Juris DiscipulusCriminal ProcedureRULE115: RIGHTSOFTHEACCUSEDATTRIALIn ever criminal !roceedin"#$ %&e accu#ed#&all 'e en%i%led %o %&e (ollo)in" ri"&%#*a+ To'e!re#umedinnocen%un%il %&econ%rar i# !roven 'eondrea#ona'le dou'%,'+ To'ein(ormedo( %&e-a%ureandCau#e o( %&e accu#a%ion a"ain#%&im,c+ To 'e !re#en% and ' coun#el a%ever #%a"e o( %&e %rial (rom%&earrai"nmen% %o %&e !romul"a%ion o(%&e .ud"men%a* T&e accu#ed ma$ &o)ever$)aive &i# ri"&% %o 'e !re#en%a% %&e%rial$ !ur#uan% %o%&e#%i!ula%ion# #e% (or%&on&i#'ail$ unle## &i# !re#ence i##!eci/call ordered ' %&ecour% (or !ur!o#e# o(iden%i/ca%ion'* T&ea'#enceo( %&eaccu#ed$)i%&ou% .u#%i/a'le cau#e o()&ic& &e&adno%ice#&all 'econ#idered a )aiver o( &i#ri"&% %o 'e !re#en% %&erea%*c* 0&en an accu#ed undercu#%ode#ca!e#$ &e#&all 'edeemed %o &ave )aived &i#ri"&% %o 'e !re#en% on all#u'#e1uen% %rial da%e# un%ilcu#%od over &im i# re"ained*CO-STITUTIO-AL RIGHTS OF THEACCUSEDSec. 14(1)(2) Article III Bill of Rights1. Nopersonshall ehel!to ans"er for acri#inal o$ense "ithout !ue process of la".2. In all cri#inal prosecutions% the accuse!shall e presu#e! innocent until thecontrar& is pro'e!% an! shall en(o& the righttoehear!&hi#self an!counsel% toeinfor#e!of thenaturean!causeof theaccusationagainsthi#% toha'easpee!&%i#partial% an! pulic trial% to #eet the"itnesses face to face% an! to ha'eco#pulsor& process to secure theatten!ance of "itnesses an! the pro!uctionof e'i!ence in his ehalf. )o"e'er% afterarraign#ent% trial #a& procee!not"ithstan!ing the asence of the accuse!pro'i!e! that he has een !ul& noti*e! an!his failure to appear is un(usti*ale.Ri"&%# o( %&eAccu#ed a%%rial 2 Elemen%#o( Due Proce##Aguirre '. +eople% ,R No. 144142% -.2../10+etitioner"asfoun!guilt&of 'iolatingB+22%+rosecution "as ale to present e'i!ence%#ean"hile% Accuse!% chose to 1eep on !ela&ingtrial% 23I foun! her to ha'e "ai'e! her right topresent e'i!ence. 4n appeal to the 2A% Accuse!no" clai#s that she "as !epri'e! of !ueprocess. 2A a5r#e! 23I6s !ecision% hence this.789he2ourt *n!s that petitioner inthis casecannot feign !enial of !ue process ecause sheha! een gi'en the opportunit& to present hersi!e. 8he essential re:uire#ents of !ue processin this (uris!iction are "ell;estalishe!0 (1)8here #ust e a court or triunal clothe! "ith(u!icial authorit& to hear an! !eter#ine the#atter efore it< (2) Juris!iction #ust ela"full& ac:uire! o'er the person of the!efen!ant or propert&"hichisthesu(ectofthe procee!ing< (.) 8he !efen!ant #ust egi'en an opportunit& to e hear!< an! (4)Ju!g#ent #ust e ren!ere! upon la"fulhearing.)o"e'er% asent sho"ing a! faith onpetitioner% S2 !elete! the i#prison#ent.Ri"&%# o( %&e Accu#ed a% %rial 2 To 'e!re#umed Innocen% 2 Prima FaciePre#um!%ion o( Guil%)i=on '. 2A% 2>? S2RA ?1@% 12.1..A>0+s "erecharge!"B 'iolationof +D@/4(Illegal 3ishing;Cseof +oisonD2&ani!e)% in+ala"anan!"asfoun!guilt&&the23I% 2Aa5r#e!. +sa'ersthat 2A erre! in not hol!ing the statutor&presu#ptionguilt un!er Sec. ..of +D@/4as#ore po"erful than the constitution right ofpresu#ption of innocence% as suchthe& stillnee! to e pro'e! innocent e&on! reasonale!out.+age 1 of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal ProcedureCn!er thea'erre!la"% theo$enseof illegal*shingis co##itte!"henapersoncatches%ta1es or gathers or causes to e caught% ta1enor gathere! *sh% *sher& or a:uatic pro!ucts in+hilippine"aters "iththeuseof eFplosi'es%electricit&% onoFious or poisonous sustances.8he la" creates a presu#ption that illegal*shing has een co##itte! "hen0 ele#ents ofillegal *shing are foun! onoar!. +etitioners conten! that this presu#ption ofguilt un!er the3isheries Decree'iolates thepresu#ptionof innocenceguarantee!&the2onstitution. Asearl&as1A1>% this2ourthasre(ecte! this argu#ent & hol!ing that0 GInso#e States% as "ell as in Hnglan!% there eFist"hat are 1no"n as co##on la" o$enses. In the+hilippine Islan!s no act is a cri#e unless it is#a!e so & statute. 8he state ha'ing the rightto !eclare "hat acts are cri#inal% "ithin certain"ell;!e*ne! li#itations% has the right to specif&"hat act or acts shall constitute a cri#e% as "ellas "hat proof shall constitute pri#a faciee'i!enceof guilt% an!thentoput uponthe!efen!ant the ur!en of sho"ing that such actor acts are innocent an! are not co##itte! "ithan& cri#inal intent or intention.G 8he 'ali!it& ofla"s estalishing presu#ptions in cri#inalcases is a settle! #atter. It is generall&conce!e! that the legislature has the po"er topro'i!e that proof of certain facts can constitutepri#a facie e'i!ence of the guilt of the accuse!an! then shift the ur!en of proof to theaccuse! pro'i!e! there is a rational connectionet"een the facts pro'e! an! the ulti#ate factpresu#e!.+etitioners conten! that this presu#ption ofguilt un!er the3isheries Decree'iolates thepresu#ptionof innocenceguarantee!&the2onstitution. Asearl&as1A1>% this2ourthasre(ecte! this argu#ent & hol!ing that0 GInso#e States% as "ell as in Hnglan!% there eFist"hat are 1no"n as co##on la" o$enses. In the+hilippine Islan!s no act is a cri#e unless it is#a!e so & statute. 8he state ha'ing the rightto !eclare "hat acts are cri#inal% "ithin certain"ell;!e*ne! li#itations% has the right to specif&"hat act or acts shall constitute a cri#e% as "ellas "hat proof shall constitute pri#a faciee'i!enceof guilt% an!thentoput uponthe!efen!ant the ur!en of sho"ing that such actor acts are innocent an! are not co##itte! "ithan& cri#inal intent or intention.G 8he 'ali!it& ofla"s estalishing presu#ptions in cri#inalcases is a settle! #atter. It is generall&conce!e! that the legislature has the po"er topro'i!e that proof of certain facts can constitutepri#a facie e'i!ence of the guilt of the accuse!an! then shift the ur!en of proof to theaccuse! pro'i!e! there is a rational connectionet"een the facts pro'e! an! the ulti#ate factpresu#e!.8hepetition"asgrante!though% ecausethere;eFa#ination of the *shes pro'e! negati'e ofpoisonous #aterials.Ri"&%# o( %&e Accu#ed a% %rial 2 To 'e!re#umed Innocen% 2 T&e E1ui!oi#e RuleDa!o'. +eople% ,RNo. 1.1421% 11.1-./20+"ere foun! guilt& of ho#ici!e for the 1illing ofone ISalinas6 together "B his co;accuse!. Jhileguar!ingfor cattlerustlers% accuse!shot the'icti# & #ista1e. In con'icting the petitioner%oththetrial court an!the2ourt of Appealsfoun! that conspirac& atten!e! the co##issionof thecri#e.T&eCour% o( A!!eal# ruled%&a% !e%i%ioner and accu#ed Era#ocon#!ired in 3illin" %&e decea#ed$ %&u#$ i%i#nolon"er nece##ar%oe#%a'li#&)&ocau#ed %&e (a%al )ound ina#muc& a#con#!irac ma3e# %&e ac% o( onecon#!ira%or %&e ac% o( all*Jeapons in'ol'e!0 .4? 2alierB K14 Ar#alites% +"as using the .4?.Cn!er e:uipoise rule% "here the e'i!ence on anissue of fact is in e:uipoise or there is !out on"hich si!e the e'i!ence prepon!erates% thepart& ha'ing the ur!en of proof loses.8henee!e!:uantu#of proof tocon'ict theaccuse! of the cri#e charge! is foun! lac1ing.H'i!entl&% theprosecutionfaile!topro'ethatthe #etallic frag#ents foun! in the fatal "oun!of the 'icti# are particles of a .4? calier ulletthat e#anate! fro# the .4? calier pistol *re!& petitioner. 3or this reason% the 2ourt cannotin goo! conscience a5r# his con'iction for thecri#e of ho#ici!e. In the sa#e 'ein% petitionercannot e hel! responsile for the "oun!inLicte! on the 'icti#Ms right outer lateralar#for the sa#e reason that there is no e'i!encepro'ing e&on! #oral certaint& that sai! "oun!"as cause! & the ullet *re! fro# petitionerMs .4? calier pistol.+age 2 of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal ProcedureRi"&%# o( %&e Accu#ed a% %rial 2 To 'e!re#umed Innocen% 2 T&e E1ui!oi#e Rule+eople '. Eag#a&% ,R No. 12?.1/% 4.21.AA0Accuse! "as a passenger of a (eepne&su(ecte! to a chec1point% asleep then% he "as"o1enupan!or!ere!tocarr&theagnearhi#% he argue! that such ag "as not his.Apparentl& the ag containe! Kari(uana% oninspection he "as arreste!% on trial herepeate!l&!enie!o"nershipof theag. 8hecourt foun!hi#guilt&an!"assentence!to!eath. Being ale to secure the testi#onies ofthe(eepne&con!uctor an!theco;passengersaccuse! #o'e! for a ne" trial% ut "as !enie!%23I opine! that the silence of such testi#oniesfor al#ost a &ear is of no conse:uence.8his 2ourt has rule! that the *n!ings of the trialcourt as to the cre!iilit& of "itnesses aregenerall& not !isture!. But% it is not unco##onfor a "itness to a cri#e to sho" so#ereluctance aout getting in'ol'e! in a cri#inalcaseasinfact thenatural reticenceof #ostpeople to get in'ol'e!is of (u!icial notice.GGDela& of a "itness in re'ealing to theauthorities "hat he 1no"s aout a cri#e !oesnot ren!er his testi#on&false% for the!elaa&eeFplaine!&thenatural reticenceof#ost people an! their ahorrence to getin'ol'e! in a cri#inal case.Je ha'e hel! that Gif the inculpator& facts an!circu#stances are capale of t"o or #oreeFplanations% oneof "hichis consistent "iththeinnocenceof theaccuse!an!theotherconsistent "ith his guilt% then the e'i!ence !oesnot ful*ll the test of #oral certaint& an! is notsu5cient to support a con'iction. 8he e:uipoiserule pro'i!es that "here the e'i!ence in acri#inal case is e'enl& alance!% theconstitutional presu#ption of innocence shoul!tilt the scales in fa'or of the accuse!.In this case% the prosecution faile! to estalishtheguilt of accuse!H!gar Eag#a&&Alarcone&on! reasonale !out.Ri"&%# o( %&e Accu#ed a% %rial 2 To 'e!re#umed Innocen% 2 T&e E1ui!oi#e Rule+eople '. Sapal% ,R No. 124?2>% ..1@.//0Accuse! ha'e a stan!ing "arrant. )e "asarreste! "hile he "as "ith his "ife in a car an!"asfoun!toe carr&ingKari(uana% allege!l&%there "as irregularit& in his arrest hisconstitutional rights of the accuse! "ere'iolate!. 45cer clai#s presu#ption ofregularit&. )e "as foun! guilt& an! sentence! to!eath.8he2ourt iscon'ince! that%as testi*e!to &the!efense"itnesses% there"erefour (4) ofthe#in the car at the ti#e "hen the la"enforcers s"oope! !o"n on accuse!. 8he#ari(uana% assu#ing that there "as in!ee!#ari(uana foun! in the car% "as not attriute!totheother three(.) passengers of thecarsi#pl& ecause as to the# the sa#e "oul! eina!#issileine'i!ence. Accuse!"assingle!out ecause there "as a stan!ing "arrantagainst hi#. 8he#ari(uanacoul!euse!ase'i!enceagainsthi#. 8hefact% ho"e'er% thathe has a pen!ing cri#inal case for illegalpossession of GshauG !oes not ipso facto #a1ehi# the o"ner of the #ari(uana G!isco'ere!G inthe car. It #ust e note! that the #ari(uana "asnot foun! intheperson of the accuse!utinthe car "ith three other passengers. 8he#ari(uanacoul!ha'eelonge!toan&oneofthe#.It is "ell;settle! that G"here the circu#stancessho"n to eFist &iel! t"o (2) or #ore inferences%one of "hich is consistent "ith the presu#ptionof innocence "hile the other or others #a& eco#patile"iththe*n!ingof guilt% thecourt#ust ac:uit the accuse!0 for the e'i!ence !oesnot ful*ll the test of #oral certaint& an! isinsu5cient to support a (u!g#ent of con'iction.Inthiscase% theprosecutionfaile!topresente'i!ence to o'erco#e the presu#ption ofinnocence&the2onstitutiontotheaccuse!.8o paraphrase an a!#onition eFpresse! & the2ourt in an earlier case% #uch as "e share theahorrence of the !isenchante! pulic in regar!totheproliferationof!rugpushers% the2ourtcannot allo" an in!i'i!ual to su$er the supre#epenalt&of !eathase!oninsu5cient factualneFus of that personMs participation in theco##ission of the o$ense.Ri"&%# o( %&e Accu#ed a% %rial 2 To 'e!re#umed Innocen% 2 T&e E1ui!oi#e Rule+eople '. Isla% ,R No. A>1@>% -.21.A@0Isla "asfoun! guilt& of confession%it is gi'enthat shega'e eFtra(u!icial confession !uring thecusto!ial in'estigation con!ucte! & the police%'iolating her constitutional rights% an! that the+age . of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Proceduree'i!ence against here is #erel& hearsa&% as canegleane!fro#the testi#on&of the'icti#6sfatheran!fro#theother "itnesses% a'erringthat the& "ere all (ust infor#e! of #attersrelate! to the#% the court6s !ecision "as #erel&ase! on possiilities an! suspicions. 8hehearsa& "as ase! fro# 2 people "hothe#sel'es ha'e #issing relati'es% othpointing to the accuse!. In the case at ar% "hen +B2pl. Karasiganstarte! his in'estigation "ithout pro'i!ingappellant "ith counsel of her choice% the for#er'iolate! her rights as enshrine! in the2onstitution. 8he la" !oes not !istinguishet"een preli#inar& :uestions !uring custo!ialin'estigation% as an& :uestion as1e! of a person"hile un!er !etention% is consi!ere! as a:uestion as1e! "hile un!er custo!ialin'estigation. 8he#o#entthereisa#o'eofthe in'estigator to elicit a!#issions or e'enplaininfor#ationfro#thesuspect (She"aspro#ise! release if she signe!) "hich #a&appear innocent or innocuous at the ti#e% thesuspectshoul!eassiste!&counsel% unlesshe"ai'eshisright% utthe"ai'ershoul!e#a!e in "riting an! in the presence of counsel.8o o'erco#e the presu#ption of innocence%nothingutproof e&on!reasonale!outofe'er&fact essential toconstitutetheo$ense"ith"hichthe accuse!is charge!#ust eestalishe!&theprosecution. In!ee!% inthecase at ench% the e'i!ence presente! !is#all&faile! to pierce the shiel! of presu#pti'einnocence% as the prosecution #erel& relie! onhearsa& e'i!ence. As can e gleane! fro# thefacts the testi#on& of the father of the 'icti#an! that of the other prosecution "itnesses"ere #erel& hearsa& as the& "ere notpersonall&a"areof thefactssurroun!ingtheallege! 1i!napping of Karitess 4rgane=.8he fact is that the "hereaouts of the 'icti#!uringthat ti#e"asun1no"n. 8here"asnotesti#on&fro#the"itnessesthat the'icti#"as in!ee! actuall& an! unla"full& ta1en. Suchtesti#on&nonetheless pro'es nothingeFceptthat thechil!"as #issing. 8his cannot ee:uate! "ith the allegation that she "as1i!nappe!. All tol!% the trial courtMs *n!ings"ere #erel& ase! on possiilities an!suspicions. Jorth repeating is the legal principlethat #ere speculations an! proailities cannotsustitutefor proof re:uire!toestalishtheguilt of an appellant e&on! reasonale !out.H:uipoise ,uilt&% e'er&one is pointing to her@9). 8he2onstitutioneFpressl&or!ainstheeFclusionine'i!ence of illegall& sei=e! articles. An&e'i!enceotaine!in'iolationof this or theprece!ing section shall e ina!#issile for an&purpose inan& procee!ing.Jith the eFclusionin e'i!ence of the illegall& sei=e! *rear#% thereis% therefore% a total asence of e'i!ence.Ri"&%# o( %&e Accu#ed a% %rial 2 To 'e!re#umedInnocen%2Proo( o( Iden%i%o(%&e Accu#ed*+eople '. 3ron!a% ,R No. 1./>/2% ..1?.//0Accuse!;Appellant"erefoun!guilt&of sellingan! !eli'ering #ari(uana on a u&;ustoperation% police allege!l& reco'ere! a ric1 of#ari(uana% AA !enies. 3ro# a tip%the accuse!"as na#e! thru a phone call & the anonouscaller as !ealers. 8he arrest% as clai#e! & theprosecution"as in Lagrante !elicto% notethatthe area "as !ar1% oth outsi!e an! insi!e theroo#% also% on his testi#on& the o5cer na#e!the suspect as Dso#eo!&P. 8o e caughtLagrante !elicto% therefore% necessaril& i#pliespositi'e i!enti*cation & the e&e"itness ore&e"itnesses.In this case% neither +42 Be!e&% nor +4.2orpu=% coul!i!entif&thepersonor personsBe!e& "as tal1ing to an! !ealing "ith prior toan!at the ti#etheric1 of #ari(uana "asotaine!. 8hus% the trial court ha! to resort toinference that since Be!e& otaine! the ric1 of#ari(uana fro#Gso#eo!&G fro#the sa#eroo# occupie! & 3R4NDA an! the otheraccuse!"ho% "hentheir na#es "erecalle!%G'olunteere!Gasoccupantsof theroo#% thenoneorso#eof the##usteresponsileforselling an! !eli'ering to Be!e& the #ari(uana.3ro#the testi#on& of +42 Be!e& on thecircu#stances resulting in the !eli'er& of aric1 of #ari(uana% itis clearthat none of theaccuse! "as caught Lagrante !elicto selling or!eli'ering #ari(uana. Due to the !ar1ness an!lac1 of illu#ination insi!e an! outsi!e the !oor"here the transaction too1 place.In e'er& cri#inal prosecution% the i!entit& of theo$en!er or o$en!ers% li1e the cri#e itself% #uste estalishe! & proof e&on! reasonale+age ? of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedure!out. I!enti*cation "hich !oes not preclu!e areasonale possiilit& of #ista1e cannot eaccor!e! an& e'i!entiar& force. In e'er&cri#inal prosecution% the i!entit& of theo$en!er or o$en!ers% li1e the cri#e itself% #uste estalishe! & proof e&on! reasonale!out. I!enti*cation "hich !oes not preclu!e areasonale possiilit& of #ista1e cannot eaccor!e! an& e'i!entiar& force.As(urispru!entiall&for#ulate!% a(u!g#ent ofcon'iction ase! on circu#stantial e'i!encecan e uphel! onl& if the circu#stances pro'enconstitute an unro1en chain "hich lea!s to onefairan!reasonaleconclusionpointingtotheaccuse!% totheeFclusionofall others% astheguilt& person.8hereisno#oral certaint&that 3R4NDAan!the other accuse! "ere responsile for the!eli'er& of #ari(uana to Be!e&.+echo '. +eople O San!igana&an% ,R No.111.AA% A.2@.A>0+echo "as foun! guilt& ofHstafa through 2onspirac& of 3alsi*cation of!ocu#ents. +echo"asthen"or1ing"ithone2atre% for the release of ship#ent in the2usto#s% +echo argues that he "as a #ereco#panion of 2atre% "ho "as the one "hopersonall&negotiate!thetransactions% "ho#apparentl& "as representingaogus tra!ingco#pan&. 8he e'i!ence for the prosecution li1e"ise faile!to pro'e that the petitioner (1) personall&represente! hi#self as an agent of H'ersun2o##ercial 8ra!ing< (2)1ne"of thefalsit&ofan& of the pulic an! co##ercial !ocu#ents in:uestion< an! (.) ha!% at an& ti#e% possessionof all or so#e of the sai! !ocu#ents. 4ther"isestate!% there is no su5cient circu#stantiale'i!ence to pro'e conspirac& et"een thepetitioner an! 2atre to co##it the co#pleFcri#eof estafathroughfalsi*cationof pulican! co##ercial !ocu#ents. Neither is theree'i!enceof petitionerMsacti'eparticipationintheco##issionof thecri#e. 8heconcor!antco#inationan!cu#ulati'ee$ectoftheactsof the petitioner as pro'en & the prosecutionMse'i!ence fails to satisf& the re:uire#ents ofSection 4% Rule 1.. of the Rules of 2ourt. 8hereis reasonale !out as to his guilt. An! since hisconstitutional right to e presu#e! innocentuntil pro'enguilt&caneo'erthro"nonl&&proof e&on!reasonale!out% thepetitioner#ust then e ac:uitte! e'en though hisinnocence #a& e !oute!.8hee'i!encefortheprosecution%as a!#itte!& the respon!ent% onl& sho"e!that it "as2atre"hopossesse!thefalsi*e!!ocu#ents%contracte! the ser'ices of 2alica% an! !eli'ere!the!ocu#entstothelatterforprocessing. Inthe asenceof satisfactor& eFplanation%2atre%eing the one in possession of the forge!!ocu#ents% is presu#e! to e the forger. 2atre%ho"e'er% coul! not pro'i!e the eFplanationecause onl& the petitioner "as trie!. 8heinfor#ation states that his a!!ress isGun1no"n%G an! the recor! !oes not sho" that a"arrant for his arrest "as issue!. 8he onl&"arrant of arrest that"asissue!"as that forthe petitioner.2onspiracust esho"ntoeFist asclearl&an!ascon'incingl&astheco##issionof theo$ense itself in or!er to uphol! thefun!a#ental principle that no one shall efoun! guilt& of a cri#e eFcept upon proofe&on! reasonale !out.+eople'.Sa!ie%,R No.>>A/@% 4.14.-@0Sa!ie"as foun! guilt& to ha'e sol! illegalnarcotics%after au&;ust operation"as con!ucte!&the 2onstaular& Anti;Narcotics Cnit (2ANC)%after atip"as#a!e&aninfor#ant. Sa!ie!eniestheallegation% clai#ingthat "henthepolice o5cers con!ucte! the arrest% the& "ereloo1ing for a certain D8essieP% "Bc she "as not%sa#e :uestion "as the onl& :uestion as1e!!uring her custo!&.Noe'i!ence"hatsoe'er has eenpresente!that the appellant 1ne"the infor#er Bo&ete'encasuall&% or that sheha!e'er #et hi#efore the afternoon in :uestion. Qet% theprosecution "oul! ha'e it that sheunhesitatingl& #a!e an illicit transaction "ith aperson she "as #eeting for the *rst ti#e% afteronl& a rief parle&% an! at her 'er& !oorstep% infull 'ie" of e'er& in:uisiti'e neighor an!passer&. An! "hen it is consi!ere! as clai#e!%it "asfor apittanceof +././/that shethushee!lessl&ris1e!!isco'er&% !enunciationan!i#position of at least a life ter#% cre!enceeco#es e'en har!er to e'o1e.8he thir! "itness% ho"e'er% has a !i$erentrecollection. +olice 45cer H!!ie Regala!otesti*e!that t"oinfor#ers pose!as u&ers%+age > of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedurethe other% curiousl&% also 1no"n onl& & anic1na#e G+are/1A% ..1./10Appellant "ascon'icte!at thecri#eof rapean! "as sentence! to !eath un!er Article ..?oftheRe'ise!+enal2o!eas a#en!e!&RA@>?A for ha'ing ha! seFual intercourse "ith his!aughter. Sentence! to !eath. Accuse! arguesthat the infor#ation (#inorit&) *le! "asinsu5cient.8he circu#stances un!er the a#en!ator&pro'isions of R.A. No. @>?A% Section 11 (Death)%areinthenatureof :ualif&ingcircu#stances"hich cannot e pro'e! as such unless allege!intheinfor#ation.H'en if such circu#stancesare pro'e!% the !eath penalt& cannot ei#pose! "here the sa#e "ere not properl&allege! in the Infor#ation. In the case at ar . . .thetrial court i#pose!thepenalt&of !eathafterta1ingintoconsi!erationtheageof Ka.Eolita "ho "as then *fteen (1?) &ears an! eight(-) #onths ol! an! the fact that accuse!;appellant is her father. )o"e'er% "hile the:ualif&ing circu#stance of relationship has eenallege!intheInfor#ation% itis!e'oi!of an&a'er#ent on pri'ate co#plainantMs #inorit&.Since one of the t"in re:uire#ents #entione!%na#el&% #inorit&% "as not allege! in theInfor#ation% accuse!;appellant canneither econ'icte! for :uali*e! rape nor coul! the !eathpenalt& e#ete!upon hi#ecauseto!oso"oul!eto !epri'ehi#of the right to einfor#e! of the nature an! cause of theaccusation against hi#. Nie"e! 'is;a;'is theforegoing legal stan!ar!s% accuse!;appellantcan e con'icte! of si#ple rape onl&% "hich is+age @ of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedurepunishale "ith reclusion perpetua. It #ust eorne in #in! that the re:uire#ent forco#pleteallegationsontheparticularsof thein!ict#ent is ase! on the right of the accuse!to e full& infor#e! of the nature of the chargesagainst hi# so that he #a& a!e:uatel& preparefor his !efensepursuant tothe!ueprocessclause of the 2onstitution.+eople'. Nillanue'a% ,RNo. 1.?../% -..1.//0Nillanue'a% rape! her step;!aughter% foun!guilt& & the 23I% sentence! to !eath.Nillanue'a no" appeals the 8his 2ourt has consistentl& rule! that thecircu#stances un!er the a#en!ator& pro'isionsof Section 11 of Repulic Act @>?A% theatten!ance of "hich #an!ates the i#position ofthe single in!i'isile penalt& of !eath% are in thenature of :ualif&ing circu#stances "hich cannote pro'e! as such unless allege! in theinfor#ation% an! e'en if pro'e!% the !eathpenalt&cannot ei#pose!. Cnli1eagenericaggra'ating circu#stance "hich #a& e pro'e!e'enif not allege!% a:ualif&ingaggra'atingcannot e pro'e! as such unless allege! in theinfor#ationalthoughit #a& e pro'e!as ageneric aggra'ating circu#stance if so inclu!e!a#ong those enu#erate! in the 2o!e. 8here:uire#ent for co#plete allegations on theparticulars of thein!ict#ent isase!ontheright of the accuse! to e full& infor#e! of thenatureof thechargeagainst hi#% sothat he#a& a!e:uatel& prepare for this !efensepursuant to the !ue process clause of the2onstitution.8he infor#ation instea! si#pl&referre!toNIAas the step!aughter of 2AKIE4. NIA is not thestep!aughter of 2AKIE4 ecause her #other isnot #arrie!to 2AKIE4. Astep!aughter is a!aughter of oneMs spouse & a pre'ious#arriage or the !aughter of one of the spouses&afor#er #arriage. Sinceoneof thet"in:ualif&ing circu#stances afore#entione!%na#el&% relationship% speci*call& that NIA is the!aughter of 2AKIE4Ms co##on;la""ife% "asnotallege!intheinfor#ation% 2AKIE4cannotecon'icte!of :uali*e!rapean!the!eathpenalt& cannot e i#pose! upon hi#+eople '. Ra#os% ,R No. 11-?@/% 1/.12.A-0 8hisis 8he Regional 8rial 2ourt *n!ing appellantRa#osguilt&of t"oseparateheinouscri#es?A% accuse!;appellantshoul! e con'icte! of the special co#pleFcri#e of SIDNA++IN, 34R RANS4K JI8)KCRDHRan!i#poseuponhi#the#aFi#u#penalt& of DHA8). 8he rule is% "here the person1i!nappe! is 1ille! in the course of the!etention% regar!less of "hether the 1illing "aspurposel& sought or "as #erel& anafterthought% the 1i!napping an! #ur!er orho#ici!ecannolonger eco#pleFe!un!erArt. 4-% nor e treate! as separate cri#es% utshall epunishe!asaspecial co#pleFcri#eun!er the last paragraph of Art. 2>@% asa#en!e! & RA No. @>?ABalitaan '. 23I Batangas% ,R No. E;.-?44%@../.-20 Balitaan charge! +ri'ate Respon!ent De losRe&es "ith Hstafa% 4n trial% Balitaan testi*e! onthe eFistence of . 'ouchers "hich the la"&er oftheaccuse!#o'e!tostri1esinceit "asnotallege! in the infor#ation. K82!enie! oth#otions fro# oth counsels% ho"e'er oncertiorari on 23I% it "as or!ere! stric1en out.It isfun!a#ental thate'er&ele#entof"hichthe o$ense is co#pose! #ust e allege! in theco#plaint or infor#ation. Jhat facts an!circu#stances are necessar& to e state! #uste!eter#ine!&referencetothe!e*nitionsan!theessentialsof thespeci*ccri#es. 8he#ain purpose of re:uiring the 'arious ele#entsof a cri#e to e set out in an infor#ation is toenale the accuse! to suital& prepare his!efense. )e is presu#e! to ha'e no+age - of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedurein!epen!ent 1no"le!ge of the facts thatconstitute the o$ense.In the instantcase% the eFistence of the threechec1s nee!note allege! in the Infor#ationfor estafa. 8his is an e'i!entiar& #atter "hich isnot re:uire! to e allege! therein. 3urther% thatthese chec1s% as testi*e! & petitionera#ounte! to +1%>.2.A@ !i! not 'ar& theallegationintheInfor#ationthat respon!entRita !e los Re&es #isappropriate! the a#ountof +12@.?-. +roof of the chec1s an! their totala#ount "as #aterial e'i!ence of the fact thatrespon!ent #isappropriate! the a#ount of+12@.?- "hich "as ut a part of the total su#of thechec1s. 2onse:uentl&% theInfor#ationhereinsu5cientl&chargesthecri#eof estafaun!er paragraph 1() of Article .1?% of theRe'ise! +enal 2o!e.H'angelista '. +eople% ,R Nos. 1/-1.?;.>%-.14.//0 +etitioner appeale! fro#her con'iction for'iolation of Section . (e) of the Anti;,raft an!2orrupt +ractices Act !ue to her issuance of acerti*cation "hich faile! to i!entif& "ithcertaint&"hat the8N2s (8aFNu#eric 2o!e)stan! for an! the taFes pai! & 8an!ua&% "hichin turn eca#e the asis for the erroneousgrant of 8an!ua&Ms application for taF cre!it. Accor!ingtopetitioner% instea!of con'ictingher of the acts !escrie! in the Infor#ation% she"as con'icte! of issuing the certi*cation"ithout i!entif&ingthe1in!sof taFfor "hichthe 8N2s stan! an! "ithout in!icating "hether8an!ua& "as reall& entitle! to taF cre!it or not.It is "ell;settle! that an accuse! cannot econ'icte! of an o$ense unless it is clearl&charge! in the co#plaint or infor#ation.2onstitutionall&% he has a right to e infor#e!of the nature an! cause of the accusationagainst hi#. 8o con'ict hi# of an o$ense otherthan that charge! in the co#plaint orinfor#ation "oul! e a 'iolation of thisconstitutional right. 12Inthecaseatar% "e*n!#erit inpetitionerMs contentionthat theactsfor "hich she"as con'icte! are !i$erentfro#those allege! in the Infor#ation. Korei#portantl&% as "e ha'e !iscusse! ao'e%petitionerMsact of issuingthecerti*cation!i!not constitutecorrupt practices as !e*ne!inSection . (e) of R.A. ./1A. +eople '. 4rtega% ,R No. 11>@.>% @.24.A@0Appellants Ben(a#in 4rtega% Jr. an! Kanuel,arcia"erecharge!"iththe1illingof An!reKar Kasang1a&% atten!e! "ith treacher&%e'i!ent pre#e!itation an! ause of superiorstrength. 8he& "ere foun! guilt& an! sentence!to su$er reclusion perpetua. ,arcia a co;accuse! a'ers that he "as charge! "ith#ur!er% "h& then is he eing punishe! forho#ici!e.8he Infor#ation accuse! Appellant ,arcia (an!Appellant 4rtega) of Gattac17ing9% assault7ing9%an! sta7ing9 repeate!l& "ith a pointe!"eapon on the !i$erent parts of the o!& oneANDRH KAR KASAN,SAQ & ABE4EA.G 8heprosecutionMs e'i!ence itself sho"s that ,arciaha! nothing to !o "ith the staing "hich "assolel& perpetrate! & Appellant 4rtega. )isresponsiilit& relates onl& to the atte#pte!conceal#ent of the cri#e an! the resulting!ro"ningof Nicti#Kasang1a&. 8hehornoo1!octrineinour (uris!ictionisthat anaccuse!cannot e con'icte! of an o$ense% unless it isclearl& charge! in the co#plaint or infor#ation.2onstitutionall&% he has a right to e infor#e!of the nature an! cause of the accusationagainst hi#. 8o con'ict hi# of an o$ense otherthan that charge! in the co#plaint orinfor#ation "oul! e a 'iolation of thisconstitutional right. B& parit& of reasoning%Appellant ,arcia cannot e con'icte! ofho#ici!ethrough!ro"ninginaninfor#ationthat charges #ur!er & #eans of staing.Secon!. Althoughtheprosecution"asaletopro'e that Appellant ,arcia assiste! inGconcealing . . . the o!& of the cri#e% . . . inor!er to pre'ent its !isco'er&%G he can neithere con'icte! as an accessor& after the fact!e*ne! un!er Article 1A% par. 2% of the Re'ise!+enal 2o!e. 8herecor!s sho"that Appellant,arciaisarother;in;la"of Appellant4rtega%the latterMs sister% Karitess% eing his "ife. Suchrelationship eFe#pts Appellant ,arcia fro#cri#inal liailit& as pro'i!e! & Article 2/ of theRe'ise! +enal 2o!e.Con#%i%u%ional Provi#ion on %&e Ri"&% %o 'ein(ormed 2 Rela%ion#&i! 2 Hal( Si#%er+eople '. Sa(olga% ,R No. 14>>-4% -.21./20Accuse!;appellant "as foun! guilt& & the trialcourt of :uali*e! rape for seFuall& ausing his*fteen;&ear ol! half;sister. )e "as sentence! to+age A of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Proceduresu$er the penalt& of !eath. )ence% thisauto#atic re'ie". 8he Supre#e 2ourt foun!appellant guilt& onl& of si#ple rape ecause ofthe failure of the prosecution to allege thatappellantisarelati'e&consanguinit&"ithinthe thir! ci'il !egree of the o$en!e! part&%e'enif it "aspro'enan!stipulate!that the'icti#"as un!er eighteen&ears of agean!that he is a half;rother of co#plainant.3or the purpose of i#posing the !eath penalt&un!er paragraph 1 of Article 2>>;B of theRe'ise! +enal 2o!e% the relationship of theparties #ust also e allege! an! pro'e!. Itcannot e the su(ect of stipulation of theparties. H'enif suchis pro'en% it cannot econsi!ere! in the i#position of the !eathpenalt& if it is not properl& allege! in theinfor#ation. 8he reason for this is that the age(elo" 1-) an! relationship of the o$en!er an!theo$en!e! part&in Art.2>>;B%par.1 areinthe nature of :ualif&ing circu#stances re:uiringthe i#position of a #ore se'ere penalt&. )ence%!ue process re:uires that the accuse! einfor#e! of the#as possil& :ualif&ing thecri#e "ith "hich he is charge!. Accuse!;appellant is not Ga parent% ascen!ant% step;parent% or guar!ian or the co##on;la" spouseGof the 'icti#Ms #other% ut a relati'e &consanguinit&. )ence% as this 2ourt has hel!% it#ust e allege! in the infor#ation that he is arelati'e & consanguinit& or a5nit&% as the case#a& e% "ithin the thir! ci'il!egree. Not onl&shoul! Grelationship & consanguinit& ora5nit&G e allege!% it is also necessar& tospecif& that such relationship is G"ithin the thir!ci'il !egree.G Kere allegation an! thestipulation that accuse!;appellant is the rotherof the 'icti#ecause the&ha'e aco##on#other arenot enoughtosatisf&thespecial:ualif&ing circu#stance of relationship. SEC*1 8 TO 5E PRESE-T AT HIS TRIAL A-DTO COU-SELa* Pre#ence durin" %rialParada v* 7ud"e 9eneracion Accuse!ischarge!"B 4countsof estafa%on!e!. )isla"&er change!a!!resspen!entelite%properl& notif&ing e'er&one an! the court. )is case "as re;raTe!% ecause the for#er(u!ge inhiite! Respon!ent Ju!ge too1 o'er an! sent noticeof trial to the accuse! for#er a!!ress Arrest "as or!ere!% trial inasencia"asinitiate!% an!he"assentence!% arreste!%an! (aile!< 2A rule! in fa'or of the Accuse!% an!re#an!e! that the case e re;trie!. Accuse!"ent to2Aan!sue!respon!entfor ignoranceof thela"% for not follo"ingthe legal re:uire#ents of trial in asentia. )ere% the notice of hearing "as sent to thefor#er a!!ressof+ara!aMs counsel!espitethe fact that the latter for#all& noti*e! thecourt of his change of a!!ress. )is failure toappear therefore is (usti*e! & the asenceof a 'ali! ser'ice of notice. Inci!entall&% theright toahearingcarries"ith it the right to e noti*e! of e'er&inci!ent of the procee!ings in court. 8he circu#stantial setting of the instantcase as "eighe!&the asic stan!ar!soffair pla& i#pels us to so hol! that the trial inasentia of +ara!a an! his suse:uentcon'iction are tainte! "ith the 'ice ofnullit&% for e'i!entl& +ara!a "as !enie! !ueprocess of la". Ju!ges are re:uire! & 2anon .% Rule ../1 ofthe 2o!e of Ju!icial 2on!uct to e faithful tothe la" an! #aintain professionalco#petence. Ju!ge "as *ne! for 1/S,un!a&ao '. 2A 8his petition for re'ie" on certiorarii#pugns the resolution of the 2ourt ofAppeals !ate! Januar& 14% 1A-@ !en&ingpetitionersM #otion for ne" trial. +etitioners for#erl& loss in a 2i'il suitregar!ing lan! !ispute% the 2A a5r#e! theDirector of Ean!6s !ecision< 4nthe last !a& of appeal the& change!la"&ers% 2A recei'e! such notice. 4n sa#e !a& Ne" la"&er *le! for a #otionfor reconsi!eration ? !a&s later the #otion "as !enie!% ut the!enial "as sent to the for#er la"&er6sa!!ress A &earlater%petitioner #otione! for retrialin light of ne" e'i!ence. Denie!. )ence this. 3ro# Septe#er 2A% 1A-> to No'e#er 1/%1A->% or a total of 42 !a&s% petitioners !i!nothing to :uestion the issuance of the "rit+age 1/ of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedureof eFecution. Neither !i! the& *le a #otionfor its :uashal nor a petition for certiorari torectif& an& suppose! irregularit&. Jorse%the& instea! *le! a #otion for ne"trialun!er !ateof No'e#er 1/% 1A->"hich"as !enie! & respon!ent court. State! !i$erentl&% assu#ing that theregle#entar& perio!s for the suse:uentproce!ural steps"hichpetitionersM counsel#a& ha'e ta1en !i! not start to run o"ing totheir allege!non;receipt of theresolution!en&ing their #otion for reconsi!eration%such perio! shoul! e !ee#e! to ha'eco##ence! to run "hen the& recei'e! theor!er !irecting the issuance of a "rit ofeFecution "hich coul! not ut ser'e thesa#epurposeas anoti*cationthat their#otion for reconsi!eration ha! een !enie!& respon!ent court. 8o hol! other"ise"oul! sacri*ce sustance for for# upon thealtar of technicalities% not tospea1of the#erits of pri'ate respon!entsM case(ustif&ing the (u!g#ent in their fa'or.'* 0aiver o( A!!earance2arre!o '. +eople 8he issue in this case is "hether or not anaccuse! "ho% after arraign#ent% "ai'es hisfurtherappearance!uringthetrial caneor!ere! arreste! & the court for non;appearanceuponsu##ons toappear forpurposes of i!enti*cation. )erein petition for re'ie" on certiorari:uestioning the !is#issal of the petition &the trial court an! su#itting for!eter#inationtheissueof "hether or notpetitioner can e co#pelle!% on pain ofeingarreste!an!his cashon!gettingcon*scate!% to e present !uring the trial forpurposes of his i!enti*cation & theprosecution "itnesses in a co#plaint for#alicious #ischief !espite his "ritten "ai'erof appearance. the 1A@. 2onstitution no" un:uali*e!l&per#its trial in asentia e'en of capitalo$enses% pro'i!e! that after arraign#ent he#a& e co#pelle! to appear for the purposeof i!enti*cation & the "itnesses of theprosecution% or pro'i!e! he un:uali*e!l&a!#itsinopencourtafterhisarraign#entthat he is the person na#e! as the!efen!antinthecaseontrial. 8hereasonfor re:uiringthepresenceof theaccuse!%!espite his "ai'er% is% if allo"e! to e asentin all the stages of the procee!ings "ithoutgi'ing the +eopleMs "itnesses theopportunit& to i!entif& hi# in court% he #a&in his !efense sa& that he "as ne'eri!enti*e! as the person charge! in theinfor#ation an!% therefore% is entitle! to anac:uittal. Inthepresent casepetitioner onl&a!#itsthat he can e i!enti*e! & the prosecution"itnesses in his asence. )e !i! not a!#itthat he is the 'er& person na#e! as!efen!ant in the case on trial. )is a!#issionis 'ague an! far fro# un:uali*e!. )e cannottherefore see1 the ene*t of the eFceptionrecogni=e! in +resi!ing Ju!ge. 8he accuse! #a& "ai'e his right ut not his!ut& or oligation to the court.c* E:ec% o( Failure %o a!!ear in one %rialda%e2risosto#o '. Na=areno 8he Decision foun! 2risosto#o guilt& of thecri#e of #ur!er an! sentence! hi# to su$erthe in!eter#inate penalt& )o"e'er% the "ith!ra"al of the o#nius#otion coul! not erase the San!igana&anMs'iolation of 2risosto#oMs right to proce!ural!ue process an! Att&. ,ua!esM grossnegligence. Att&. ,ua!es faile! to protect hisclientMs interest "hen he !i! not notif&2risosto#oof thesche!ule!hearingsan!(ust 'anishe! "ithoutinfor#ing 2risosto#oan!theSan!igana&anof his ne"o5cea!!ress. 8he 22 June 1AA? 4r!er "as ser'e!on Att&. ,ua!es ut he !i! not e'en co#pl&"ith the !irecti'e in the 4r!er to eFplain in"ritinghisasenceatthe21an!22June1AA? hearings. Att&. ,ua!es !i! not *le the#e#oran!u# in 2risosto#oMs ehalfre:uire!&thesa#e4r!er. Att&. ,ua!es!i! not also :uestion the 'iolation of2risosto#oMs right to proce!ural !ueprocess. 8he suse:uent notices of hearingan!pro#ulgation"erenotser'e!onAtt&.+age 11 of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedure,ua!esashecoul!not elocate!intheuil!ing "here his o5ce "as locate!. Cn!er Section 2 (c)% Rule 114 an! Section 1(c)% Rule 11? of the Rules of 2ourt%2risosto#oMs non;appearance !uring the 22June 1AA?trial"as#erel&a"ai'er ofhisright to e present for trial on such !ate onl&an! not for the succee!ing trial !ates. . . .Koreo'er% 2risosto#oMsasenceonthe22June 1AA? hearingshoul!not ha'eeen!ee#e! as a "ai'er of his right to presente'i!ence. Jhile constitutional rights #a& e"ai'e!% such "ai'er #ust e clear an! #uste couple! "ith an actual intention torelin:uish the right. 2risosto#o !i! not'oluntaril& "ai'e in person or e'en throughhis counsel the right to present e'i!ence. 8he court #ust *rst eFplain to the accuse!personall&inclear ter#stheeFact naturean!conse:uencesof a"ai'er. 2risosto#o"as not e'en fore"arne!. 8heSan!igana&an si#pl& "ent ahea! to!epri'e2risosto#oof hisright topresente'i!ence "ithout e'en allo"ing2risosto#oto eFplain his asence on the 22 June 1AA?hearing.d* Invalid Trial in A'#en%ia,i#ene= '. Na=areno Jhether or not un!er Section 1A% Article INof the1A@.2onstitution% anaccuse!"hohaseen!ul&trie!inasentiaretainshisright to present e'i!ence on his o"n ehalfan! to confront an! cross;eFa#ine"itnesses "ho testi*e! against hi#. Before the sche!ule! !ate of the *rsthearing the pri'ate respon!ent escape!(Accuse! of Kur!er). 8his pro#pte! the*scals han!ling the case (the petitionersherein) to *le a #otion to procee! "ith trialin asentia +etitioner clai#s that "hen the pri'aterespon!ent% "ho"astrie!inasentia% !i!not lose his right to cross;eFa#ine the"itnessesfor theprosecutionan!presenthis e'i!ence. 8he reasoningof thesai!courtisthatun!erthesa#epro'ision% allaccuse! shoul! e presu#e! innocent. Juris!ictiononceac:uire!isnot lost upontheinstanceof partiesut continuesuntilthe case is ter#inate!. Jhere the accuse!appears at the arraign#ent an! plea!s notguilt&tothecri#echarge!% (uris!ictionisac:uire! & the court o'er his person Atrial inasentia#a&eha!"henthefollo"ing re:uisites are present0 (1) thatthere has een an arraign#ent< (2) that theaccuse! has een noti*e!< an! (.) that hefailstoappear an!hisfailureto!osoisun(usti*e!. Cpon the ter#ination of a trialin asentia%thecourt has the!ut& to ruleuponthee'i!ence presente! in court. 8he court nee!not "ait for the ti#e until the accuse! "hoescape fro# custo!& *nall& !eci!es toappear in court to present his e'i!ence an!cross;eFa#ine the "itnesses against hi#. 8he contention of the respon!ent (u!ge thattheright of theaccuse!toepresu#e!innocent "ill e'iolate!if a(u!g#ent isren!ere! as to hi# is untenale. )e is stillpresu#e! innocent. A (u!g#ent ofcon'iction #ust still e ase! upon thee'i!ence presente! in court. Such e'i!ence#ust pro'ehi#guilt&e&on!reasonale!out. Also% there can e no 'iolation of !ueprocess sincetheaccuse!"as gi'entheopportunit& to e hear!. An escapee "ho has een trie! in asentiaretainshisrightstocross;eFa#inean!topresent e'i!ence on his ehalf. B& his failuretoappear!uringthetrial of "hichheha!notice% he 'irtuall& "ai'e! these rights.II* RIGHT TO COU-SEL5a#i# o( Ri"&% %o Coun#el+eople '. Ber#as Ber#asisfoun!toha'eco##itte!rape%an! is sentence! to !eath. 4n his arraign#ent% he ha! no counsel% thena +A4 la"&er "as assigne!% "ho !i!n6t helpat all% !i!n6t e'en cross;eFa#ine the "itnessof the prosecution% an! after the trial%re:ueste! that she e relie'e!% then acounsel !e o*cio "as assigne!. (Att&.,o#e=) 8he!efense"assche!ule!topresent itse'i!enceon1.A.A?% ut the accuse!ca#ein "ith no counsel.+age 12 of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedure 8he 2ounsel "as then replace! again (Att&.Eo=a#e)% an!another trial "assche!ule!%onthat!ate%the la"&erhi#selfre:ueste!that he erelie'e!%ut"as persua!e! &the court. 8his 2ourt *n!s an! #ust hol!% #ostregrettal&% thataccuse!;appellanthasnotproperl&an! e$ecti'el&een accor!e!theright to counsel. So i#portant is the right tocounsel that it haseenenshrine!inourfun!a#ental la" an! its precursor la"s.In!ee!% e'en prior to the a!'ent of the 1A.?2onstitution% the right to counsel of anaccuse! has alrea!& een recogni=e! un!er,eneral 4r!er No. ?-% !ate! 2. April 1A//%stating that a !efen!ant in all cri#inalprosecutions is entitle! to counsel at e'er&stage of the procee!ings%71/9 an! that if heis unale to e#plo& counsel% the court #ustassign one to !efen! hi# In cri#inal cases there can e no fairhearing unless the accuse! e gi'en anopportunit& to e hear! & counsel. 8heright to e hear! "oul! e of little a'ail if it!oesnot inclu!etheright toehear!&counsel. H'en the #ost intelligent ore!ucate! #an #a& ha'e no s1ill in thescience of the la"% particularl& in the rulesof proce!ure% an!% "ithout counsel% he #a&econ'icte!not ecauseheisguilt&utecause he !oes not 1no" ho" to estalishhis innocence. An!this canhappen#oreeasil& to persons "ho are ignorant orune!ucate!. It is for this reasonthat theright to e assiste! & counsel is !ee#e! soi#portant that it has eco#e aconstitutional right an!it soi#ple#ente!thatun!erourrulesof proce!ureitisnotenough for the 2ourt to apprise an accuse!of hisright toha'eanattorne&% it isnotenough toas1hi#"hetherhe !esires theai! of an attorne&% ut it is essential that thecourt shoul! assign one !e o*cio for hi# ifhe so !esires an! he is poor or grant hi# areasonaleti#etoprocureanattorne&ofhis o"n J)HRH34RH% let this case e RHKANDHD tothe court a :uo for trial on the asis of theco#plaint% afore:uote!% un!er "hich he "asarraigne!.Att&. Ricar!o A.3ernan!e=%Jr.ofthe Anti;Death +enalt& 8as1 3orce is here&appointe! counsel !e o5cio for theappellant. Att&s. Rosa Hl#ina Nilla#in of the +ulicAttorne&Ms 45ce% +araa:ue% Roerto ,o#e=an! Nicanor Eon=a#e are here&ADK4NIS)HDfor ha'ing fallen #uch tooshort of their responsiilit& as o5cers of thecourtan!as#e#ersof theBaran!are"arne!thatan&si#ilarinfractionshall e!ealt "ith #ost se'erel&.+age 1. of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedure+eople '. Durango Accuse! of Rape After the prosecution ha! arel& starte! "iththe presentation at the "itness stan! ofpri'ate co#plainant% the !efense counsel#anifeste!tothecourt that theaccuse!"ante!to"ith!ra"hisearlierpleaof notguilt&an!tosustituteit "ithapleaofguilt& to the cri#es charge!. 8he trial court ren!ere! the no" :uestione!!ecision. In his appeal rief% accuse!;appellant su#itte!aloneassign#ent oferror that the court a :uo #anifestl& erre! incon'ictingaccuse!;appellant of thecri#escharge! !espite his i#pro'i!ent plea ofguilt&. It cannot e sai! that "hen a person plea!sguilt&toacri#ethereisnochanceatallthat he coul!% in fact% e innocent. Statisticscan easil& !ispel that notion. 8he i#pro'i!ent plea% follo"e! & anare'iate!procee!ing% "ithpracticall&norole at all pla&e! & the !efense% is (ust too#eager to accept as eing the stan!ar!constitutional !ueprocessat "or1enoughto forfeit a hu#an life. 4f #osttroulousconcernisthefactthatthe accuse! has not een apprise! at all ofthe conse:uences of the plea% let alonespeci*call&"arne!that% gi'enhispleaofguilt% the !eath sentence !ecree! un!erRepulic Act @>?A "oul! ne'ertheless ha'etoei#pose!% contrar&to"hathe#ightha'e entertaine! or een a!'ise!. It isessential that a searching in:uir& iscon!ucte! after the accuse! plea!s guilt& toa capital o$ense% an! it #ust focus on0 (1)the 'oluntariness of the plea an! (2) aco#plete co#prehension of the legal e$ectsof the plea so that the plea of guilt can etrul&sai!as eingase!ona freean!infor#e! (u!g#ent. So in!ispensale is thisre:uire#ent that a plea of guilt to a capitalo$ense can e hel! null an! 'oi! "here thetrialcourt has ina!e:uatel& !ischarge! the!ut& of con!ucting the prescrie!Gsearching in:uir&.G the(u!g#ent in2ri#inal 2aseNo. 1--A@;KNan!No. 1--A-;KNcon'ictingaccuse!;appellant BonifacioDurango&2arce!ooft"o cri#es of rape an! i#posing upon hi#the penalt& of !eath is SH8 ASIDH. Sai!casesareRHKANDHDtothetrial courtforfurther an! appropriate procee!ings.+eople '. 2ano& 8his is an appealfro#the!ecision*n!ing)eracleo Kanri:ue= an! ,regorio 2ano&guilt& of 1illing Hrnesto ,au&an an!3er!inan! Dua&. Inclu!e! in e'i!ence is theeFtra;(u!icial confession"hich theaccuse!eFecute!. ,regorio% ho"e'er% allege!thathe "as not infor#e! of his rights to counselan! to re#ain silent. )eracleo% on the otherhan!% asserte! that the& eFecute! a s"ornstate#entonthepro#isethatthe&"oul!e utili=e! as state "itnesses. 8he& !enie!an& participation in the cri#e. 8he 2ourt "as con'ince! that theconstitutional rights of accuse! "ere'iolate!. Recor!s sho"e! that there "asinsu5cienc&of assistancegi'enan!there"ere La"s co##itte! in the preparation ofthe Docu#ent of Jai'er signe! & ,regorio.)ence% there "as no #eaningful infor#ationas to the rights of the accuse! un!ercusto!ial in'estigation "as con'e&e!% theJai'eris% therefore% null an!'oi!an!theeFtra(u!icial confession ina!#issile ine'i!ence. Nonetheless% the e'i!ence onrecor!alsosatis*e!the2ourt "ith#oralcertaint& that ,regorio an! )eracleoconspire! together to 1ill the 'icti#s 8he recor!s sho"that the !ocu#ent ofJai'ersigne!&,RH,4RI4"asprepare!on @ 3eruar& 1AA/ ut "as suscrie! an!s"orn to on 1A 3eruar& 1AA/ efore Asst.2it& +rosecutor Jose ,arcia% Jr. 4'er thesignature of Att&. Ri!ge"a& 8an(ili% thefollo"ing "or!s "ere t&pe!0 GDeclarantassiste!&counsel.G It is e'i!entl&clearfro# the Jai'er that no #eaningfulinfor#ation as to his rights un!er custo!ialinterrogation"as con'e&e!to,RH,4RI4.)e "as not as1e! if he "ante! to a'ail of hisrightsan!"asnot tol!that if hehasnola"&erof hiso"nchoicehecoul!a'ail ofonetoeappointe!forhi#. 3urther#ore%the "ai'er states that he !oes not "ant theassistanceof counsel an!it isnot sho"nthat he agree! to e assiste! & Att&. 8an(ili.)is eFplanation to ,RH,4RI4 on hisconstitutional rights !uring custo!ial+age 14 of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedureinterrogation an! of the e$ects of the "ai'erthereof is unsatisfactor&. Att&. 8an(ili alsoa!#itte! !uring cross;eFa#ination that,RH,4RI4 an! )HRA2EH4 agree! toconfessecauseof thepro#isethat the&"oul! turn state "itnesses. 3inall&% it iso'ious that the so;calle! eFtra(u!icialconfession% "hich is a s"orn state#ent#ar1e! as HFhiit G3;2%G an! #a!e toappearasGpage2%G"asnot&etprepare!"hen Att&. 8an(ili "as approache! to GassistG,RH,4RI4.+age 1? of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedurec* 6eanin" o( %&e ri"&% +eople '. 3errer Appellant herein "as charge! "ith the rapeof his 11;&ear;ol! step!aughter of hisco##on;la" "ife. During the pre;trial%appellant an!hisla"&er faile!toappear.8rial in asentia follo"e!. 8he trial courtconsi!ere! appellant as ha'ing (u#pe! ailsince he !i! not sho" up in court. 8hus% thetrial court ren!ere! a !ecision *n!ingappellant guilt& e&on! reasonale !out ofthecri#echarge!an!i#pose!uponhi#the !eath penalt& Inhis appellantMs rief% appellant assaile!the !ecision as 'iolati'e of the 2onstitution.)e argue! that the !ecision faile! to!istinctl&point out theapplicalela"on"hich it "as ase! an! that there "asnothing in the !ecision that "oul! sho" ho"the court arri'e! at its conclusion con'ictinghi# of the cri#e charge!. Re'ise! Rules of 2ri#inal +roce!ureparticularl& in Section 1(c)% Rule 11? thereof%"hich pro'i!es that it is a right of theaccuse! at the trial to e present an!!efen!inpersonan!&counsel at e'er&stage of the procee!ings% fro# thearraign#ent to the pro#ulgation of the(u!g#ent. 8he right to counsel procee!s fro#thefun!a#ental principle of !ue process "hichasicall& #eans that a person #ust ehear! efore eing con!e#ne!. 8he !ueprocess re:uire#ent is a part of a personMsasic rights< it is not a #ere for#alit& that#a& e !ispense! "ith or perfor#e!perfunctoril&. It #a& e stresse! that the right to counsel#uste#orethan(ustthepresenceof ala"&er in the courtroo# or the #erepropoun!ing of stan!ar! :uestions an!o(ections. 8he right to counsel #eans thatthe accuse! is a#pl& accor!e! legalassistance eFten!e! & a counsel "hoco##its hi#self to the cause for the!efense an! acts accor!ingl&. It #eans an e5cient an! trul& !ecisi'e legalassistance an! not a si#ple perfunctor&representation. JhileAtt&. Alonto an! Att&.Kacaan!ing face! the !aunting tas1 of!efen!ing an accuse! "ho ha! (u#pe! ail%this unfortunate !e'elop#ent is not a(usti*cation to eFcuse the#sel'es fro#gi'ing their hearts an! souls to the latterMs!efense. Re#an!e!.+eople '. Na!era Accuse!;appellant Hlegio Na!era% Jr. has fourchil!ren & his "ife Dais&. Dais& left for a (oin Bahrain. After "or1ing aroa! for se'eral&ears% she returne! ho#e an! learne! thather t"o!aughtersha!eenrape!&nolessthanher o"nhusan!an!their o"nfather Accuse!;appellant plea!e! not guilt&to the charges. 8he trial court% ho"e'er%ren!ere! (u!g#ent *n!ing accuse!;appellant guilt& of four counts of rapeagainst his !aughters. Accuse!;appellant6s lone assign#ent oferror "asthatthetrial court accepte!hispleaof guilt&toacapital o$ense"ithout#a1ing a searching in:uir& to !eter#ine"hether he un!erstoo! the conse:uences ofhis plea. 8hepleaof guilt#ustease!onafreean! infor#e! (u!g#ent. )ence% a searchingin:uir& #ust focus on0 (1) the 'oluntarinessof the plea% an! (2) the full co#prehensionof the conse:uences of the plea. 8heright of anaccuse!to counsel *n!ssustance in the perfor#ance & the la"&erof his s"orn!ut&of *!elit&tohis client.8ersel&put%it#eansan e5cientan!trul&!ecisi'elegal assistancean!notasi#pleperfunctor& representation.G Keasure! &this stan!ar!% the !efense counselMs con!uctin this case falls short of the :ualit& ofa!'ocac& !e#an!e! of hi#% consi!ering thegra'it& of the o$ense charge! an! the*nalit& of the penalt&. Not onl& !i! !efense counsel fail to o(ect tothe !ocu#entar& e'i!ence presente! & theprosecution% accor!ingto thetrial courtMs!ecision%he e'en eFpresse! his confor#it&to the a!#ission of the sa#e. Neither !i! hepresent an& e'i!ence on ehalf of accuse!;appellant. .@ Jorse% no"here in the recor!sis it sho"n that accuse!;appellant "asinfor#e!% either &his counsel or &thecourt% of his right to present e'i!ence% if heso !esires. J)HRH34RH% the!ecision% !ate!April 2@%1AA@% of the Regional 8rial 2ourt% Branch 4/%+age 1> of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedure2alapan% 4riental Kin!oro% is here& SH8ASIDHan!2ri#inal 2aseNos. 2;4A-2% 2;4A-.% 2;4A-4 an! 2;4A-? are RHKANDHD toit for further procee!ings in accor!ance "iththis !ecision.+age 1@ of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal ProcedureDe(en#e ' a Fa3e La)er+eople '. Santocil!es Appellantclai#e!thatheisentitle!toanac:uittal of the rape charge ecause !uringthetrial% he"asrepresente!&apersonna#e! ,ualerto 2. 4#pong% "ho% upon'eri*cation "ith the 45ce of the Bar2on*!ant% turne!out toeactuall&not a#e#er of the ar. 8heright of theaccuse!toehear!&hi#self an! his counselgoes #uch !eeperthan the :uestion of ailit& or s1ill. It lies atthe heart of our a!'ersarial s&ste# of(ustice. Jhere the interpla& of asic rights ofthe in!i'i!ual #a& colli!e "ith the a"eso#eforces of the state% "e nee! a professionallearne! in the la" as "ell as ethicall&co##itte! to !efen! the accuse! & all#eans fair an! reasonale. Such a rightprocee!s fro# the fun!a#ental principle of!ue process. Section 1 of Rule 1.- of the Rules of 2ourteFplicitl& states "ho are entitle! to practicela" in the +hilippines% an! Section 2 thereofclearl& pro'i!es for the re:uire#ents for allapplicants for a!#ission to the ar.Jurispru!ence has also hel! that Gthe right topractice la" is not a natural or constitutionalrightutisinthenatureof apri'ilegeorfranchise Section 1 of Rule 1.- of the Rules of 2ourteFplicitl& states "ho are entitle! to practicela" in the +hilippines% an! Section 2 thereofclearl& pro'i!es for the re:uire#ents for allapplicants for a!#ission to the ar.Jurispru!ence has also hel! that Gthe right topractice la" is not a natural or constitutionalrightutisinthenatureof apri'ilegeorfranchise Re#an!e!0aiver o( Ri"&%+eople '. 8ulin Appellants "ere charge! "ith :uali*e!pirac&. 8heir eFtra(u!icial state#entsotaine! "ithout assistance of counsel "ereintro!uce! as e'i!ence for the prosecution.8hetrial court foun!all appellantseFcept)iong to ha'e acte! in conspirac&. An accuse! is entitle! to e present an! to!efen! hi#self in person an! & counsel ate'er& stage of the procee!ings since anor!inar& laan is not 'erse! on thetechnicalities of trial. In this case%appellantsM representati'e% Kr. +osa!as%1ne" the technical rules of proce!ure%couple!"iththeir #anifestationthat the&a!opte! the e'i!ence a!!uce! & hi#constitute "ai'er% an! "ith the fullassistance of a ona*!e la"&er% Att&. Basaran! cannot ser'eas aasisfor aclai# of!enial of !ue process. 4n the *rst issue% the recor! re'eals that a#anifestation (HFhiit G2/G% Recor!) "aseFecute! & accuse!;appellants 8ulin%Eo&ola% 2hangco% an! Infante% Jr. on 3eruar&11% 1AA1% statingthat the&"erea!optingthe e'i!ence a!!uce! "hen the& "ererepresente! & a non;la"&er. Such "ai'er ofthe right to su5cient representation !uringthe trial as co'ere! & the !ue processclause shall onl& e'ali! if #a!e "iththefull assistance of a ona *!e la"&er. Duringthe trial% accuse!;appellants% as represente!&Att&. A!ul Basar% #a!eacategorical#anifestationthat sai!accuse!;appellants"ere apprise! of the nature an! legalconse:uences of the su(ect #anifestation%an!that the&'oluntaril&an!intelligentl&eFecute! the sa#e. )o"e'er% it is also pro'i!e! & la"thatG7r9ights #a& e "ai'e!%unless the "ai'eris contrar& to la"% pulic or!er% pulic polic&%#orals% or goo! custo#s or pre(u!icial to athir!person"ithright recogni=e!&la".(Article >% 2i'il 2o!e of the +hilippines).8hus% thesa#esectionof Rule11?a!!sthat G7u9pon#otion% theaccuse!#a&eallo"e! to !efen! hi#self in person "hen itsu5cientl& appears to the court that he canproperl& protect his rights "ithout theassistance of counsel.G B& analog&% ut"ithout pre(u!ice tothe sanctions i#pose!&la"for theillegal practiceof la"% it isa#pl& sho"n that the rights of accuse!;appellants "ere su5cientl& an! properl&protecte!&theappearanceof Kr. 8o#as+osa!as. AneFa#inationof therecor!"illsho"that he1ne"thetechnical rulesofproce!ure. )ence% "e rule that there "as a'ali! "ai'er of the right to su5cientrepresentation!uringthetrial% consi!eringthat it "asune:ui'ocall&% an!intelligentl&+age 1- of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedure#a!e an! "ith the full assistance of a ona*!ela"&er% Att&. A!ul Basar. Accor!ingl&%!enial of !ue process cannot e successfull&in'o1e!"herea'ali!"ai'erofrightshaseen #a!e.+age 1A of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedure-on8A!!earance o( Coun#el+eople '. Dia= 8he court a :uo ren!ere! a !ecision *n!ingthe appellant guilt& e&on! reasonale!out of #ur!er in relation to seFual auseof a chil!% atten!e! & treacher& 8he trial court "as con'ince! thatnot"ithstan!ing the eFclusion of theeFtra(u!icial confession of the appellant an!the asence of an& e&e"itness to the cri#e%there "ere enough pieces of circu#stantiale'i!ence to support his con'iction. Before con!ucting their in'estigation thepoliceauthorities as "ell asacertainAtt&.Aellanosaapprise!accuse!;appellant ofhis constitutional rights in 2euano% alanguage 1no"n to accuse!;appellant% in thepresence of #en fro# the #e!ia "hothe#sel'es a5Fe!their signatures inthes"orn state#ent of accuse!;appellant toattest to the fact that he "as !ul& infor#e!of his rights un!er the 2onstitution. 8hein'estigation procee!e! "here accuse!;appellantre'eale!his seFual per'ersit& &narratingin!etail ho"heperpetrate!theghastl& cri#e against 3rancis Bart. But this eFtra;(u!icial confession of accuse!;appellant "as ho"e'er !eclare!ina!#issile & the trial court on the groun!that Att&. Aellanosa "ho assiste! accuse!;appellant!uringthe custo!ialin'estigation"as not an in!epen!ent counsel of theaccuse! as re:uire! un!er the 2onstitution.Sec. 12% Art. III Accuse!;appellant Ralph Nele= Dia= is foun!guilt&e&on!reasonale!out of #ur!eran! sentence! to reclusion perpetua instea!of !eath.A!!oin%men% o( Coun#el de O/cioSa&son '. +eople 3oun! ,uilt& +etitioner is accuse! of Hstafa (Blan12hec1)% after the prosecution reste! its case%an! "hen the !efense "as sche!ule! topresent its e'i!ence% onl& the petitionerappeare!. )e sai! that his counsel ha! another case ina !i$erent court. In the #orning of the sai!!a&% his la"&er also sent a telegra# to thecourt re:uesting cancellation of the hearingecause he "as sic1. 8he court !enie! the#otion for postpone#ent an! the case "asconsi!ere!su#itte!for !ecision"ithoutpetitionerMs e'i!ence. 8heappellant hasraise!theissueof !ueprocess% alleging!enial of hisright toehear! an! to present e'i!ence. 8heappoint#ent of acounsel !eo*cioinsituations li1e the present case is!iscretionar& "ith the trial court% "hich!iscretion "ill note interfere!"ith in theasence of ause. 8he trial court ha! eenlieral in granting the postpone#entssecure! & the petitioner hi#self% at thesa#e ti#e a!#onishing the latter to erea!&"ithhispresent counsel or anothercounsel. Despite the a!#onition% thepetitioner 1ept onatten!ingthe hearingsthe hearings "ithout securing anotherla"&er to sustitute his present counsel "ho"as constantl& asent !uring the hearings.Still% the trial court% allo"e! hi# to loo1 for ala"&er. 8hese steps un!erta1en & the trialcourt re#o'es an& !out that its or!er "astainte! "ith gra'e ause of !iscretion. the conLicting stories a!'ance! &petitioner an! counsel onl& in!icate thatthere"asnogoo! causefor thecaseha!alrea!&eenpostpone!se'enti#es an!petitioner repeate!l& appeare! in court"ithout his counsel% thus% the trial (u!geshoul!not faulte!in!en&ingthesu(ect#otion for postpone#ent. 8he right of an accuse! to e hear! &hi#self an!counsel as"ell astopresente'i!ence for his !efense% is not eFe#pt fro#the rule of "ai'er. +etitioner in negotiating the chec1presente! hi#self as a la"&er< an! hehi#self *le! the Kotion to Uuash an! aplea!ing captione! G2o#plianceG. 8hesefacts in!icate that he "as capale of!efen!ing hi#self. 8hat he hi#self "asallo"e!to*leplea!ingsclearl&negati'estheallege!!epri'ationof hisrightto!ueprocess of la".-on8A!!oin%men% o( Coun#el de O/cioSa&son '. +eoplsIne:ec%ive Coun#el+eople '. Ber#as+age 2/ of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedure Ber#asisfoun!toha'eco##itte!rape%an! is sentence! to !eath. 4n his arraign#ent% he ha! no counsel% thena +A4 la"&er "as assigne!% "ho !i!n6t helpat all% !i!n6t e'en cross;eFa#ine the "itnessof the prosecution% an! after the trial%re:ueste! that she e relie'e!% then acounsel !e o*cio "as assigne!. (Att&.,o#e=) 8he!efense"assche!ule!topresent itse'i!ence on1.A.A?% uttheaccuse! ca#ein "ith no counsel. 8he 2ounsel "as then replace! again (Att&.Eo=a#e)% an!another trial "assche!ule!%onthat!ate%the la"&erhi#selfre:ueste!that he erelie'e!%ut"as persua!e! &the court. 8his 2ourt *n!s an! #ust hol!% #ostregrettal&% thataccuse!;appellanthasnotproperl&an! e$ecti'el&een accor!e!theright to counsel. So i#portant is the right tocounsel that it haseenenshrine!inourfun!a#ental la" an! its precursor la"s.In!ee!% e'en prior to the a!'ent of the 1A.?2onstitution% the right to counsel of anaccuse! has alrea!& een recogni=e! un!er,eneral 4r!er No. ?-% !ate! 2. April 1A//%stating that a !efen!ant in all cri#inalprosecutions is entitle! to counsel at e'er&stage of the procee!ings%71/9 an! that if heis unale to e#plo& counsel% the court #ustassign one to !efen! hi# In cri#inal cases there can e no fairhearing unless the accuse! e gi'en anopportunit& to e hear! & counsel. 8heright to e hear! "oul! e of little a'ail if it!oesnot inclu!etheright toehear!&counsel. H'en the #ost intelligent ore!ucate! #an #a& ha'e no s1ill in thescience of the la"% particularl& in the rulesof proce!ure% an!% "ithout counsel% he #a&econ'icte!not ecauseheisguilt&utecause he !oes not 1no" ho" to estalishhis innocence. An!this canhappen#oreeasil& to persons "ho are ignorant orune!ucate!. It is for this reasonthat theright to e assiste! & counsel is !ee#e! soi#portant that it has eco#e aconstitutional right an!it soi#ple#ente!thatun!erourrulesof proce!ureitisnotenough for the 2ourt to apprise an accuse!of hisright toha'eanattorne&% it isnotenough toas1hi#"hetherhe !esires theai! of an attorne&% ut it is essential that thecourt shoul! assign one !e o*cio for hi# ifhe so !esires an! he is poor or grant hi# areasonaleti#etoprocureanattorne&ofhis o"n J)HRH34RH% let this case e RHKANDHD tothe court a :uo for trial on the asis of theco#plaint% afore:uote!% un!er "hich he "asarraigne!.Att&.Ricar!o A.3ernan!e=%Jr.ofthe Anti;Death +enalt& 8as1 3orce is here&appointe! counsel !e o5cio for theappellant. Att&s. Rosa Hl#ina Nilla#in of the +ulicAttorne&Ms 45ce% +araa:ue% Roerto ,o#e=an! Nicanor Eon=a#e are here&ADK4NIS)HDfor ha'ing fallen #uch tooshort of their responsiilit& as o5cers of thecourtan!as#e#ersof theBaran!are"arne!thatan&si#ilarinfractionshall e!ealt "ith #ost se'erel&.In%elli"en% Coun#el+eople '. Ei"anag EopeEi"anagan! t"ootheraccuse!"erecharge! "ith the cri#e of high"a& roer&"ith#ultiplerapeco##itte!onApril 2@%1AA2 against 2ora=on )ernan!e=. 8hetrial court% after !uetrial% ren!ere!a(u!g#ent of con'iction an! sentence!accuse!;appellant to reclusion perpetua an!or!ere! to in!e#nif& the 'icti#. Accuse!;appellant interpose! this appealconten!ing% a#ong others% that he "as!epri'e! of his constitutional right toe$ecti'e an! co#petent counsel. 8hereisno!isputethataccuse!;appellant"as pro'i!e! "ith a counsel !e o5cio "hoassiste! hi#!uring the arraign#ent an!con!ucte! the cross;eFa#ination of allprosecution"itnessesas"ell ashis!irecteFa#ination. 8hereafter% fro#theti#ehe"as cross;eFa#ine! up to the presentationof other !efense "itnesses% he "as assiste!& a counsel of his choice. Accuse!;appellantMs citation of +eople '. )olga!o an!+o"ell '. Alaa#a% insofar as the right to ehear! & counsel is concerne!% is#islea!ing. Both cases onl& !e*ne! theGright to e hear! & counselG as Gthe rightto e assiste! & counsel.G It cannot einferre! fro# these cases that Gthe right toe hear! & counselG presupposes Gthe right+age 21 of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Proceduretoanintelligentcounsel.G8here:uire#entis not for counsel to e Gintelligent%G ut toe e$ecti'e. Jhen the 2onstitution re:uires the right tocounsel% it !i! not #ean an& 1in! of counselut e$ecti'e an! 'igilant counsel. 8here:uire#ents of e$ecti'eness an! 'igilanceof counsel !uring that stage eforearraign#ent "ere for the purposes ofguar!ing against the use of !uress an!other un!ue inLuence in eFtractingconfessions "hich #a& taint the# an!ren!er the# ina!#issile. In essence% the right to e hear! & counselsi#pl& refers to the right to e assiste! &counsel for the purpose of ensuring that anaccuse! is not !enie! the collateral right to!ue process% a fun!a#ental right "hichcannot e "ai'e! & an accuse!. Inassessingthee$ecti'enessof counselMsassistance% the Stric1lan! stan!ar! in'o1e!& accuse!;appellant is too stringent forapplication in +hilippine (u!icial setting.Stric1lan! onl& see1s to ensure that thea!'ersarial testingprocessispresent inacase & re:uiring that the assistanceren!ere! & counsel e Ge$ecti'e.G 8hepresenceof an a!'ersarialtesting process%in other "or!s% ensures that the trial is fair& accor!ing the accuse! !ue processthrough the Ge$ecti'eG assistance ofcounsel.De(endin" One;# Sel(+eople '. Sesreno Appellant "as foun!&theRegional 8rial2ourt of 2eu 2it& guilt& of #ur!er for theshooting of one Euciano A#para!o an! "assentence! to reclusion perpetua. (A Ea"&er) Appellantputsinissueallege!'iolationofhis fun!a#ental rights% inclu!ing his right to!ue process of la". )e alleges that his o5cial counsel "as eingpressure & the court% so he !eci!e! torepresent hi#self. Despitea!#onitions of thetrial court% hepersiste! in his !ecision to tr& his o"n case.8herecor!sho"s appellant% actingas hiso"ncounsel% *le!thenoticeof appeal. 8oallege no" that his right to e assiste! &counsel "as 'iolate! is to en! the truth toofar. In,a#oa'. 2ru=% "ehel!that thesustantial an!constitutional right of theaccuse! to counsel is not 'iolate! "here he"asrepresente!&a#e#erof theBar.Appellant chosetoerepresente!inthiscase & a pro#inent an! co#petent#e#er of the Bar% na#el& hi#self% e'en ifthere "ere other a'ailale counsel li1e Att&.2risologo Konteclar. Appellant is no"estoppe!fro#clai#ingthat thetrial court'iolate! his right to e represente! &counsel of his o"n choice. Note that he alsorushe! asi!e the courts o$er of assistance& another counsel% a +A4 la"&er. )e!eclare! there "as no nee! therefor. 8he essential re:uire#ents of !ue process inthis (uris!iction are "ell estalishe!% 'i=0 (1)8here#ust eacourt or triunal clothe!"ith(u!icial po"er tohear an!!eter#inethe #atter efore it< (2) Juris!iction #ust ela"full& ac:uire! o'er the person of the!efen!antorpropert&"hichisthesu(ectoftheprocee!ing< (.)8he!efen!ant#uste gi'en an opportunit& to e hear!< an! (4)Ju!g#ent #ust e ren!ere! upon la"fulhearing. In +eople '. 2astillo% et al. @> +hil.@2% -@% "e rule! that if an accuse! has eenhear!inacourtof co#petent(uris!iction%an! procee!e! against un!er the or!erl&process of la"% an! onl& punishe! afterin:uir& an! in'estigation% upon notice tohi#% "ithopportunit&toehear!% an!a(u!g#ent a"ar!e!"ithintheauthorit&oftheconstitutional la"% thenhehasha!a!ueprocess. Appl&ingtheafore#entione!test to the circu#stances of the instantcase% the 2ourt *n!s no reach of appellantsfun!a#ental rights% inclu!ing his right to!ueprocess an!tocounsel% "hich"oul!(ustif& re'ersal of the assaile! !ecision. Appellant haseenapracticingla"&er oflongstan!ing. Initiall&% he"asassiste!&counsel of hischoiceinthiscase. But helater ter#inate! the ser'ices of his counsel!ue to !isagree#ents. )e then too1 fullcontrol of his !efense. Despite a!#onitionsof the trial court% he persiste! in his !ecisionto tr& his o"n case. 8he recor! sho"sappellant% actingashiso"ncounsel% *le!the notice of appeal. 8o allege no" that hisright to e assiste! & counsel "as 'iolate!istoen!thetruthtoofar. In,a#oa'.2ru=% "e hel! that the sustantial an!constitutional right of the accuse! to+age 22 of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedurecounsel is not 'iolate! "here he "asrepresente! & a #e#er of the Bar.Appellant chose to e presente! in this case&apro#inentan!co#petent#e#erofthe Bar% na#el& hi#self% e'en if there "ereother a'ailale counsel. Appellant is no"estoppe!fro# clai#ing thatthe trial court'iolate! his right to e represente! &counsel of his o"n choice. Note that he alsorushe! asi!e the courtMs o$er of assistance& another counsel% a +A4 la"&er. )e!eclare! there "as no nee! therefor.Pre#ence o( Coun#el+eople '. Santocil!es Appellantclai#e!thatheisentitle!toanac:uittal of the rape charge ecause !uringthetrial% he"asrepresente!&apersonna#e! ,ualerto 2. 4#pong% "ho% upon'eri*cation "ith the 45ce of the Bar2on*!ant% turne!out toeactuall&not a#e#er of the ar. 8heright of theaccuse!toehear!&hi#self an! his counselgoes #uch !eeperthan the :uestion of ailit& or s1ill. It lies atthe heart of our a!'ersarial s&ste# of(ustice. Jhere the interpla& of asic rights ofthe in!i'i!ual #a& colli!e "ith the a"eso#eforces of the state% "e nee! a professionallearne! in the la" as "ell as ethicall&co##itte! to !efen! the accuse! & all#eans fair an! reasonale. 8he right of anaccuse! to counsel is guarantee! to#ini#i=ethei#alanceinthea!'ersarials&ste# "here the accuse! is pitte! againstthe a"eso#e prosecutor& #achiner& of theState. Such a right procee!s fro# thefun!a#ental principle of !ue process "hichasicall& #eans that a person #ust ehear! efore eing con!e#ne!. 8he !ueprocess re:uire#ent is a part of a personMsasic rights< it is not a #ere for#alit& that#a& e !ispense! "ith or perfor#e!perfunctoril&. 4n the #atter of proper representation & a#e#er of the ar% "e ha! occasion toresol'e a si#ilar issue in the case ofDelga!o '. 2ourt of Appeals. 8his 2ourt hel!that G. . . an accuse! person is entitle! to erepresente!&a#e#er of thear inacri#inal case*le!against her eforetheRegional 8rial 2ourt. Cnless she isrepresente! & a la"&er% there is great!anger that an&!efensepresente!inherehalf "ill eina!e:uateconsi!eringthelegal per:uisites an!s1ills nee!e!inthecourt procee!ings. 8his "oul! certainl& e a!enial of !ue process.G J)HRH34RH% theassaile!(u!g#entisSH8ASIDH% an! the case is here& RHKANDHD tothe trial court for ne" trial.+eople '. )olga!o Appellant 3risco )olga!o "as charge! in the2ourt of 3irst Instance of Ro#lon "ith slightillegal !etentionecauseaccor!ingtotheinfor#ation%eing a pri'ate person% he !i!Gfeloniousl&an!"ithout (usti*ale#oti'e%1i!napan!!etainoneArte#ia3areaginthe house of Antero )olga!o for aout eighthours there& !epri'ing sai! Arte#ia3areag of her personal liert&. 8his case is calle! for trial on Ka& -% 1A4-.Cpon arraign#ent the accuse! plea!e!guilt& to the infor#ation ao'e !escrie! Jhen an accuse! unai!e! & counsel:uali*e!l& a!#its his guilt to an a#iguousor'agueinfor#ationfro#"hichaseriouscri#e can e !e!uce!% it is not pru!ent forthe trial court to ren!er a serious (u!g#ent*n!ing the accuse! guilt& of a capitalo$ense"ithoutasolutel&an&e'i!enceto!eter#inean!clarif&thetruefactsof thecase. Cn!er the pro'ision of section . of rule 112of the rules of 2ourt% "hen a !efen!antappears "ithout attorne&% the court has fouri#portant !uties to co#pl& "ith0 (1) It #ustinfor#the!efen!antthatitishisrighttoha'eattorne&eforeeingarraigne!< (2)after gi'ing hi# such infor#ation the court#ust as1hi#if he!esirestheai!of anattorne&< (.) if he !esiresan! is unale toe#plo& attorne&% the court #ust assignattorne& !e o*cio to !efen! hi#< an! if theaccuse!!esirestoprocureanattorne&ofhis o"n the court #ust grant hi# areasonale ti#e therefor. An! this can happen #ore easil& to persons"ho are ignorant or une!ucate!. It is for thisreason that the right to e assiste! &counsel is !ee#e! so i#portant that it haseco#eaconstitutional right an!it issoi#ple#ente! that un!er our rules of+age 2. of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedureproce!ure it is not enough for the court toapprise an accuse! ofhis right to ha'eanattorne&% it is not enough to as1 hi#"hetherhe!esirestheai!of anattorne&%ut it is essential that the court shoul!assign one !e o*cio for hi# if he so !esiresan!heispoor or grant hi#areasonaleti#e to procure an attorne& of his o"n.+eople '. 2ui=on Antolin 2ui=on & 4rtega% Ste'e +ua & 2lofasalias Stephen +o & C& or 8o##& S&% an! +aulEee & Jong% alias +aul Eeung% are foun!guilt& e&on! reasonale !out oftransporting% "ithout legal authorit&%#etha#pheta#ine h&!rochlori!e% orMshauM% a regulate! !rug% as charge! in theafore:uote! Infor#ation< an! the& are eachsentence! to su$er the penalt& of lifei#prison#ent an! to pa& a *ne of+2/%///.//. Jhat has een sai! for 2ui=on cannot% alas%e sai! for appellant +ua. Jhile the searchan! arrest carrie! out on hi# an! Eee #a&ha'e een illegal for not eing inci!ent to ala"ful "arrantless arrest% the unfortunatefact is that appellant +ua faile! to challengethe 'ali!it& of his arrest an! search% as "ellasthea!#issionof thee'i!enceotaine!there&< he !i! not raise the issue or assignthe sa#e as an error efore this 2ourt.Accor!ingl&% an& possile challenge theretoase! on constitutionalgroun!sis !ee#e!"ai'e!. 8his 2ourt has uphel! an!recogni=e!"ai'ersof constitutional rights%inclu!ing% particularl&% the right againstunreasonale searches an! sei=ures% incases such as +eople 's. Kalasugui (>. +hil.22171A.>9) an!De,arcia's. Eocsin(>?+hil. >-A 71A.-9). J)HRH34RH% in 'ie" of the foregoingconsi!erations% accuse!;appellant Antolin2ui=on&4rtegais here&A2UCI88HDonconstitutional groun!s.+eople '. Dia= RalphNele= Dia= "as charge!eforetheRegional 8rial 2ourt of 2eu 2it& "ith#ur!er in relation to RA @>1/ for the !eathof ele'en &ear;ol! 3rancis Bart 3ulache. 4nApril 11% 1AA@% after trial on the #erits% thecourt a :uo ren!ere! a !ecision *n!ing theappellant guilt& e&on! reasonale !out of#ur!er in relation to seFual ause of a chil!. Before con!ucting their in'estigation thepoliceauthoritiesas"ellasacertainAtt&.Aellanosa7-9 apprise! accuse!;appellant ofhis constitutional rights in 2euano% alanguage 1no"n to accuse!;appellant% in thepresence of #en fro#the #e!ia7A9 "hothe#sel'es a5Fe!their signatures inthes"orn state#ent of accuse!;appellant toattest to the fact that he "as !ul& infor#e!of his rights un!er the 2onstitution. 8hein'estigation procee!e! "here accuse!;appellantre'eale! hisseFual per'ersit&&narratingin!etail ho"heperpetrate!theghastl& cri#e against 3rancis Bart. But this eFtra;(u!icial confession of accuse!;appellant "as ho"e'er !eclare!ina!#issile & the trial court on the groun!that Att&. Aellanosa "ho assiste! accuse!;appellant !uring thecusto!ialin'estigation"as not an in!epen!ent counsel of theaccuse! as re:uire! un!er the 2onstitution.A#ion '.2hiongson A 'eri*e! co#plaint "as *le! & Balta=ar D.A#ion charging Ju!ge Roerto S. 2hiongson"ithignoranceof thela"an!oppression.8he co#plaint "as relati'e to a #ur!er casepen!ing efore his court% in "hich theco#plainant is the accuse!. 8he allegationsagainst respon!ent (u!gearepre#ise!onhisappoint#ent of acounsel !eo*cioforaccuse!;co#plainant !espite the latterMso(ection thereto on the groun! that he ha!hiso"nretaine!counsel. Inhisco##ent%respon!ent (u!ge allege! that hisappoint#ent of a counsel !e o*cio torepresent the accuse!;co#plainant is(usti*e! ecause of the 'eFatious an!oppressi'e!ela&onthelatterMs part "hohas een represente! & a counsel !e parte"ho refuses or fails to appear !uringhearings. 8he 2ourt foun! that the accuse!;co#plainant haseentheoppressor "hilerespon!ent (u!ge appears to e theoppresse!. An eFa#ination of relate! pro'isions in the2onstitution concerning the right to counsel%"ill sho" that the Gpreference in the choice+age 24 of 2?EeF +arsi#onaeJuris DiscipulusCriminal Procedureof counselG pertains #ore aptl& an!speci*call&toaperson un!erin'estigationrather thanone"hois theaccuse!inacri#inal prosecution. H'en if "e "ere toeFten! the application of the concept ofGpreference in the choice of counselG to anaccuse! in a cri#inal prosecution% suchpreferential !iscretioncannot parta1eof a!iscretion so asolute an! aritrar& as"oul! #a1e the choice of counsel refereFclusi'el& to the pre!ilection of theaccuse!. As hel! & this 2ourt in the case of+eople 's. Barasina% (22A S2RA 4?/)% "ithal%the"or!Gpreferal&Gun!erSection12(1)%Article . of the 1A-@ 2onstitution !oes notcon'e&the#essagethat thechoiceof ala"&er &apersonun!er in'estigationiseFclusi'e as to preclu!e other e:uall&co#petent an! in!epen!ent attorne&s fro#han!ling his !efense. If the rule "ereother"ise% then% thete#poof acusto!ialin'estigation% "ill e solel& in the han!s ofthe accuse! "ho can i#pe!e% na&% ostructthe progress ofthe interrogation&si#pl&selectingala"&er% "hofor onereasonoranother% is not a'ailale to protect hisinterest. 8his asur! scenario coul! not ha'eeenconte#plate!&thefra#ers of thecharter.GAppl&ingthisprincipleenunciate!& the 2ourt% "e #a& li1e"ise sa& that theaccuse!Ms !iscretion in a cri#inalprosecution "ithrespect to his choice ofcounsel isnotso#uchastogrant hi#aplenar& prerogati'e "hich "oul! preclu!eother e:uall&co#petent an!in!epen!entcounsels fro# representing hi#. 4ther"ise%thepaceof acri#inal prosecution"ill eentirel& !ictate! & the accuse! to the!etri#entof thee'entual resolutionof thecase.+age 2? of 2?EeF +arsi#onae