THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO GAITE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The defendant-appellant was charged in the Court of First Instance of Romblon
with parricide. The case was nrst called for trial on January 27, 1954, but as
the appellant was without a lawyer, the court appointed Atty. Enrique Javier as
his counsel de oficio, and at the latter’s instance the hearing was
postponed. At the hearing held on June 2, 1954, the appellant, assisted by Atty.
Javier, pleaded guilty upon being arraigned. The court thereupon rendered a
decision finding the appellant guilty of parricide and, in view of lack of
instruction and voluntary plea of guilty, sentencing him to reclusion
perpetua, with corresponding accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased Elias Gaite in, the sum of P6,000, without subsidiary imprisonment,
and to pay the cost. The appellant has appealed

It is contended that the lower court’erred in not allying the appellant to
make an explanation after his plea of guilty and in not considering the doubt as
to whether he is the legitimate son of Elias Gaite. Counsel has made reference
to a manifestation mide by appellant’s attorney de oficio in the lower
court to the effect that while the appellant was willing to plead guilty, he
wanted’tp explain; and that the court gave the information that, in. such a
case, the plea would be one of not guilty. Upon the other hand, the Solicitor
General insists-and we think rightly-that the record of the proceedings on June
2, 1954 exclusively shows that the appellant, aided by Atty. Javier, entered the
plea of guilty in open court,” with the result that he admitted not only his
guilt but also the material allegation in the information that he is the
legitimate son of the deceased Elias Gaite.

There is no pretense that the appellant was, even in the slightest degree,
forced to enter a plea of guilty On the contrary, he was assisted by his
attorney de oficio who was reminded by the court about the effect of a
qualified plea of guilty and who therefore had all the time and opportunity to
adopt the proper course. And yet said attorney announced before the court
appellant’s readiness for the arraignment and merely requested that the
information be read carefully to him.

In answer to the observation made in appellant’s brief that during the
preliminary investigation, Paula Guiguilian (appellant’s mother) and Jose
Lorenzo are alleged to have testified in such a way as to at least create a
doubt as to appellant’s legitimacy; it is sufficient to state that the alleged
testimony, not being a part of the proceedings in the lower court, can not be
taken into account.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is affirmed with costs against the
appellant. So ordered.

Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A. Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.