PUBLIC ATTORNEYS OFFICE v.

SANDIGANBAYAN
AZCUNA, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari alleging that the Sandiganbayan, Special Division, committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Resolutions dated May 2,
2!!2 and "une ##, 2!!2 retaining petitioners, $tty% Maximo &% 'sita, "r% and $tty% (ilfredo )% $ndres of
the *ublic $ttorney+s ,-ce .*$,/, as counsels de o0cio of then accused *resident "oseph 1strada and
his son, "ose 2"inggoy3 1strada%
The facts are as follo4s5
,n March #6 and #, 2!!2, $tty% *ersida 7% Rueda8$costa, )hief *ublic $ttorney of *$, personally
appeared before respondent Special Division of the Sandiganbayan9#: to re;uest the relief of the
appearance of *$, as de o0cio counsel for accused *resident "oseph 1strada and "ose 1strada in their
criminal cases before the Sandigabayan% <o4ever, the re;uest 4as denied%
,n May , 2!!2, the )hief *ublic $ttorney 0led an 'rgent and 1x8*arte Motion to be Relieved as )ourt8
$ppointed )ounsel 4ith the Special Division of the Sandiganbayan, praying that she be relieved of her
duties and responsibilities as counsel de o0cio for the said accused on the ground that she had a
s4elling 4orkload consisting of administrative matters and that the accused are not indigent persons=
hence, they are not ;uali0ed to avail themselves of the services of *$,%
,n May >, 2!!2, respondent )ourt found the reasons of the )hief *ublic $ttorney to be plausible and
relieved the )hief *ublic $ttorney as counsel de o0cio of former *resident "oseph 1strada and Mayor
"ose 1strada%
,n May #?, 2!!2, the remaining eight *$, la4yers 0led an 1x8*arte Motion To &e Relieved $s )ourt8
$ppointed )ounsels 4ith respondent )ourt on the ground that the accused, former *resident "oseph
1strada and "ose 1strada, are not indigents= therefore, they are not ;uali0ed to avail themselves of the
services of *$,%
,n May 2, 2!!2, respondent )ourt issued a Resolution denying the motion, but retaining t4o of the
eight *$, la4yers, namely, the petitioners $tty% 'sita, "r% and $tty% $ndres% The pertinent portion of
the Resolution reads5
% % % There being no compelling and su-cient reasons to abandon the )ourt+s previous rulings, the
instant motion is hereby D1@A1D% (hile it is true that a similar motion 0led by the *$, )hief *ublic
$ttorney *ersida Rueda8$costa 4as granted per )ourt+s Resolution of May >, 2!!2, the rationaliBation
advanced by $tty% Rueda 4as found meritorious by the )ourt in that there 4as unexpected upsurge in
her administrative 4orkload as head of the o-ce including the administration and supervision of more
or less #,!!! *$, la4yers and C!! staD nation4ide and many other functions 4hich re;uire her
immediate attention and undivided time%

@onetheless, considering that there are eight ./ de o0cio counsels from the *ublic $ttorney+s ,-ce
.*$,/, the )ourt, in the exercise of its sound discretion, deems it proper to reduce their number and
retain only t4o .2/ of them, namely5 $tty% (ilfredo )% $ndres and $tty% Maximo &% 'sita to continue their
duties and responsibilities as counsels de o0cio for accused "oseph and "ose 2"inggoy3 1strada%92:
The retained la4yers of *$, joined the four )ourt8appointed counsels from the private sector, namely,
*rospero )rescini, "ustice Manuel *amaran, Arene "urado and @oel Malaya%
,n "une ?, 2!!2, petitioners 0led a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated May 2, 2!!2%
An a Resolution dated "une #!, 2!!2, respondent denied the motion for reconsideration, thus5
xxx xxx xxx
At appearing that the ground raised by the movants *$, la4yers are mere rehashesEreiterations of their
previous arguments 4hich the )ourt 0nds to be not valid justi0cation for them to be relieved, either
temporarily or permanently of their duties and responsibilities as counsels de o0cio in these cases, the
instant motion in hereby D1@A1D%9F:
<ence, this petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion by respondent in rendering the
Resolutions dated May 2, 2!!2 and "une #!, 2!!2%
,n September 2#, 2!!?, *$, 0led a Manifestation and )ompliance 4hich informed the )ourt that
petitioners $tty% 'sita and $tty% $ndres 4ere appointed as $ssistant )ity *rosecutors of the GueBon )ity
*rosecutor+s ,-ce sometime in $ugust 2!!2, and that *$, is left as the lone petitioner in this case%
The issue is 4hether or not respondent committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in issuing the subject Resolutions retaining t4o *$, la4yers to act as counsels de
o0cio for the accused 4ho are not indigent persons%
*$, contends that it is undeniable that in retaining its t4o *$, la4yers as counsels de o0cio of former
*resident 1strada and "ose 1strada, respondent )ourt relied upon the provisions of Sec% C, Rule ##H of
the Revised Rules of )riminal *rocedure, thus5
Sec% C% $ppointment of counsel de o0cio%IThe )ourt, considering the gravity of the oDense and the
di-culty of the ;uestions that may arise, shall appoint as counsel de o0cio such members of the bar in
good standing, 4ho, by reason of their experience and ability, can competently defend the accused%
*$,, ho4ever, submits that the po4er of respondent to appoint and retain *$, la4yers as counsels de
o0cio is limited by Sec% 2! of Jetter of Amplementation .J,A/ @o% 2! dated December F#, #>C2 and
*residential Decree .*D/ @o% #C26 dated September 2H, #>!, thus5
J,A @o% 2!
Sec% 2!% The )itiBens Jegal $ssistance ,-ce shall represent, free of charge, indigent persons
mentioned in Republic $ct @o% H!F6, or the immediate members of their family, in all civil,
administrative, and criminal cases 4here after due investigation the interest of justice 4ill be served
thereby, except agrarian reform cases as de0ned by Republic $ct F??, as amended, 4hich shall be
handled by the &ureau of $grarian Jegal $ssistance of the Department of $grarian Reform, and such
cases as are no4 handled by the Department of Jabor%
*D @o% #C26
(<1R1$S, the )itiBen+s Jegal $ssistance ,-ce as the la4 o-ce of the Kovernment of the Republic of
the *hilippines for indigent and lo48income persons, performs a vital role in the implementation of the
legal aid program of the State, in upholding the rule of la4, in the protection and safeguarding of the
institutional and statutory rights of the citiBenry, and in the e-cient and speedy administration of
justice%
The Revised $dministrative )ode of #>C renamed the )itiBen+s Jegal $ssistance ,-ce as the *ublic
$ttorney+s ,-ce and retained its po4ers and functions% Section #?, )hapter 6, Title AAA, &ook 7 of the
said )ode provides5
Sec% #?% *ublic $ttorney+s ,-ce .*$,/%I The )itiBen+s Jegal $ssistance ,-ce .)J$,/ is renamed
*ublic $ttorney+s ,-ce .*$,/% At shall exercise the po4ers and functions as are no4 provided by la4 for
the )itiBen+s Jegal $ssistance ,-ce or may hereafter be provided by la4%
An the implementation of the foregoing provisions of la4, *$, issued Memorandum )ircular @o% 6,
Series of #>>C, as amended by Memorandum )ircular @o% #2, Series of 2!!#, and subse;uently by
Memorandum )ircular @o% #, Series of 2!!2, de0ning 4ho are indigent persons ;uali0ed to avail
themselves of the services of *$,, thus5
Section F% Andigency Test% L Taking into consideration recent surveys on the amount needed by an
average Milipino to #/ buy its food consumption basket and b/ pay for its household and personal
expenses, the follo4ing shall be considered indigent persons5
#% Those residing in Metro Manila 4hose family income does not exceed *#?,!!!%!! a month=
2% Those residing in other cities 4hose family income does not exceed *#F,!!!%!! a month=
F% Those residing in all other places 4hose family income does not exceed *#2,!!!%!! a month%
The term 2family income3 as herein employed shall be understood to refer to the gross income of the
litigant and that of his or her spouse, but shall not include the income of the other members of the
family%
*$, states that the Statement of $ssets and Jiabilities attached to the records of the cases of the
accused sho4 that they 4ere not ;uali0ed to avail themselves of the services of *$,, since they could
aDord the services of private counsels of their o4n choice% At noted that the 4ife of former *resident
1strada had an income exceeding *#?,!!!%
*$, argues that the only exception 4hen it can appear on behalf of a non8indigent client is 4hen there
is no available la4yer to assist such client in a particular stage of the case, that is, during arraignment
or during the taking of the direct testimony of any prosecution 4itness subject to cross8examination by
the private counsel on record% The appearance of *$, is only provisional in those instances%
*$, asserts that the sole reliance of respondent on Sec% C, Rule ##H of the Revised Rules of )riminal
*rocedure is improper% Respondent should have not only considered the character of *$, la4yers as
members of the &ar, but especially their mandate to serve only indigent persons% An so doing, the
contradiction in the exercise of *$,+s duties and responsibilities could have been avoided%
*$, asserts that 4hile its la4yers are also a4are of their duties under Rule #?%!2 of the )ode of
*rofessional Responsibility,9?: *$, la4yers are limited by their mandate as government la4yers%
<ence, *$, submits that the subject Resolutions of respondent are not in accordance 4ith the
mandate of *$, and aDect the rendition of eDective legal service to a large number of its deserving
clients%
An defense, respondent Special Division of the Sandiganbayan, represented by the ,-ce of the Special
*rosecutor, stated that it did not commit grave abuse of discretion since it did not act in an arbitrary,
capricious and 4himsical manner in issuing the subject Resolutions%

At explained that it 4as facing a crisis 4hen respondent issued the subject Resolutions% $t that time,
the accused, former *resident "oseph 1strada, relieved the services of his counsels on nation4ide
television% Subse;uently, the counsels of record of co8accused "ose 1strada 4ithdre4, and both
accused 4ere adamant against hiring the services of ne4 counsels because they allegedly did not
believe in and trust the Sandiganbayan% The Sandiganbayan had the duty to decide the cases, but
could not proceed 4ith the trial since the accused 4ere not assisted by counsel%

Respondent stated that, bound by its duty to protect the constitutional right of the accused to be heard
by himself and counsel, it exercised its prerogative under Sec% C, Rule ##H of the Revised Rules of
)riminal *rocedure,96: and appointed )hief *ublic $ttorney *ersida 7% Rueda8$costa of the *$, and
eight other *$, la4yers, including petitioners, to act as counsels de o0cio for the said accused% $s
noted earlier, the )hief *ublic $ttorney and six *$, la4yers 4ere later relieved from such duty, but
respondent retained t4o *$, la4yers as counsels de o0cio for the accused%
)onsidering the attendant situation at the time of the issuance of the subject Resolutions, respondent
asserts that it did not act in an arbitrary, despotic, capricious or 4himsical manner in issuing the
subject Resolutions% An appointing the *$, la4yers to act as counsels for the said accused, respondent
merely acted 4ithin the prerogative granted to it by the Rules of )ourt in order to protect the
constitutional right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel% Respondent also merely
re;uired petitioners to perform their duty as members of the &ar and o-cers of the court to assist the
court in the e-cient administration of justice%
Krave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and 4himsical exercise of judgment as is e;uivalent
to lack of jurisdiction or, in other 4ords, the exercise of the po4er in an arbitrary manner by reason of
passion, prejudice, or personal hostility, and it must be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion
of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of
la4%
The )ourt holds that respondent did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the subject Resolutions
as the issuance is not characteriBed by caprice or arbitrariness% $t the time of *$,+s appointment, the
accused did not 4ant to avail themselves of any counsel= hence, respondent exercised a judgment call
to protect the constitutional right of the accused to be heard by themselves and counsel during the
trial of the cases%
Subse;uently, respondent reduced the number of *$, la4yers directed to represent the accused, in
vie4 of the engagement of ne4 counsels de parte, but retained t4o of the eight *$, la4yers obviously
to meet such possible exigency as the accused again relieving some or all of their private counsels%
An any event, since these cases of the accused in the Sandiganbayan have been 0nally resolved, this
petition seeking that *$,, the only remaining petitioner, be relieved as counsel de o0cio therein has
become moot%
(<1R1M,R1, the petition is DASMASS1D for being moot%
@o costs%
S, ,RD1R1D%