12. G.R. No.

L-34091

January 30, 1973

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GEORGE DAENG,

CONRADO BAUTISTA, GERARDO ABUHIN, and ROLANDO CASTILLO, defendantsappellants.
L.M. Cabasal as Counsel de Oficio for defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
Daeng and three other were prisoners in the New Bilibid Prison. They were accused of
killing another inmate hence they were charged for murder. The court appointed Atty. Jose
Galvan as their counsel de oficio. The three initially pleaded not guilty. Shortly before the
trial was adjourned for another date, the trial judge addressed the following words to the
defendants:
I understand that you are confused and you are not ready to plead guilty to the
crime charged but the court is, however, giving you today and tonight up to 8:00 o'clock in
the morning tomorrow to make a soul search, concentrate and ask your heart, mind and
body as to the consequence of your act because under Art. 160 of the Revised Penal Code,
by virtue of the crime that you have committed, the Court has no alternative except to
impose the death penalty which is the maximum penalty provided for by Art. 248 of the
Revised Penal Code. So, I repeat again that you make a thorough soul searching as to the
consequence of your act and the life you will face in the future that is death. You have to
understand that the duty of this Court is merely to interpret and apply the law and it has no
power to assume the executive authority to pardon you or parole you or lower the penalty.
This Court has the duty alone which is to apply the law. That is his primary duty. It is up for
the executive department to give you the necessary clemency if they deem it necessary, so
I am giving you up to tomorrow at 8:00 o'clock, June 29, to make up your minds.
On the following day, June 29, 1971, the defendants, assisted by counsel de oficio,
withdrew their former plea of "not guilty" and substituted that of "guilty." Allowing the
change of pleas, the trial judge forthwith dictated and promulgated his decision in open
court. All the four defendants were sentenced to death.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conviction should be set aside
HELD: Yes.
The four accused were not afforded due process and their conviction is attended by
dubious circumstances. A judge must refrain from accepting with alacrity an accuseds plea
of guilty, for while justice demands a speedy administration, judges are duty bound to be
extra solicitous in seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty he understands fully the
meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable conviction.
On the other hand, the court noticed that Atty. Jose Galvan has been repeatedly
assigned as counsel de oficio by the same trial judge in other cases therein. The Supreme
Court cautioned against the frequent appointment of the same attorney as counsel de oficio,
for two basic reasons: first, it is unfair to the attorney concerned, considering the burden of
his regular practice that he should be saddled with too many de officio cases; and, second,
the compensation provided for by Section 32 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (a fixed fee of
P500 in capital offense) might be considered by some lawyers as a regular source of income,
something which the Rule does not envision. In every case, the accused stands to suffer
because the overburdened counsel would have too little time to spare for his de officio
cases, and also would be inordinately eager to finish such cases in order to collect his fees
within the earliest possible time.