G.R. No.

140208      March 12, 2002 arraignment, accused-appellant entered a plea of guilty to the Information which
was read and translated to him in the Visayan dialect. Thereafter, the trial court
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, propounded clarificatory questions to accused-appellant to ascertain whether he
vs. understood the consequences of his plea.
ELPIDIO PASTOR, accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant then testified on the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty,
PUNO, J.: voluntary surrender and drunkenness which is not habitual. The prosecution
admitted the plea of guilty and voluntary surrender. Accused-appellant offered
evidence to prove drunkenness. He testified that on May 7, 1998, he drank tuba and
For automatic review is the decision of the Regional Trial Court of the City of
in his drunkenness, he was led to think bad about his daughter, herein complainant,
Tagbilaran, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 10283, dated August 30, 1999, finding
because his wife left him. He claims that it was never his intention to rape his
accused-appellant Elpidio Pastor guilty of incestuous rape and sentencing him to
daughter.3
suffer the supreme penalty of death with its accessory penalties, to indemnify the
complainant Maria Niña R. Pastor the sum of P75,000.00, and to pay the costs.1
Subsequently, the prosecution was ordered to prove the culpability of accused-
appellant. Complainant Maria Niña testified that on May 7, 1998, at about 3 o'clock
In an Information2 dated March 12, 1999, accused-appellant was charged with the
in the morning, she was raped by her father, herein accused-appellant, in their
crime of Incestuous Rape, committed as follows:
house at Catagbacan Sur, Loon, Bohol. Her parents were already separated at that
time and her mother was living in Manila. Complainant was impregnated 4 and gave
"That on or about the 7th day of May, 1998, in the Municipality of Loon, birth on December 12, 1998.5 On cross examination, complainant testified that she
Province of Bohol, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable was 13 years old at the time of the incident; 6 that she had a premature delivery and
Court, the abovenamed accused with lewd designs, entered the room of her baby died five days after birth; that nobody forced her to file the complaint
his own daughter, Maria Niña R. Pastor (accused being the biological against accused-appellant; and that she pursued the prosecution of the case
father of the victim), a 13-year-old girl, and once inside did then and there against accused-appellant knowing that he may be sentenced to death. 7
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means of force and intimidation, lie
on top of her, insert his penis in the vagina of the said offended victim,
On August 30, 1999, the court a quo rendered judgment finding accused-appellant
Maria Niña R. Pastor, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of incestuous rape. It nevertheless
against her will and without her consent resulting in the pregnancy of the
recommended the commutation of the sentence from death to reclusion perpetua by
victim, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.1âwphi1.nêt
reason of the remorseful attitude exhibited by accused-appellant. The dispositive
portion of the decision reads:
Acts committed in violation of Sec. 2, Art. 266-B, par. 1, of RA 8353,
amending [Article] 335 of the Revised Penal Code."
"WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 10283, the Court finds
accused ELPIDIO PASTOR, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
On April 8, 1999, accused-appellant was arraigned and, with the assistance of PAO of Incestuous Rape, defined under Par 1 (a) of Article 266-A and
lawyer Atty. Perpetuo Magallano, entered a plea of not guilty. penalized under Par 5, No. (1) of Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, and hereby sentences said
During the hearing on June 23, 1999, Atty. Adriano Damalerio of PAO manifested accused ELPIDIO PASTOR to suffer the supreme and indivisible penalty
that after a conference with accused-appellant, the latter had decided to change his of DEATH, in the manner provided for by law, with the accessory penalties
plea from Not Guilty to Guilty. The trial court ordered that the previous plea of not of the law, to indemnify the offended party, Maria Niña R. Pastor the sum
guilty be set aside and that accused-appellant be arraigned anew. Upon re- of P75,000.00, and to pay the costs.

1
 The Court herein was saved of its precious time in conducting (a) full- Section 3, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, viz:
dress trial because the accused pleaded guilty. The prosecution even
conformed to accused' (sic) claim of the mitigating circumstances of "SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence . - When
voluntary surrender and spontaneous plea of guilt. the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
When the accused took the witness stand to prove the circumstance of consequences of his plea and shall require the prosecution to prove his
drunkenness, which is not habitual, which was not conceded by the guilt and the precise degree of his culpability. The accused may present
prosecution, we found him to be meditative and remorseful, a behaviour evidence in his behalf."
which is quite different from other death-row convicts, who despite the
onus of the evidence against them, with insistence, persist in needlessly When a plea of guilty to a capital offense is entered, the trial court is duty bound to:
taxing the court on their claim of innocence, all throughout the trial and (1) conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea and the accused's
even after the affirmance of their conviction by our Highest Court. We full comprehension of the consequences thereof; (2) require the prosecution to
believe that accused herein should not be equated to the likes of these present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his
calloused and non-repentant offenders. culpability; and (3) inquire from the accused if he desires to present evidence on his
behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. 10 The rationale behind the rule is that the
It is therefore on the basis of the foregoing circumstances, and in the courts must proceed with more care where the possible punishment is in its
highest interest of humane and compassionate justice, that we are minded severest form, namely death, for the reason that the execution of such a sentence is
of the provisions of Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, and irrevocable and experience has shown that innocent persons have at times pleaded
hereby, without suspending the execution of the sentence herein, guilty.11 Moreover, the requirement of taking further evidence would aid this Court on
recommends unto the President of the Republic of the Philippines, thru appellate review in determining the propriety or impropriety of the plea. 12
the Secretary of Justice, the commutation of accused' ( sic) sentence from
death to reclusion perpetua. I.

Accordingly, let copy of this decision be furnished the Secretary of Justice, Anent the first requirement, the searching inquiry must determine whether the plea
Padre Faura, Manila, for whatever recommendation he may deem proper of guilt was based on a free and informed judgment. Hence, it must focus on (1) the
to His Excellency, the President of the Republic of the Philippines. voluntariness of the plea, and (2) the full comprehension of the consequences of the
plea.13 Although there is no definite and concrete rule as to how a trial judge must
SO ORDERED." conduct a "searching inquiry," we have held that the following guidelines should be
observed:
In his appellant's brief, accused-appellant avers that the trial court gravely erred in
not applying the guidelines for a plea of guilty to a capital offense provided in 1. Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into the
Section 3, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, it is custody of the law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a competent
contended that the trial court failed to conduct a searching inquiry into the counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations; and (c) under
voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the accused- what conditions he was detained and interrogated during the
appellant's plea, pursuant to the ruling laid down in the cases of People vs. investigations. This is intended to rule out the possibility that the accused
Bello8 and People vs. Dayot.9 Allegedly, the questions propounded to the accused- has been coerced or placed under a state of duress either by actual
appellant were limited to his family background and personal circumstances. threats of physical harm coming from malevolent quarters or simply
Accused-appellant thus prays that the case be remanded to the court a quo for a because of the judge's intimidating robes.
full-blown trial.

2
 2. Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he had Yes, your Honor, and the accused is now ready to enter a plea
conferred with, and completely explained to, the accused the meaning and of Guilty, and I would like to manifest, Your Honor, that the
consequences of a plea of guilty. accused was already arraigned and he entered the plea of Not
Guilty and he would like to change his plea of Not Guilty to
3. Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused, such as Guilty, Your Honor, and we move that the earlier plea of Not
his age, socio-economic status, and educational background, which may Guilty be vacated and the accused be re-arraigned.
serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed
plea of guilty. COURT:

4. Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or nature of the Let the previous plea of Not Guilty by the accused Elpidio Pastor
penalty under the law and the certainty that he will serve such sentence. be set aside and re-arraign the accused now.
For not infrequently, an accused pleads guilty in the hope of a lenient
treatment or upon bad advice or because of promises of the authorities or COURT:
parties of a lighter penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse. It is
the duty of the judge to ensure that the accused does not labor under Call the accused, Elpidio Pastor, and arraign the accused.
these mistaken impressions because a plea of guilty carries with it not
only the admission of authorship of the crime proper but also of the
aggravating circumstances attending it, that increase punishment. 14 RECORD:

5. Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is charged and COURT INTERPRETER: reads the Information of Incestuous
fully explain to him the elements of the crime which is the basis of his Rape and translated the same to the accused in Visayan
indictment. Failure of the court to do so would constitute a violation of his vernacular.
fundamental right to be informed of the precise nature of the accusation
against him and a denial of his right to due process. 15 COURT TO ACCUSED ELPIDIO PASTOR:

6. All questions posed to the accused should be in a language known and Let's ask the accused Elpidio Pastor, whether he understood the
understood by the latter.16 Information read and translated to him in the Visayan
vernacular.
7. The trial judge must satisfy himself that the accused, in pleading guilty,
is truly guilty. The accused must be required to narrate the tragedy or COURT INTERPRETER TO THE ACCUSED:
reenact the crime or furnish its missing details.17
Q       Do you understand the Information read to you?
In the case at bar, the records will show that the trial court miserably failed to
discharge its duty to conduct a "searching inquiry," to wit: ACCUSED ELPIDIO PASTOR:

"ATTY. ADRIANO DAMALERIO: A       Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:

3
Q       Now, having understood the Information, Mr. Elpidio Pastor, what is Q       Where is Goldelyn now?
your plea, guilty or not guilty? A       She is in Mindanao, Don Carlos, Mindanao.

ACCUSED ELPIDIO PASTOR: Q       Your second child, what is the name?
A       Maria Niña, Your Honor.
A       I admit, Your Honor, that I have committed a sin.
Q       Maria Niña is the private complainant in this case?
COURT: A       Yes, Your Honor.

Enter a plea of Guilty as expressed by accused Elpidio Pastor Q       How old is Maria Niña?
through his very own mouth, upon his re-arraignment today. A       14 years old, Your Honor.

COURT TO ELPIDIO PASTOR: Q       Maria Niña was living with you during the incident?
A       Yes, Your Honor.
Q       You are Elpidio Pastor?
A       Yes, Your Honor. Q       The third child, what is the name?
A       Joel.
Q       How old are you?
A       35 years old, Your Honor. Q       How old is Joel?
A       12 years old, Your Honor.
Q       You are married?
A       Yes, Your Honor. Q       How about the 4th child?
A       Rodel.
Q       What is the name of your wife?
A       Josefina Requello. Q       How old is Rodel?
A       10 years old, Your Honor.
Q       You and your wife were married in church?
A       Yes, Your Honor. Q       And the 5th child?
A       Jenelyn.
Q       Do you have children?
A       Yes, Your Honor, five (5) children. Q       How old is Jenelyn?
A       8 years old.
Q       Tell the Court the names of your children?
A       Goldelyn the eldest. Q       Your wife Josefina is living with you?
A       We got separated, Your Honor, she left for Manila and she did not
return because she had a boyfriend.
Q       How old is Goldelyn now?
A       16 years old.

4
Q       Of the five (5) children, how many children were living with you at Your Honor, we would like to present the accused himself to the
that time of the incident? witness stand to prove three (3) mitigating circumstances: First,
A       Four (4), Your Honor. the plea of guilt; Second, voluntary surrender; and Third,
drunkenness which is not habitual and at that time of the
Q       Who supported your four (4) children, Maria Niña, Joel, Rodel and incident, Your Honor, he was drunk.
Jenelyn?
A       Me and my mother. COURT TO COUNSELS:

Q       Why, what is your work? I have to inform counsels that in cases of Incestuous Rape,
A       Fisherman, Your Honor. neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances cannot (sic) be
availed of.
Q       You have changed your plea from Not Guilty to Guilty, is this
correct? ATTY. ADRIANO DAMALERIO:
A       Yes, Your Honor, that is true that I have committed a sin.
Only to save him, Your Honor, for (sic) the penalty of death.
Q       Nobody has forced you to plead guilty to this Information?
A       None, Your Honor. COURT:

Q       In other words, your pleading guilty is your free and voluntary act? Okay, let's hear the accused.
A       Yes, Your Honor. Call the accused to the witness stand.

Q       Do you know that by pleading guilty you may be sentenced to a x x x      x x x      x x x
death penalty?
A       I do not know what will be the outcome of my pleading guilty, Your ATTY. ADRIANO DAMALERIO:
Honor.
The purpose of the testimony of Elpidio Pastor, Your Honor, is
Q       The Court is now telling you, that by pleading guilty you may be to prove the three (3) mitigating circumstances: 1. Plea of guilt;
sentenced to a death penalty. 2. Voluntary surrender; and 3. Drunkenness which is not
A       Yes, Your Honor, I understand. habitual, Your Honor.

Q       Despite of your knowledge, you still insist on your plea of guilt? FISCAL HELEN T. CABATOS:
A       Yes, Your Honor.
We admit the plea of guilt, Your Honor, and the voluntary
COURT: surrender, Your Honor.

No further questions. x x x      x x x      x x x

ATTY. ADRIANO DAMALERIO:

5
DIRECT EXAMINATION ON ELPIDIO PASTOR The questions propounded by the trial court failed to show the voluntariness of the
BY: ATTY. ADRIANO DAMALERIO plea of guilt of accused-appellant nor did the questions demonstrate that he fully
understood the consequences of his plea.
Q       You have just admitted and in fact pleaded guilty to the crime which
accordingly committed (sic) on May 7, 1998, now please tell the Court why First, all the questions propounded by the court were couched in English but there is
did you do this kind of crime and what led you to do this crime? nothing in the records to show that accused-appellant had a good comprehension,
A       I have drunk tuba. or at least, a nodding acquaintance with the English language. The records also do
not show whether the judge translated and explained his questions to accused-
Q       And what did you feel after you drunk tuba? appellant in a language or dialect known and understood by the latter. 19 Accused-
A       A little bit tipsy. appellant is a simple fisherman and his educational background is unknown.

Q       You mean you are drunk? Second, the trial court failed to explain to accused-appellant the elements of the
A       Yes, sir. crime of rape. Moreover, when the trial court asked accused-appellant if he knew
that by pleading guilty he may be sentenced to a death penalty, the latter
answered "I do not know what will be the outcome of my pleading guilty, Your
Q       And because of that drunkenness, what did you do?
Honor." Given the vagueness of accused-appellant's answer, the trial court went no
A       I was led to think bad about my daughter because my wife left me.
further to find out whether or not he fully comprehended the consequences of his
plea. In addition, accused-appellant was not categorically advised that his plea of
x x x      x x x      x x x guilt would not under any circumstance affect or reduce his sentence. The records
reveal that it was the defense counsel, not accused-appellant, who was informed
CROSS EXAMINATION: and warned by the court that in cases of incestuous rape, mitigating and
aggravating circumstances do not matter.20 When accused-appellant attempted to
x x x      x x x      x x x prove the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty, voluntary surrender and
drunkenness, he was under the mistaken assumption that his liability would be
Q       I said, this is not the first time that you were drunk? reduced.21 He was not warned that the penalty of death is indivisible and is not
A       There are times that I got drunk but that was the only time that I affected by either aggravating or mitigating circumstances. 22 The trial court's
committed that kind of incident. statement that by pleading guilty he "may" be sentenced to a death penalty is
inadequate. It should have warned him, in a language that cannot be misinterpreted,
that should the court find that the qualifying circumstances alleged in the information
x x x      x x x      x x x
were proved during the trial, along with the elements of the crime of rape, he would
be meted the death penalty.23
COURT:
Third, when accused-appellant was questioned by the court as to the act he
x x x      x x x      x x x committed, he answered that he "was led to think bad about my daughter because
my wife left me." Again, the answer is hardly comprehensible yet, the court failed to
Q       Now, did you purposely take tuba in order to commit crime ( sic) probe deeper into the material details of the crime.
against your child?
A       When I drunk (sic), Your Honor, that was not my intention to do it."18

6
We hold that in the absence of a "searching inquiry" into the voluntariness of the x x x      x x x      x x x
plea of guilt of accused-appellant and his full comprehension of the consequences
thereof, the re-arraignment of accused-appellant is fatally flawed. Q       Now, if you can recall, when was that that your father raped you?
A       May 7, 1998.
II.
Q       Where did it happen?
The second requirement prescribes that the trial court must order the prosecution to A       In our house.
prove the guilt of the accused-appellant and the precise degree of his culpability
beyond reasonable doubt. It must be stressed that under the 1985 Rules of Criminal Q       Where is your house located?
Procedure, a conviction in capital offenses cannot rest alone on a plea of guilt. The A       Catagbacan Sur, Loon, Bohol.
prosecution evidence must be sufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction
independently of the plea of guilty.24 Q       Can you recall what time was that, that your father sexually abused
you?
In the case at bar, complainant Maria Niña testified as follows: A       That was 3:00 o'clock dawn.

"Q       Ma. Niña, the accused in this case is Elpidio Pastor, how are you Q       By the way, where was your mother at that time when your father
related to him? sexually abused you?
A       My father. A       My mother is not there.

Q       If your father is inside this court room today please point ( sic) him? x x x      x x x      x x x
A       That one, ma'am.
Q       What was the result of that sexual abused (sic)  committed by your
x x x      x x x      x x x father on May 7, 1998?
A       I got ill and always vomit.
Q       Were you present during the arraignment of your father, the
accused in this case? Q       What was the caused (sic) of vomiting?
A       Yes, maam. A       I was pregnant.

Q       And you heard him pleaded (sic) guilty to the crime charge (sic)? Q       Were you examined by a doctor, to prove that you were pregnant of
A       Yes maam, I heard. that rape incident?
A       Yes, maam.
Q       Having heard your father admitted (sic) the crime charged against
him, do you still insist to pursue in prosecuting this case? x x x      x x x      x x x
A       Yes, Your Honor.
Q       Now, you said that you were pregnant, eventually did you give birth
COURT: of (sic) a child?
A       Yes, maam.
Record that the witness is crying.

7
 Q       When did you give birth? As heretofore discussed, the plea of guilty of accused-appellant was made
A       December 12, 1998. improvidently. Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside if
such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If, however, the trial court relied on
Q       And where is your baby now? sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused, the conviction must be
A       She died. 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. 29
x x x      x x x      x x x
A perusal of the decision of the trial court will reveal that the judge failed to state the
factual and legal reasons on which he based accused-appellant's conviction. The
Q       What did you feel about the sexual assault committed by your father
judge merely stated that the complainant "positively declared that on May 7, 1998,
against you?
her father (the accused in this case), without her consent, forcibly obtained carnal
A       I'm mad.
knowledge with her, which resulted in her being pregnant." He then concluded that
the lone testimony of the victim, if credible, is enough to sustain a conviction, and
Q       What else did you feel? made a bare recital of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
A       Angry. R.A. 8353. There is no discussion of the facts of the case and the qualifying
circumstances alleged in the information, in utter disregard of the constitutional
Q       Is that all your feelings because of this incident? injunction that "no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing
A       I'm also sad. therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based." 30

x x x      x x x      x x x Also, there is no evaluation of the evidence and no reason given why the court
found that the testimony of the complainant is credible. We note that the first
FISCAL HELEN T. CABATOS: question asked of the complainant in her direct examination was if she could recall
when she was raped by the accused-appellant. It did not elicit the specific details as
No further questions, Your Honor. to how the rape was committed against complainant. The prosecution simply
presumed that the complainant was indeed raped on the basis of the plea of guilty
of accused-appellant.
COURT:
Moreover, there was practically no evidence presented to prove force and
Cross.
intimidation as well as the relationship of accused-appellant with complainant. It is
true that our jurisprudence is replete with cases where the moral ascendancy of a
ATTY. ADRIANO DAMALERIO: parent over his child has been allowed to justify a finding that there was intimidation
sufficient to convict the accused of incestuous rape. However, in the case of People
No cross, Your Honor, accused had already pleaded guilty."25 vs. Alberto Chua,31 we held that the mere fact that accused-appellant is her father
and therefore exercises moral ascendancy over his daughter cannot ipso
The prosecution formally offered its documentary evidence which consist of the birth facto justify this Court to conclude that the victim was intimidated. Thus, we held:
certificate of complainant to prove that she was 13 years old at the time of the
incident and that accused-appellant is her father, 26 and two medical certificates, one "There must be some evidence of intimidation employed on the victim as
showing that complainant has been pregnant for 23-3/7 weeks, 27 and the other that to indubitably show how vitiated the victim's consent was to the violation of
she gave birth to a baby girl who died five days thereafter. 28 her womanhood. After all, rape is committed against or without the

8
 consent of the victim. x x x The court cannot rely on presumptions of Very glaring is the manifest lack of enthusiasm of the defense counsel, Atty.
moral ascendancy x x x [which] cannot and should not prevail over the Damalerio, for his client's cause when he refused to cross examine the complainant,
constitutional presumption of innocence. Force or intimidation is an on the pretext that accused-appellant has pleaded guilty. We reiterate that it is the
element of the crime of rape. There must, therefore, be proof beyond bounden duty of lawyers to protect the constitutional right of an accused even when
reasonable doubt that the victim did not resist her defloration due to the he has pleaded guilty to the crime charged, viz.:
moral ascendancy of the accused."
"It may be so that defense counsel personally found Oleby's testimony to
We have ruled that it is the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her be believable. Nonetheless, he had the bounden duty to scrutinize private
relationship with the offender that would qualify the rape as heinous and thus justify complainant's testimony to ensure that the accused's constitutional right to
the imposition of the supreme penalty.32 Both qualifying circumstances of age and confront and examine the witnesses against him was not rendered for
relationship must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial. In the naught.
case at bar, the qualifying circumstance of relationship was not established beyond
moral certainty. The rule is that relationship, as a qualifying circumstance of rape, It bears pointing out that in rape cases, it is often the word of the
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, just as the crime itself. It has been held complainant against that of the accused, the two being the only persons
that the bare testimony of the complainant and the admission of accused-appellant present during the commission of the offense. While the lone testimony of
as to their relationship is not sufficient. 33 The birth certificate of herein complainant the victim is sufficient to convict the accused, such testimony must be
which was not duly certified cannot be given probative value insofar as the clear, positive, convincing and consistent with human nature and the
relationship of complainant with accused-appellant is concerned. 34 Since the normal course of things. Complainant's testimony cannot be accepted with
relationship of complainant to accused-appellant has not been sufficiently precipitate credulity without denying the accused's constitutional right to
established, it was error for the trial court to impose the penalty of death. be presumed innocent. This is where cross examination becomes
essential to test the credibility of the witnesses, expose falsehoods or half-
In addition, the trial court, in convicting accused-appellant, considered pieces of truths, uncover the truth which rehearsed direct examination testimonies
evidence presented by the prosecution that are inadmissible for being hearsay. The may successfully suppress, and demonstrate inconsistencies in
prosecution merely asked complainant to identify the two medical certificates substantial matters which create reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the
relating to her pregnancy without presenting the doctors who issued the accused and thus to give substance to the constitutional right of the
certifications to testify thereon. The defense counsel failed to object to the accused to confront the witnesses against him. For unless proven
documentary evidence of the prosecution and worse, even expressed his conformity otherwise to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused is
to its admission. Such lapses should not have been allowed by the trial court presumed to be innocent. 1âwphi1.nêt
considering that it was trying a case where a life was at stake. Life cannot be lost
due to the ignorance of counsel. x x x      x x x      x x x

III. Atty. Brotonel, as counsel de oficio, had the duty to defend his client and
protect his rights, no matter how guilty or evil he perceives accused-
Under the third requirement, the court must ask the accused if he desires to present appellant to be. The performance of this duty was all the more imperative
evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. In the present case, because the life of accused-appellant hangs in the balance. His duty was
there is nothing in the records to show that accused-appellant was informed, either no less because he was counsel de oficio."35
by his counsel or by the court, of his right to present evidence, if he so desires.
This utter lack of concern is further aggravated by Atty. Damalerio's lackadaisical
and perfunctory discharge of his obligation to present evidence in behalf of accused-

9
appellant. After the prosecution rested its case, Atty. Damalerio manifested that
since the accused-appellant had already pleaded guilty, he is not presenting any
defense, and merely prayed that his client be credited with the mitigating
circumstances earlier claimed by him.36 To say the least, Atty. Damalerio's attitude
falls short of the noble duty of a lawyer to defend an accused however guilty he may
appear to be if only to assure that his prosecution is in accord with the procedure
laid down by our law. In cannot be over emphasized that even the guilty cannot be
prosecuted by means revolting to the civilized demands of due process.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the judgment appealed from is SET ASIDE. The case
is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings in accord with the guidelines
set forth in this Decision.

SO ORDERED.

10