7/28/2017 GamasvsOco:AMMTJ991231:March17,2004:JCarpio:FirstDivision:Decision

FIRSTDIVISION

[A.M.No.MTJ991231.March17,2004]

ANTONIO GAMAS and FLORENCIO SOBRIO, complainants, vs. JUDGE

ORLANDO A. OCO, in his capacity as presiding judge of Municipal Trial
Court, Polomolok, South Cotabato and PNP SPO4 WILLIE ADULACION in
his capacity as public prosecutor of MTCPolomolok, South Cotabato,
respondents.

DECISION
CARPIO,J.:

TheCase

This is a complaint for grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law filed by complainants
Antonio Gamas and Florencio Sobrio (complainants) against Judge Orlando A. Oco (respondent
[1]
judge), former Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court, Polomolok, South Cotabato (MTC
Polomolok) and SPO4 Willie Adulacion (respondent Adulacion), a police prosecutor in the MTC
Polomolok.

TheFacts

In their Complaint (Complaint) and supporting affidavits, complainants allege that they are the
[2]
accused in a case for theft which, at the time material to this case, was pending in the sala of
respondent judge. As respondent judge had issued warrants for their arrest, complainants on 3
October 1996 went to the MTC Polomolok to post bail. Complainants allege that respondent
Adulacion enticed them to plead guilty to the charge, apply for probation, and thus avoid
imprisonment.
RespondentAdulacion, who had allegedly prepared a draft decision embodying his suggestion,
conferredwithrespondentjudge,andhandedthedraftdecisiontorespondentjudge.Afterreadingthe
document,respondentjudgesignedit,toldcomplainantsO,pleadguiltymankamo(O,yourepleading
guilty),andhandedthedocumenttoaclerk.Respondentjudgetoldtheclerktoreadthecontentsof
thedecisiontocomplainantsandtoinstructthemonwhattodo.The clerk read the contents of the
document to complainants and asked them to sign it. Complainants signed the document upon
[3]
respondent Adulacions assurance that once the police apprehend the rest of the accused, the
police will revive the case and respondent Adulacion will present complainants as star witnesses.
[4]
ComplainantslaterfoundoutthatwhattheysignedwasanOrder (3October1996 Order) finding
themguiltyoftheftandsentencingthemeachtoimprisonmentforsix(6)monthsandone(1)day.
Finding the proceedings highly irregular, complainants sought the assistance of a lawyer. Upon
motionofcomplainantscounsel,respondentjudgevacatedthe3October1996Order,ostensiblyon
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/am_mtj_99_1231.htm 1/11
7/28/2017 GamasvsOco:AMMTJ991231:March17,2004:JCarpio:FirstDivision:Decision

the ground that complainants had entered improvident guilty pleas. Respondent judge scheduled
complainantsrearraignmenton2February1997.
Inthepresentcomplaint,complainantscontendthatrespondentjudgeisadministrativelyliablefor
renderingjudgmentagainstthemwithoutthebenefitofanarraignmentandinviolationoftheirrightto
[5]
berepresentedbycounsel.
InhisAnswer(Answer),respondentjudgedeniedcomplainantsallegationsregardingthealleged
proceduralirregularitiesintheissuanceofthe3October1996Order.Accordingtorespondentjudge,
thefollowingtranspiredinhissalaon3October1996:

2.On[the]sessionday[ofOctober3,1996,]prosecutorWillieAdulacionwithtwomenwhoturnedouttobe
complainants,AntonioGamasandFlorencioSobrioapproachedme.ItwasAdulacionwhotalked.Hestatedthat
thesetwohavelongpendingwarrantsofarrestandtheycannotaffordtofileP10,000.00bail.Theywere
chargedoftheftofcornworthP4,500.00.xxxTheywerecaughtwithtwootherswhoaretheirrelativeshauling
3or4tricycleloadsofcorncabs[sic].AdulacionsaidthatGamasandSobrioaskedhimtoproposetothejudge
thatSobrioandGamaswouldpleadguilty,butbemetedthemostminimumpenalty,allowedprobationandafter
whichtheybereleased[on]theirownrecognizancebecausetheycannotfiletheirbailbonds.

3.TheirpredicamentatthatmomentifIcannotattendtothemimmediatelywasthatMr.Adulacion[would]
havetolocktheminjailbecausetheysurrendered.GamasandSobriowereluckythatinstantbecausetherewas
alullinmyproceedingssotheywereabletoseeme.

4.AssoonasAdulacionha[d]articulatedhispieceoftalk,inthehearingdistanceofGamasandSobriobecause
wewerefacetoface[,]IaskedthemifwhatAdulacionsaidwastrueandtheyrepliedyes.

5.ThatinstantIknewthatSobrioandGamaswantedthingsdoneinstantlysotheywillnotbelockedinjailsoI
orderedfortherecordsfrommystaff.Ireadthoroughlywhilethethreewaitedacrossthetable,seated.

6.Igatheredfrommyreadingsthat[the]tricycledriverswiththeirtricycleswereapprehendedinflagrante
delictocarryingcorncabs[sic]rightinthecornfieldofDole.Iaskedwhytherewerereleasedwiththetricycles
inspiteofthisapprehensionbutIdidnotgetsatisfactoryanswerfromanyofthe3.xxx

7.Formetoinstantlyrespondtotheirpleathattheybeallowedtopleadguilty,metedtheminimumsentence,
allowedprobationandpendingprobationtheybereleasedonrecognizance,theywillsolvetheirveryimmediate
problemofbeinglockedinjailbecausetheyhadsurrenderedtoAdulacionandtheyhadnoreadybails.
Knowingthecourseofactiontheywanted,Ibegundiscoursingontheirrightsasaccused.Itoldthemoftheir
righttocounsel,tobegivenfreeofchargeiftheycannotaffordtosolicitservicesofone,toconfrontthe
witnessesandcrossexamineandbecausetheyhadvoluntarilyarticulatedthedesiretopleadguilty,Iestimated
tothemtheprobablepenalty.Ialsotoldthemthattheyhave[a]righttoapplyforprobationbutpendingaction
theymayberequiredtofilebailbondsbuttheybeggedthattheybeallowedtopleadguiltybutreleasedpending
probationproceedings.

8.AfterthediscourseIreadfromthemthattheywouldliketoreallypleadguiltyandwantedinstantactionso
thattheywillnotbeinjail.AscalledforbythesituationIarraignedthem.Ireadtotheminthedialectthey
understandtheaccusationandinformedthem[of]thenatureoftheevidencearrayedbuttheypleadedguilty,
alwaysbeggingthattheybesentencedwiththemostminimumpenalty,allowedprobationandreleased
immediatelyintheirrecognizance.

xxx

11.[Thus],therewasarraignmentandthattheirpleaofguiltwasvoluntary.

12.IwrotethedecisioninlonghandintheirverypresencethenhandedittothetypistwhotypeditthenIread
silentlywhatthetypisttypedandsatisfiedthatwhatIwrotewascorrectlytypedIsigned[the3October1996

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/am_mtj_99_1231.htm 2/11
7/28/2017 GamasvsOco:AMMTJ991231:March17,2004:JCarpio:FirstDivision:Decision

Order],thenrequiredmycourtinterpretertoreadthewholedecisioninthelanguagetheyknow.Ilookedwhile
theinterpreterwasreading.Theylookedsatisfiedthatwhattheinterpreterwasreadingcorrespondedwithwhat
theyproposedandwhatwediscussed.Afterthereading,GamasandSobriosignedthedecision.

13.ItwasIwhowrotethatdecision,Mr.Adulacioncannotwritethat.

14.SoitisclearthatbeforedecidingIarraignedGamasandSobrioupontheirdemandforinstantsolutionto
theirpredicament.BeforearraignmentIcounselledthemoftheirrightsandIevenwarnedthemtheexact
penaltyIwillgivethem.Therewasnolawyerinattendancebutthelawyerwastheirproblem.Iheardthem
sayingthatsincetheywerecaughtcarryingthecorn,alawyerwouldnothavemuchuse,moreoverthey
expressedtheyhavenomoneytopayforalawyer.IarguedthatIcangivethemaPAOlawyerbuttheyinsisted
[6]
theypleadguiltysothatallwillgetdonewithoutjailingthemthatinstant.

Respondentjudgeclaimsthatcomplainantsassailedthevalidityofthe3October1996Orderto
avoidservingtheirsentencesastheyhadallegedlyviolatedthetermsoftheirprobationbyfailingto
report to their probation officer. Respondent judge maintains that there was no irregularity in the
issuanceofthe3October1996Order.Respondentjudgeaddsthathedecidedtosetasidehisruling
[7]
merelyoutofcompassionforcomplainants.
We referred this matter to the Executive Judge of the RegionalTrial Court of Polomolok, South
Cotabato(RTCPolomolok)forinvestigation,reportandrecommendation.

TheInvestigatingJudgesFindings

On7December2000,ExecutiveJudgeEddieRoxas(ExecutiveJudgeRoxas)ofRTCPolomolok
submitted his Report (Report), finding respondent judge liable for simple neglect of duty and
recommendingtheimpositionofP10,000fineonthelatter.TheReportreadsinpertinentparts:

Thebasicissuestoberesolvedinthiscasexxxareasfollows:

1.Whetherornotcomplainantswaivedtheirrighttocounsel
2.Whetherornotcomplainantswereproperlyarraignedand
3.WhetherornottheOrderdatedOctober3,1996waspreparedbyProsecutorAdulacion.

Toresolvethefirstissue,itisnoteworthytostatethatinallcriminalprosecution[s],theaccusedshallbeentitled
tobepresentanddefendinpersonandbycounselateverystageoftheproceedings,thatisfromthearraignment
tothepromulgationofthejudgment(Sec.1(c),Rule115,RulesofCourt).Inrelationtosuchstatutoryrightof
theaccused,theCourthasbeengiventhecorrelativedutytoinformtheaccusedofhisrighttocounselas
expresslyprovidedunderSection6ofRule116oftheRulesofCourt.Therighttobeassistedbycounselis
deemedsoimportantthatithasbecomeaconstitutionalrightanditissoimplementedthatunderourrulesof
procedureitisnotenoughforthecourttoappriseanaccusedofhisrighttohaveanattorney,butitisessential
thatthecourtshouldassignonedeoficio[counsel]forhimifhesodesiresandheispoor,orgranthima
reasonabletimetoprocureanattorneyofhisown.

xxx

Inthecaseunderinvestigation,itisclearthatthehereincomplainantswerenotassistedbycounselwhenthey
wereallegedlyarraignedbytheRespondentJudge.Nowhereintherecordsofthecase[wasitshown]thatthe
saidcomplainantswereindeedassistedbytheirowncounselofchoice,oracounseldeoficiofromthetimethey
wereallegedlyarraigneduptothepromulgationoftheirsentence.xxx

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/am_mtj_99_1231.htm 3/11
7/28/2017 GamasvsOco:AMMTJ991231:March17,2004:JCarpio:FirstDivision:Decision

[S]uchfacthasbeenadmittedbytheRespondentJudge,however,heallegedthattherighttocounselhad
alreadybeenwaivedbythecomplainantsaftertheywereapprisedofthesaidright.

Whileitistruethatthecomplainantswereinformedoftheirrighttohavecounsel,however,itisnotenoughthat
saidcomplainantsbesimplyinformedoftheirrighttocounseltheyshouldalsobeaskedwhethertheywantto
availthemselvesofoneandshouldbetoldthattheycanhireacounseloftheirownchoiceiftheydesiretohave
one,orthatonecanbeprovidedtothemattheirownrequest.

xxx

[I]tisxxclearfromtheinvestigationconductedthatthehereincomplainantsdidnotsatisfactorilywaivedtheir
righttocounsel,foralthoughtheyweremechanicallyinformedandinadequatelyexplainedofthesame,itsnota
guarantythattheyhavevoluntarily,knowinglyandintelligentlywaivedsuchright.Onecannotwaivearightif
inthefirstplacehedoesnotknowandunderstandsuchright.Inthatinstance,thereisnovalidwaivertospeak
of.

xxx

Withregardtothesecondissue,theundersignedInvestigatingJudgecannotbepersuadedthatontheverybasic
procedurealone,involvingjustthemechanicalprocessofarraignmentoutlinedinSection1ofRule116ofthe
RulesofCourt,therewasthenecessarydegreeofcompliancebytheRespondentJudge.Otherconsiderations
revealhowflawedthesupposedarraignmentactuallywas.Forinstance,thereisnoshowingthatthe
complainantswereaffordedwithcounsel,norfurnishedacopyoftheAmendedComplaintwiththelistof
witnessesagainsttheminorderthattheymaydulyprepareandcomplywiththeirresponsibilities.

xxx

Notfrequentlyindeed,anaccusedpleadsguiltyinthehopeofalenienttreatment,oruponabadadviceor
promisesoftheauthoritiesorpartiesofalighterpenaltyshouldheadmitguiltorexpressremorse.Itistheduty
oftheJudge,likethehereinRespondentJudge,toseetoitthathedoesnotlaborunderthesemistaken
impression.FailureoromissiononthepartoftheRespondentJudgetoexercisecautionagainstthedemandsof
sheerspeedindisposingofcases,whethervoluntarilyorinvoluntarily,shouldnotonlybecensuredbutalso
condemned.[A]Courtcannot,therefore,holdlibertyandlifeforfeit,nomatterhowdespicabletheoffender
wheneffectiveprotectionforhisbasicrightsweredeniedbecauseofpovertyorignorance.

ForfailureoftheRespondentJudgetostrictlyfollowandobservethemandatoryprovisionsofRule116ofthe
RulesofCourt,itcanthereforebegainfullysaidthatthehereincomplainantswerenotproperlyarraignedlast
October3,1996.

Anentthelastissue,thecomplainantsfailedtoadducesufficientevidencethatitwasindeedPoliceProsecutor
WillieAdulacionwhopreparedtheOrderdated3October1996.TheRespondentJudgeadequatelyprovedthat
itwashewhowrotethesubjectOrderdulysubstantiatedandcorroboratedbythetestimoniesoftheother
witnesses.Suchproofhasneverbeencontrovertedbythecomplainants.Thus,thecomplainantsclaimthatitwas
PoliceProsecutorWillieAdulacionwhopreparedthesubjectOrderiswithoutmeritfor[utter]lackofbasisin
[8]
truthandinfact.

On31January2001, we referred the Report to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for
evaluation,reportandrecommendation.

TheOCAsEvaluationandRecommendation

InitsMemorandumdated11May2001,theOCA,whileagreeingwiththefindingsofExecutive
Judge Roxas, finds respondent judge liable not for mere simple neglect of duty but for gross
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/am_mtj_99_1231.htm 4/11
7/28/2017 GamasvsOco:AMMTJ991231:March17,2004:JCarpio:FirstDivision:Decision

ignoranceofthelaw.Accordingly,theOCArecommendsthatrespondentjudgebefinedP20,000.The
OCAexplains:

[R]espondentjudgeshowedhisignorancenotonlyofthescopeofhisauthoritytoarraignthecomplainantsbut
alsooftheproceduretofollowinconductinganarraignment.Moreover,respondentfailedtoproperlyapprise
complainantsoftheirrighttocounselandtoprovidethemwithcounseldeoficioparticularlyduringthe
arraignment,iftheydonothaveacounselbyreasonoftheirpoverty.Thisisafundamentalconstitutional
preceptwhichrespondentJudgeisexpectedtoknow.Where,asinthiscase,thelawinvolvedissimpleand
[9]
elementary,lackofconversancetherewithconstitutesgrossignoranceofthelaw.

TheRulingoftheCourt

TheCourtfindstherecommendationoftheOCAwelltaken.
RespondentJudgeFailedtoProperlyApprise
ComplainantsoftheirRighttoCounsel

The Constitution mandates that [I]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall x x x enjoy the
[10]
right to be heard by himself and counsel. Indeed, the accused has a right to representation by
[11]
counsel from the custodial investigation all the way up to the appellate proceedings. At the
arraignmentstage,Section6ofRule116oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedureprovides:

SEC.6.Dutyofcourttoinformaccusedofhisrighttocounsel.Beforearraignment,thecourtshallinformthe
accusedofhisrighttocounselandaskhimifhedesirestohaveone.Unlesstheaccusedisallowedtodefend
himselfinpersonorhasemployedcounselofhischoice,thecourtmustassignacounseldeoficiotodefend
him.(Emphasissupplied)

Section6ofRule116meansthat:

[W]henadefendantappears[atthearraignment]without[an]attorney,thecourthasfourimportantdutiesto
complywith:1Itmustinformthedefendantthatitishisrighttohave[an]attorneybeforebeingarraigned2
Aftergivinghimsuchinformationthecourtmustaskhimifhedesirestheaidofattorney3Ifhedesiresandis
unabletoemployattorney,thecourtmustassign[an]attorneydeoficiotodefendhimand4Iftheaccused
[12]
desirestoprocureanattorneyofhisownthecourtmustgranthimareasonabletimetherefor.

[13]
Compliancewiththesefourdutiesismandatory. Theonlyinstancewhenthecourtcanarraign
anaccusedwithoutthebenefitofcounselisiftheaccusedwaivessuchrightandthecourt,findingthe
accused capable, allows him to represent himself in person. However, to be a valid waiver, the
[14]
accusedmustmakethewaivervoluntarily,knowingly,andintelligently. Indeterminingwhetherthe
accused can make a valid waiver, the court must take into account all the relevant circumstances,
includingtheeducationalattainmentoftheaccused.Inthepresentcase,however,respondentjudge
contendsthatcomplainantswaivedtheirrighttocounselandinsistedontheirimmediatearraignment.
Afterreviewingtherecordsandtakingintoaccountthecircumstancesobtaininginthiscase,we
findthatrespondentjudgedidnotproperlyapprisecomplainantsoftheirrighttocounselpriortotheir
arraignment.Consequently,therewasnobasisforcomplainantsallegedwaiverofsuchright.
InhisAnswer,respondentjudgedoesnotdenythatwhenhearraignedcomplainants,nolawyer
assistedthecomplainants.However,respondentjudgeassertedthattheattendanceofalawyerwas
their (complainants) problem. Respondent judge stated that before arraigning complainants, he

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/am_mtj_99_1231.htm 5/11
7/28/2017 GamasvsOco:AMMTJ991231:March17,2004:JCarpio:FirstDivision:Decision

gave a discourse [of] their rights as accused. Respondent judge also stated that since the police
caughtcomplainantsinflagrantedelicto, complainants told hima lawyer would not have much use.
Respondentjudgefurtherstatedthatcomplainantsexpressedthattheyhavenomoneytopayfor
a lawyer. Respondent judge informed complainants he can give them a PAO lawyer if they so
desired. However, respondent judge did not appoint a PAO lawyer despite being informed by
complainantsthattheycouldnotaffordalawyer.
ThesedonotamounttocompliancewithSection6ofRule116.Respondentjudgehasthedutyto
insurethatthereisnoviolationoftheconstitutionalrightoftheaccusedtocounsel.Respondentjudge
is grossly mistaken in saying that securing a lawyer was their (complainants) problem. Once the
accusedinformsthejudgethathecannotaffordalawyerandthecourthasnotallowedtheaccused
to represent himself, or the accused is incapable of representing himself, the judge has the duty to
appointacounseldeoficiotogivemeaningandsubstancetotheconstitutionalrightoftheaccusedto
counsel.
Respondentjudgeknewthatcomplainantsaremeretricycledrivers.Respondentjudgecouldnot
[15]
haveexpectedcomplainantstobeconversantwiththerulesoncriminalprocedure. Respondent
judge should not only have followed Section 6 of Rule 116 to the letter, but should also have
ascertained that complainants understood the import of the proceedings. Respondent judge should
nothaveproceededwithcomplainantsarraignmentuntilhehadascertainedthatcomplainantswaiver
oftheirrighttocounselwasmadevoluntarily,knowingly,andintelligentlyandthattheywerecapable
ofrepresentingthemselves.AswellobservedbyExecutiveJudgeRoxas:

[Respondentjudge]isnotonlydutyboundtotellthecomplainantstherighttowhichtheyareentitled,hemust
alsoexplaintheireffectsinpracticalterms,andinalanguagethecomplainantsfairlyunderstand.Inotherwords,
therightofthecomplainantstobeinformedoftheirrighttohaveacounselimpliesacorrelativeobligationon
thepartoftheRespondentJudgetoexplainandcontemplatesaneffectivecommunicationthatresultsin
understandingwhatisconveyed.Sincetherighttobeinformedimpliescomprehension,thedegreeof
explanationrequiredwillnecessarilyvary,dependingupontheeducation,intelligenceandotherrelevant
personalcircumstancesofthecomplainants.Sufficeittosaythatasimplerandmorelucidexplanationisneeded
whenthesubjectisunletteredasinthisparticularcase.Shortofthis,thereisadenialoftherightasitcannot
[16]
trulybesaidthatthehereincomplainantshavebeeninformedoftheirrightstocounsel. (Emphasissupplied)

TheunfortunatebutexpectedresultofrespondentjudgesfailuretocomplystrictlywithSection6
ofRule116surfacedduringtheinvestigationofthiscase.Complainantsuniformlytestifiedthatthey
were unaware of the meaning and consequence of their guilty pleas. Thus, complainant Gamas
testified:
[ATTY.OCO]:
QYoudidnotwanttopleadguilty,ofcourse?
[ANTONIOGAMAS]:
AAtthattimewedonotknowwhatpleadguiltyis.ItisonlynowthatIamaware.

xxx

QWhenyouarrivedthereattheofficeofAdulacion,whatdidAdulaciontellyou,ifhetoldyouanything?
AHesaidthatsinceyouhavenocashbond,youjustpleadedguiltysinceyouloadedstolenitems.
QSowhatwasyourreactionwhenAdulaciontoldyouthat?
AWeweredumbfounded.
QSoyouhavenoreactionatallwhenAdulaciontoldthatyouwillpleadguiltybecauseyoudonthave
cashbond?

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/am_mtj_99_1231.htm 6/11
7/28/2017 GamasvsOco:AMMTJ991231:March17,2004:JCarpio:FirstDivision:Decision

ANothing,becauseitwasonlylatelythatIcametoknowthemeaningofpleadguilty.

xxx

QYoudidnotunderstandthewordpleadguilty?
AIdonotknowwhatispleadguilty.
QYoudidnotaskAdulacion,whatisthatallabout,Sir?
AIdidnotaskanymore,becausehealsoaddedthathewillgiveuslightersentence.
QSobecauseofthatpromiseofAdulacion,youconformedwithhissuggestionthatyouwillpleadguilty?
ABecausehesaidwearesupposedtobestarwitnessesandhewillapprehendthethreeothers,sowe
pleadedguilty.
QThefactthatyoupleadedguilty,youwereinconformitytothesuggestionofWillieAdulacion?
[17]
AWecannotdoanythingatthattime,weweredumbfounded. (Emphasissupplied)
ComplainantSobriosimilarlytestified:
[ATTY.OCO]:
QWhatwasthestorythattranspiredbetweenyouandAdulacion?
[FLORENCIOSOBRIO]:
ASincewedonthaveanycashbond,wewillpleadguilty.
COURT:

xxx

QSowhatwasyouransweriftherewasananswer?
AIsaid,Whatispleadguilty,Idontunderstandthat?
QDidWillieAdulacionexplaintoyouwhatispleadguiltyafteryouinquiredfromhim?
ANo.
QAfteryouaskedhim,whatwastheanswerofAdulacionwhenyouaskedhimwhatisthatpleadguilty?
AHesaidthatweapplyforprobationsothathecanhelpus.
QHedidnotexplaintoyouthatbypleadingguiltyisadmittingthechargeagainstyou?
[18]
ANo. (Emphasissupplied)
ThesetestimoniesunderscoretheneedfortrialcourtjudgestocomplystrictlywithSection6of
Rule116.Thattheaccused,likecomplainants,insistontheirarraignmentwithoutrepresentationisno
reasonforajudgetoaccedereadilytotheirwishes.Ajudgehasthedutytoprotecttheaccusedin
theirrights,evenagainsttheirwishes,whenitisclear,asinthiscase,thattheyarenotinapositionto
validlyexerciseorwaivethoserights.Aswehadoccasiontoobserve:

[E]venthemostintelligentoreducatedmanmayhavenoskillinthescienceofthelaw,particularlyintherules
ofprocedure,and,withoutcounsel,hemaybeconvictednotbecauseheisguiltybutbecausehedoesnotknow
howtoestablishhisinnocence.Andthiscanhappenmoreeasilytopersonswhoareignorantoruneducated.Itis
forthisreasonthattherighttobeassistedbycounselisdeemedsoimportantthatithasbecomeaconstitutional
rightanditissoimplementedthatunderourrulesofprocedureitisnotenoughfortheCourttoapprisean
accusedofhisrighttohaveanattorney,itisnotenoughtoaskhimwhetherhedesirestheaidofanattorney,but
itisessentialthatthecourtshouldassignonedeoficioforhimifhesodesiresandheispoororgranthima
[19]
reasonabletimetoprocureanattorneyofhisown. (Emphasissupplied)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/am_mtj_99_1231.htm 7/11
7/28/2017 GamasvsOco:AMMTJ991231:March17,2004:JCarpio:FirstDivision:Decision

Indeed,bysubsequentlyvacatinghis3October1996Order,respondentjudgetacitlyadmitsthat
complainantswereinnopositiontorepresentthemselvesduringtheirarraignment,causingthemto
enterguiltypleasimprovidently.
RespondentJudgesArraignmentof
ComplainantsHighlyIrregular

Section1(a),Rule116oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedurestates:

Arraignmentandpleahowmade.Theaccusedmustbearraignedbeforethecourtwherethecomplaintor
informationwasfiledorassignedfortrial.Thearraignmentshallbemadeinopencourtbythejudgeorclerkby
furnishingtheaccusedwithacopyofthecomplaintorinformation,readingthesameinthelanguageordialect
knowntohim,andaskinghimwhetherhepleadsguiltyornotguilty.Theprosecutionmaycallatthetrial
witnessesotherthanthosenamedinthecomplaintorinformation.

Wehaveexplainedtherationale,requirements,andcomplianceofthisruleinthismanner:

[S]ection1(a)ofRule116requiresthatthearraignmentshouldbemadeinopencourtbythejudgehimselforby
theclerkofcourt[1]furnishingtheaccusedacopyofthecomplaintorinformationwiththelistofwitnesses
statedtherein,then[2]readingthesameinthelanguageordialectthatisknowntohim,and[3]askinghimwhat
hispleaistothecharge.Therequirementthatthereadingbemadeinalanguageordialectthattheaccused
understandsandknowsisamandatoryrequirement,justasthewholeofsaidSection1shouldbestrictly
followedbytrialcourts.Thisthelawaffordstheaccusedbywayofimplementationoftheallimportant
constitutionalmandateregardingtherightofanaccusedtobeinformedoftheprecisenatureoftheaccusation
leveledathimandis,therefore,reallyanavenueforhimtobeabletohoistthenecessarydefenseinrebuttal
[20]
thereof.ItisanintegralaspectofthedueprocessclauseundertheConstitution.

WesubscribetoExecutiveJudgeRoxasfindingthatrespondentjudgesimilarlyfailedtocomply
withtherequirementsofSection1(a)ofRule116.Complainantsdenyrespondentjudgesclaimthat
he arraigned complainants by read[ing] to them [the information] in the dialect they understand and
[21]
inform[ing] them [of] the nature of the evidence arrayed [against them]. However, there is no
disputingthatrespondentjudgefailedtofurnishcomplainantsacopyoftheinformationwiththelistof
thewitnesses.
TheproceduralstepslaiddowninSection1(a)ofRule116arenotemptyritualsthatajudgecan
takelightly.Eachstepconstitutesanintegralpartofthatcrucialstageincriminallitigationwherethe
[22]
issues are joined x xx and without which the proceedings cannot advance further. Respondent
judgemayhavegenuinelydesiredtosparecomplainantsthetravailsofbeingdetainedinjail,thusthe
rush in arraigning them, accepting their guilty pleas, imposing a light sentence, and granting them
probation. While wellintentioned, such conduct unjustifiably shortcircuited the mandatory
arraignmentprocedureinSection1(a)ofRule116.
RespondentJudgesActsandOmissions
ConstituteGrossIgnoranceoftheLaw

Theruleisthatwhenthelawissoelementary,nottoknowitortoactasifonedoesnotknowit
[23]
constitutes gross ignorance of the law. The provisions of the Constitution on the right of the
accused to counsel, and of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure on the requirements for the
arraignment of an accused, are basic. Every judge should know the fundamental substantive and
proceduralrequirementsonarraignmentandrighttocounsel.
Byholdingcomplainantsarraignmentinthemannerheconductedit,respondentjudgeisliablefor
thisadministrativetransgression.Itmayverywellbethatrespondentjudgeknewthesubstantiveand
proceduralrulesinquestion.Whatrendershimliableisthatheactedasifhedidnot.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/am_mtj_99_1231.htm 8/11
7/28/2017 GamasvsOco:AMMTJ991231:March17,2004:JCarpio:FirstDivision:Decision

OntheAppropriateImposablePenalty

UnderSection11(A),inrelationtoSection8(8),ofRule140oftheRulesofCourt,asamendedby
A.M.No.01810SC,grossignoranceofthelaworprocedureispunishableby:

1.Dismissalfromtheservice,forfeitureofallorpartofthebenefitsastheCourtmaydetermine,and
disqualificationfromreinstatementorappointmenttoanypublicoffice,includinggovernmentownedor
controlledcorporations.Provided,however,thattheforfeitureofbenefitsshallinnocaseincludeaccruedleave
credits

2.Suspensionfromtheofficewithoutsalaryandotherbenefitsformorethanthree(3)butnotexceedingsix(6)
monthsor

3.AfineofmorethanP20,000.00butnotexceedingP40,000.00.

ThisscheduleofpenaltiesunderA.M.No.01810SC,whichtookeffecton1October2001,doesnot
[24]
applyretroactively. Accordingly,wesustaintheOCAsrecommendationthatrespondentjudgebe
requiredtopayafineofP20,000,apenaltywehavemetedinsimilaradministrativecasesinvolving
[25]
grossignoranceofthelaw.
TheCourthasnoJurisdictionOver
RespondentAdulacion

We refrain from passing upon the complaint against respondent Adulacion, as he is neither a
[26]
memberoftheBar norajudiciaryemployee.ThisCourtsadministrativejurisdictionextendsonlyto
[27]
members of the bar and over all courts and their personnel. However, the dismissal is without
prejudice to any action complainants may wish to file against respondent Adulacion before the
appropriatebody.
WHEREFORE,wefindrespondentOrlandoA.Oco,formerPresidingJudgeoftheMunicipalTrial
Court, Polomolok, South Cotabato, GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law. Accordingly, we FINE
respondentOrlandoA.OcoP20,000,tobetakenfromhiswithheldretirementbenefits.Thecomplaint
againstrespondentWillieAdulacionisDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),YnaresSantiago,andAzcuna,JJ.,concur.
Panganiban,J.,onofficialleave.

[1]
In the Resolution dated 16 February 1999, the Court approved respondent judges optional retirement but withheld the
release of his retirement benefits pending the resolution of this and another administrative case (OCA IPI No. 98
542MTJ)againsthim.
[2]
Criminal Case No. OCT 19951892 entitled People of the Philippines v. Joel Calaud, Arnold Toledo, Florencio Sobrio,
AntonioGamasandJoeyEspartero.
[3]
ComplainantsaretwooffiveaccusedinCriminalCaseNo.OCT19951892.
[4]
Rollo,p.28.The3October1996Orderreads:
ORDER
Antonio Gamas and Florencio Sobrio appeared and expressed that they are pleading guilty to the hereunder quoted
complaint:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/am_mtj_99_1231.htm 9/11
7/28/2017 GamasvsOco:AMMTJ991231:March17,2004:JCarpio:FirstDivision:Decision

Thatonorabout[the]23rddayofOctober1995atabout2:00inthemorning,atDolefilField110C,within
thevicinityofPolonabolSite,BarangayCannerySite,inthemunicipalityofPolomolok,ProvinceofSouthCotabato,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Trial Court the above named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another with deliberate intent of [sic] gain, and without the consent of the
owner, did, then, and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away 25 sacks of corn cabs
[sic] loaded on three (3) motorcycle [sic] with sidecar, the said corn owned by Dole Philippines, Inc. managed by
the barker and valued at P2.00 per piece with the total value of Four Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P4,500.00)
PhilippineCurrency,tothedamageandprejudiceoftheownerintheamountaforestated.
Theymovedthattheybeplacedonprobationandpendingactionontheirprobationtheybereleasedundertheirrespective
recognizance.
Antonio is 39 years old, married, driver and resides at OctavioVillage, Cannery while Florencio is 42, married, driver and
residesatLondresVillage,Cannery,allinPolomolok,SouthCotabato.
ACCORDINGLY, finding Antonio Gamas and FlorencioSobrio both guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged,
theyareeachsentencedtosuffer6monthsand1dayimprisonmentofprisioncorreccional.
Itappearingthattheymaybeentitledtoprobationwithin10daysfromtodaytheyareorderedtopresentthemselvestothe
probation officer at Hall of Justice, Lagao, General Santos City in order to comply with all the requirements of
probationandsaidofficerisdirectedtogiveushisrecommendationin20days.Shouldtheyfailtoreporttheywill
servesentence.
Inthemeanwhilebotharereleaseduntotheirownrecognizance.
[5]
Rollo,pp.14.
[6]
Rollo,pp.912.
[7]
Ibid.,pp.1213.
[8]
Rollo,pp.166172.
[9]
Ibid.,p.469.
[10]
Section14(2),ArticleIII,Constitution.
[11]
Section12(1),ArticleIII,ConstitutionseePeoplev.Serzo,G.R.No.118435,20June1997,274SCRA553.
[12]
Peoplev.Holgado,85Phil.752(1950).
[13]
SeeSaysonv.People,G.R.No.L51745,28October1988,166SCRA680.
[14]
Peoplev.Bodoso,G.R.Nos.149382149383,5March2003,398SCRA642.
[15]
ComplainantGamassubsequentlytestifiedduringtheinvestigationthathereachedonlythe5thGradeofhiselementary
schooling(TSNdated22August2000,pp.51,53).
[16]
Rollo,p.169.
[17]
TSNdated22August2000,pp.56,5961(AntonioGamas).
[18]
TSNdated19September2000,pp.112113(FlorencioSobrio).
[19]
Supra,note12.
[20]
Peoplev.Estomaca,326Phil.429(1996).
[21]
TSNdated22August2000,pp.5051(AntonioGamas)TSNdated19September2000,p.127(FlorencioSobrio).
[22]
Peoplev.Estomaca,supra,note20.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/am_mtj_99_1231.htm 10/11
7/28/2017 GamasvsOco:AMMTJ991231:March17,2004:JCarpio:FirstDivision:Decision

[23]
Chanv.Tamin,A.M.No.RTJ031786,28August2003.
[24]
Capulongv.Gozum,A.M.No.MTJ001287,17February2003, 397 SCRA 486 Vileav.Mapage, A.M. No. MTJ02
1424,24April2002,381SCRA489.
[25]
Sulev.Biteng,313Phil.398(1995).
[26]
Rollo,p.474(Certificationdated14January2004oftheOfficeoftheBarConfidant).
[27]
Sections5(5)and6,ArticleVIII,Constitution.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/mar2004/am_mtj_99_1231.htm 11/11