Right to be heard personally or by a counsel

People V. Holgado

G.R. No. L-2809 | March 22, 1950

Facts:
Accused Frisco Holgado pleaded guilty upon arraignment for the offense of kidnapping and serious
detention without the aid of an attorney. The only question that was asked to him is whether he has an
attorney or does he plead guilty, where the accused responded that he has no lawyer and that he pleads
guilty as instructed by on Mr, Ocampo, whom the Fiscal found out that such Mr. Ocampo has nothing to
do with the case. There is also an inconsistency as the caption of the case appears that the offense
charged is named “slight illegal detention” while in the body of the judgment, it is said that the accused
“stands charged with the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.” While in the information filed
by the provincial fiscal, it is said to be a crime of “slight illegal detention.” Since the accused-appellant
pleaded guilty and no evidence appears to have been presented by either party, the trial court judge must
have deduced the the capital offense from the facts pleaded in the information.

Issue:
Whether the constitutional right of the accused to be aided by or to be informed of the right to have an
attorney have been violated.

Held:

Yes. Under the circumstances, particularly the qualified plea given by the accused who was unaided by
counsel, it was not prudent, to say the least, for the trial court to render such a serious judgment finding
the accused guilty of a capital offense, and imposing upon him such a heavy penalty as ten years and
one day of prision mayor to twenty years, without absolute any evidence to determine and clarify the true
facts of the case. The proceedings in the trial court are irregular from the beginning. It is expressly
provided in our rules of Court, Rule 112, section 3, that the court has four important duties to comply
with:

1 — It must inform the defendant that it is his right to have attorney before being arraigned;

2 — After giving him such information the court must ask him if he desires the aid of an attorney;

3 — If he desires and is unable to employ attorney, the court must assign attorney de oficio to defend
him; and
4 — If the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own the court must grant him a reasonable time
therefor.

Not one of these duties had been complied with by the trial court. The record discloses that said court did
not inform the accused of his right to have an attorney nor did it ask him if he desired the aid of one. The
trial court failed to inquire whether or not the accused was to employ an attorney, to grant him reasonable
time to procure or assign an attorney de oficio. The question asked by the court to the accused was "Do
you have an attorney or are you going to plead guilty?" Not only did such a question fail to inform the
accused that it was his right to have an attorney before arraignment, but, what is worse, the question was
so framed that it could have been construed by the accused as a suggestion from the court that he plead
guilty if he had no attorney. And this is a denial of fair hearing in violation of the due process clause
contained in our Constitution.