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel, otherwise the right to
be heard would be of little avail. Without counsel, an accused may be convicted not be cause he is guilty
but because he does not know how to establish his innocence; this is why the right to be assisted by counsel
is deemed so important that it has become a constitutional right and is so implemented in the rules of
procedure. Thus, it is not enough to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney, but it is essential
that the court should assign one de oficio for him if he so desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable
time to procure an attorney of his own.

Moreover, in the present case, the accused was unaided by counsel but pleaded guilty with the qualification
that he was instructed by Mr. Ocampo. However, the court failed to inquire the truth of the supposed
instruction and its reference to the commission of the offense or the making of the plea of guilty. The court
was satisfied with the fiscal’s information that Mr. Ocampo had been investigated and found that he had
nothing to do with this case- however, a mere statement of the fiscal is insufficient to overcome a qualified
plea of the accused. Above all, the court should have seen to it that the accused be assisted by counsel
specially because of the qualified plea he gave and the seriousness of the capital offense found by court.

Therefore, judgement is reversed and the case is remanded to the Court for a new arraignment and a new
trial after the accused is deprived of his right to have and to be assisted by counsel.