Batch 2

People vs Ricardo RioGR No. 90294, 24 September 1991201 SCRA 702

FACTSAccussed-appellant Ricardo Rio was charged and convicted of the crime of

rape before the RTC of Makati City and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He filed an appeal and as a consequence, the branch clerk of court forwarded the records to the CA. the appellate court, however, forwarded the records to the SC in view of the penalty imposed upon the accused.

However, accused-appellant, in his two letters addressed to the clerk of court, manifested his intention to withdraw the appeal “due to his poverty.” Upon inquiry of the clerk of court of the trial court, through the recommendation of the SolGen, the accused-appellant submits that he was no longer interested in pursuing his appeal and had, in fact, withdrawn his appeal. The Court denied his motion to withdraw and appointed a counsel de oficio for him. All the letters reveal that the only reason he offered for the withdrawal of his appeal is his inability to retain the services of a counsel de oficio on account of his poverty.

ISSUEWhether or not the right to counsel of accused-appellant ceased upon his

conviction by the trial court.

HELDThe Supreme Court held in the negative. This right to counsel de oficio does

not cease upon the conviction of an accused by the trial court. It continues, even during appeal, such duty of the court to assign a counsel de oficio persists where an accused interposes intent to appeal. Even in a case, where the accused has signified his intent to withdraw his appeal, the court is required to inquire into the reason for the withdrawal. Where it finds the sole reason for the withdrawal to be poverty, the court must assign a counsel de oficio, for despite such withdrawal, the duty to protect the rights of the accused subsists and perhaps, with greater reason. After all, “those who have less in life must have more in law.”

The Court admonishes members of the Bar to be more conscious of their duties as advocates of their clients causes whether acting de parte or de oficio for public interest requires that an attorney exert his best efforts and ability in the prosecution or defense of his client’s cause.

Lawyers are an indispensable part of the whole system of administering justice in this jurisdiction. And a lawyer who performs that duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interests if his client; he also serve the ends of justice, does honor to th Bar and helds maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. This is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar and to the public.

Batch 2

People vs Simeon, et alGR No. L-33730, 28 September 197247 SCRA 129

FACTSOn 17 October 1970, the nine accused (herein defendants-appellants), in conspiracy

with each other, killed one Pedro Langaoen while they were confined in the New Bilid Prison, Muntinglupa, Rizal. The Circuit Criminal Court of Rizal sentenced them to death plus indemnity, jointly and severally upon their alleged plea of guilty. The trial judge stated that all the defendants were assisted by de oficio counsel and were all apprised of the consequences of their plea of guilty, who also explained to them the provisions of Article 160 in relation to Article 248 of the RPC. Atty. Joaquin L. Misa in his brief, as counsel de oficio on appeal, regrets with justification the omissions of the trial judge and challenges the validty of the decisions impugning the constitutionality of the death penalty. He points out that the record does not show when the two counsels de oficio were appointed and how much time they had to aquaint themselves with the case. The counsels de oficio had virtually only minutes to advise appellants. Atty Misa prays that the accused-appellants be acquitted or at least their cases be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.

ISSUEWhether or not the prayer of Atty Misa should be granted.

HELDThe Supreme Court held in the affirmative. Because it is apparent that the trial judge

did not accord full recognition to the constitutional rights of the accused to be fully informed of the charge against them and of the consequence of their plea of guilty the Court vacated the three sentences rendered by the trial court and ordered the remand of the case for further proceedings.

The desire to speed up the disposition of cases should not be effected at the sacrifice of the basic rights of the accused. The age, education or lack thereof of the accused are factors to determine his ability to understand the information against him, the import of his plea of guilty and the proper penalty to be imposed. Trial judges should exercise patience and circumspection in explaining the meaning of the accusation and the full import of the plea of guilty to the accused, who should likewise be granted all the chances to acquaint his counsel de oficio with his version of the incident and to conduct his own investigation at the local of the crime as much as practicable, more than just examining the records of the case.

Batch 2