G.R. No. 129058 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. PAULINO SEVILLENO Y VILLANUEVA ALIAS TAMAYO, ACCUSED-. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly informed. The records show that Atty. Vic Agravante assisted the accused during the arraignment only. In the succeeding hearings, Atty. Danilo Pabalinas, another lawyer of PAO, represented the accused. But after the escape Atty. Pabalinas sought permission from the court to be released from his duty to assist the accused. The court then directed that the accused be tried in absentia and counsel was relieved from his responsibility to his client and the court. [8] The prosecution presented the examining physician as well as Maria Lariosa and Norma Baquia. Notably, these witnesses were not cross-examined because, as already adverted to, Atty. Pabalinas earlier excused himself from the case. Neither did the court appoint another counsel for the accused. The next hearing was set on 30 January 1996. However, for various reasons, the hearing was reset to 13 March 1996, 21 April 1996, 18 June 1996 and 17 July 1996. Meanwhile, on 10 July 1996 the Jail Warden of San Carlos City reported to the court that the accused had been recaptured. [9] Atty. Florentino Saldavia, also of PAO, was appointed counsel de oficio for the accused. On 17 July 1996 the prosecution presented Rogelio Baquia as its last witness. Atty. Saldavia cross-examined Rogelio but his questions were only considered token, and even irrelevant. Then the prosecution rested. On 28 August 1996, the date set for the presentation of the evidence for the defense, Atty. Saldavia moved that the hearing be reset as he was not feeling well. On 19 November 1996, Atty. Saldavia again moved for postponement and the hearing was reset to 3 December 1996 on which date, instead of presenting evidence, Atty. Saldavia manifested that he was submitting the case for decision but invoking the plea of guilt of the accused as a mitigating circumstance. As recorded, the hearing proceeded thus - Court: Call the case x x x x Interpreter: Appearances. Pros. Tabinas: Appearing for the government. Atty. Saldavia: For the accused. Your honor please, this is already the turn of the defense to present evidence. He already pleaded GUILTY. We have no mitigating circumstance to prove except the plea of guilty. I believe there is no need of presenting evidence, he already pleaded guilty. Court: (to Atty. Saldavia): You will rest the case? Atty. Saldavia: Yes, your honor. Pros. Tabinas: You will invoke the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty? Atty. Saldavia: Yes. Pros. Tabinas: We have no objection to that. Court: Order. When this case was called for the presentation of evidence for the accused, counsel for the accused manifested that he had no evidence to present in favor of the accused except the plea of GUILTY made in open court. In view thereof, the above-entitled case is hereby submitted for decision based on the evidence presented by the prosecution without the accused presenting evidence in his behalf except the plea of GUILTY which is admitted by the prosecution. WHEREFORE, the above-entitled case is her