Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gamas V Oco Digest

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous MmbSn3
    40 views1 page
    Petitioners were accused of stealing PHP4,500 worth of corn. They were arraigned by Respondent Judge without counsel present and were not properly informed of what a guilty plea meant. The accused asked what pleading guilty meant but the judge said it was to apply for probation without explaining it admitted the charges. No records show the accused had legal counsel. The judge informed them of their rights but not in a way that ensured their waiver was knowing and voluntary. The judge also failed to provide a witness list. The court held the accused did not adequately waive their right to counsel and fined the respondent judge PHP20,000.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Gamas v Oco digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Petitioners were accused of stealing PHP4,500 worth of corn. They were arraigned by Respondent Judge without counsel present and were not properly informed of what a guilty plea meant. The accused asked what pleading guilty meant but the judge said it was to apply for probation without explaining it admitted the charges. No records show the accused had legal counsel. The judge informed them of their rights but not in a way that ensured their waiver was knowing and voluntary. The judge also failed to provide a witness list. The court held the accused did not adequately waive their right to counsel and fined the respondent judge PHP20,000.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views1 page

    Gamas V Oco Digest

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous MmbSn3
    Petitioners were accused of stealing PHP4,500 worth of corn. They were arraigned by Respondent Judge without counsel present and were not properly informed of what a guilty plea meant. The accused asked what pleading guilty meant but the judge said it was to apply for probation without explaining it admitted the charges. No records show the accused had legal counsel. The judge informed them of their rights but not in a way that ensured their waiver was knowing and voluntary. The judge also failed to provide a witness list. The court held the accused did not adequately waive their right to counsel and fined the respondent judge PHP20,000.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Gamas vs Oco

    Petitioners were accused of stealing php4,500 worth of corn, they were caught
    together with two others hauling it to tricycles. Respondent Judge arraigned them without
    the presence of their counsel and did not properly inform the accused of what follows after
    their admission of the crime.

    Quoting from the court documents:

    Q So what was your answer if there was an answer?


    A I said, What is plead guilty, I dont understand that?
    Q Did Willie Adulacion explain to you what is plead guilty after you inquired from him?
    A No.
    Q After you asked him, what was the answer of Adulacion when you asked him what is
    that plead guilty?
    A He said that we apply for probation so that he can help us.
    Q He did not explain to you that by pleading guilty is admitting the charge against you?
    A No.

    Throughout the the talk between the accused and the respondent Judge, there
    were no records of the accused having availed of an attorney or counsel de oficio.
    Respondent Judge did inform the accused of their rights but not in the manner
    that guarantees that they have voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived such
    rights.
    Respondent judge failed to furnish complainants a copy of the information with the
    list of the witnesses.
    Issue: Did the accused waive the right to counsel?
    Held: No, they were informed of their rights but not adequately. Respondent Judge Oco
    is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and to be fined php20,000 from his retirement
    benefits.

    You might also like