G.R. No. 48248; October 29, 1941
EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS, plaintiff and appellee, vs. SIXTO DOMENDED, defendant and appellant.

FACTS

Sixto Domenden was charged with the crime of homicide for killing Aniceto Cachero. In the Justice of the Peace Court of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, he formally waived his right to a preliminary investigation. Consequently, his case was elevated to the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, where the Provincial Fiscal filed a formal complaint. On January 9, 1941, the appellant was informed of the complaint. According to the court, he “freely and spontaneously” pleaded guilty. He was then sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight years of prision mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of two thousand pesos, and to pay the costs. The record of the proceedings shows that when the complaint was read to him, only the Fiscal and the accused were present; the appellant appeared alone, without a lawyer. The complaint was interpreted to him in the local dialect. It does not appear from the record that before the complaint was read, the court informed him of his right to be assisted by counsel. After his conviction, the appellant requested permission to withdraw his plea of “guilty” and substitute it with a plea of “not guilty,” which the court denied.

ISSUE

1. Did the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur err in failing to inform the appellant of his right to be assisted by a lawyer before the complaint was read to him?
2. Did the court err in denying his petition to withdraw his plea of “guilty” and substitute it with a plea of “not guilty”?

RULING

1. Yes, the trial court erred. The court failed to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 3, Rule 112 of the New Rules of Court, which requires that if an accused appears without an attorney, the court must inform him of his right to have one, and before he is arraigned, ask him if he desires the aid of counsel. If he so desires and is unable to employ one, the court must assign a counsel de oficio. The record clearly shows the appellant appeared alone and the complaint had to be interpreted. He was unversed in procedural matters and not well-educated. The court could not presume he was informed of this right, as the contrary was evident from the clerk’s record. A plea of guilty made without the accused being informed of and effectively waiving his constitutional right to counsel is invalid. This right is part of due process of law.
2. Yes, the trial court erred in denying the motion to withdraw the plea. While under Section 6, Rule 114 of the New Rules of Court, it is discretionary for a court to allow the withdrawal of a plea of guilty after a sentence has been imposed, in a case like this where the court knew or ought to have known that the appellant did not fully comprehend the consequences of his plea—first, because he was unassisted by counsel, and second, because he was a layman unlearned in the law—the court did not properly exercise its discretion and abused it. By denying the motion, the court deprived him of due process of law.
The appealed judgment is set aside. The case is remanded to the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur with instructions to permit the accused to withdraw his plea of guilty and enter a plea of not guilty, and thereafter to grant him a corresponding trial to determine his guilt or innocence of the crime of homicide. Costs de oficio.