Scribd
Upload
655 views1 page

People Vs Holgado

Frisco Holgado was charged with slight illegal detention for kidnapping and detaining Artemia Fabreag for eight hours. He pleaded guilty without a lawyer. The trial court failed to inform Holgado of his right to counsel or assign him a public defender. The court also did not investigate Holgado's statement that he was following instructions from Mr. Ocampo. The Supreme Court held that Holgado's right to due process was violated because he was not given the opportunity to be heard by counsel.

Uploaded by

Aki Lacanlalay
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
655 views1 page

People Vs Holgado

Frisco Holgado was charged with slight illegal detention for kidnapping and detaining Artemia Fabreag for eight hours. He pleaded guilty without a lawyer. The trial court failed to inform Holgado of his right to counsel or assign him a public defender. The court also did not investigate Holgado's statement that he was following instructions from Mr. Ocampo. The Supreme Court held that Holgado's right to due process was violated because he was not given the opportunity to be heard by counsel.

Uploaded by

Aki Lacanlalay
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People Vs. Holgado (85 Phil 752 G.R. No.

L-2809 March 22, 1950) Facts: Appellant Frisco Holgado was charged in the court of First Instance of Romblon with slight illegal detention because according to the information, being a private person, he did "feloniously and without justifiable motive, kidnap and detain one Artemia Fabreag in the house of Antero Holgado for about eight hours thereby depriving said Artemia Fabreag of her personal liberty. He pleaded guilty (without a counsel) and said that he was just instructed by Mr. Ocampo, which no evidence was presented to indict the latter. Issue: Whether or Not there was any irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court. Held: Yes. Rule 112, section 3 of ROC that : If the defendant appears without attorney, he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have attorney being arraigned., and must be asked if he desires the aid of attorney, the Court must assign attorney de oficio to defend him. A reasonable time must be allowed for procuring attorney. This was violated. Moreso the guarantees of our Constitution that "no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law", and that all accused "shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel." In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel.

The trial court failed to inquire as to the true import of the qualified plea of accused. The record does not show whether the supposed instructions of Mr. Ocampo was real and whether it had reference to the commission of the offense or to the making of the plea guilty. No investigation was opened by the court on this matter in the presence of the accused and there is now no way of determining whether the supposed instruction is a good defense or may vitiate the voluntariness of the confession. Apparently the court became satisfied with the fiscal's information that he had investigated Mr. Ocampo and found that the same had nothing to do with this case. Such attitude of the court was wrong for the simple reason that a mere statement of the fiscal was not sufficient to overcome a qualified plea of the accused. But above all, the court should have seen to it that the accused be assisted by counsel especially because of the qualified plea given by him and the seriousness of the offense found to be capital by the court.

You might also like