POST-ARREST CASES (internet)

Baltazar D. Amion v. Judge Roberto S. Chiongson - Speedy Administration of Justice

Facts: A is a policeman charged with murder. During the trial, J ordered that he be represented by counsel de officio
because As attorney was ill. A then charged J with ignorance of the law & oppression because the fact that the counsel de officio did
not know the particulars of the case meant that A would be denied due process.
Held: Complaint dismissed. The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge should administer justice impartially and without
delay. A judge should always be imbued with a high sense of duty & responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly
administer justice. In this case, the reason J appointed a FLAG lawyer was because As lawyer had postponed several hearings
because he was ill or out of town. Also, A had various lawyers during the said case who always postponed the hearings for various
reasons such as illness, lack of knowledge of the case or unavailability for trial. These are all legal but clearly dilatory means used by
the complainant to delay the case for 4 years. J should be commended for his efforts to expedite the case.
GAMBOA VS. CRUZ

Facts: Petitioner was arrested for vagrancy without a warrant. During a line-up of 5 detainees including petitioner, he was identified
by a complainant to be a companion in a robbery, thereafter he was charged. Petitioner filed a Motion to Acquit on the ground that
the conduct of the line-up, without notice and in the absence of his counsel violated his constitutional rights to counsel and to due
process. The court denied said motion. Hearing was set, hence the petition.


Issue: Whether or Not petitioners right to counsel and due process violated.


Held: No. The police line-up was not part of the custodial inquest, hence, petitioner was not yet entitled, at such stage, to counsel.
He had not been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. The moment there is a move or even an urge of said investigators to elicit
admissions or confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he
should then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence
of counsel.

On the right to due process, petitioner was not, in any way, deprived of this substantive and constitutional right, as he was duly
represented by a counsel. He was accorded all the opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense;
only that he chose not to, and instead opted to file a Motion to Acquit after the prosecution had rested its case. What due process
abhors is the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.
PEOPLE vs. BERMAS
FACTS:
Complainant Manuela Bermas, 15 years old, was raped by her own father, appellant Rufino Bermas, while she was lying down on a
wooden bed inside their house armed with a knife and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously has carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant against her. Hence, complainant as assisted by her mother
accuses Rufino Mirandilla Bermas, filed a complaint against the accused of the crime of Rape before the RTC of Paraaque. Accused
Rufino Mirandilla Bermas pleaded not guilty. The accused denied the allegation hence he even performed the dual role of a father
and a mother to his children since the time of his separation from his wife and he thinks that the complainant might have been
motivated by ill-will or revenge in view of the numerous scoldings that she has received from him on account of her frequent coming
home late at night. The trial court convicted the accused guilty of the offense charged and sentencing him to suffer the extreme
penalty of death.
ISSUE: WON the accused was denied his constitutional right to effective and vigilant counsel.

RULING:
YES, SC remanded the case to the trial court. Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to serve his
client with utmost dedication, competence and diligence.
He must not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in this regard renders him administratively liable. In the
instant case, the aforenamed defense lawyers did not protect, much less uphold, the fundamental rights of the accused. Instead,
they haphazardly performed their function as counsel de oficio to the detriment and prejudice of the accused Sevilleno, however
guilty he might have been found to be after trial. Inevitably, this Court must advise Attys. Agravante, Pabalinas and Saldavi a to
adhere closely and faithfully to the tenets espoused in the Code of Professional Responsibility, otherwise, commission of any similar
act in the future will be severely sanctioned. The Second Assistant Prosecutor issued a certification to the effect that the accused
had waived his right to a preliminary investigation. On the day of his arraignment, the accused was brought before the trial court
without counsel. The court thereupon assigned Atty. Rosa Elmira C Villamin of the Public Attorney's Office to be the counsel de
officio.
Accused forthwith pleaded not guilty. The pre-trial was waived. The prosecution placed complainant Manuela Bermas at the
witness stand. The counsel de oficio testified on direct examination with hardly any participation by defense counsel who,
inexplicably, later waived the cross-examination and then asked the court to be relieved of her duty as counsel de officio.
Furthermore, Atty. Roberto Gomez was appointed the new counsel de officio and asked for a ten minute recess before he began his
cross examination which is far too inadequate On the day the defense will present their evidence another lawyer Atty.Lonzame was
appointed as counsel de oficio. Therefore, the accused has not properly and effectively been accorded the right to counsel. So
important is the right to counsel that it has been enshrined in our fundamental law and its precursor laws.

PEOPLE VS. JIMMY OBRERO

Facts: A is a suspect in a crime. He was taken for custodial investigation wherein, with the assistance of Attorney B., who was also
the station commander of the police precinct, he executed an extrajudicial confession.

Issue: Whether As right to counsel during a custodial investigation was violated.

Held: Yes. The Constitution requires that counsel assisting suspects in custodial investigations be competent and independent.
Here, A was assisted by Attorney B., who, though presumably competent, cannot be considered an independent counsel as
contemplated by the law for the reason that he was station commander of the police precinct at the time he assisted A. The
independent counsel required by the Constitution cannot be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, municipal attorney,
or counsel of the police whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused.

People v. Santocildes
Appellant was charged with and found guilty of the crime of rape of a girl less than nine (9) years old. Appellant entered a plea of
not guilty under the advice of a certain Ompong. Appellant later changed lawyers after he found out that Ompong was not a
member of the bar.
Held:
Judgement set aside and case remanded for new trial. Being represented by a non-lawyer is a denial of due process.