0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
490 vizualizări1 pagină
The appellants claimed that their right to an independent counsel was violated when the trial court appointed Atty. Moralde as their counsel during parts of the trial, despite Moralde stating a conflict of interest between appellants. However, the Supreme Court held there was no violation because Moralde was only appointed temporarily when their regular counsel was absent, and trial courts have the power to appoint counsel to avoid delays when the accused's chosen counsel is not present. The appointment of stand-in counsel is allowed to keep trials on track as long as the counsel is competent and independent.
The appellants claimed that their right to an independent counsel was violated when the trial court appointed Atty. Moralde as their counsel during parts of the trial, despite Moralde stating a conflict of interest between appellants. However, the Supreme Court held there was no violation because Moralde was only appointed temporarily when their regular counsel was absent, and trial courts have the power to appoint counsel to avoid delays when the accused's chosen counsel is not present. The appointment of stand-in counsel is allowed to keep trials on track as long as the counsel is competent and independent.
The appellants claimed that their right to an independent counsel was violated when the trial court appointed Atty. Moralde as their counsel during parts of the trial, despite Moralde stating a conflict of interest between appellants. However, the Supreme Court held there was no violation because Moralde was only appointed temporarily when their regular counsel was absent, and trial courts have the power to appoint counsel to avoid delays when the accused's chosen counsel is not present. The appointment of stand-in counsel is allowed to keep trials on track as long as the counsel is competent and independent.
FACTS: Appellants Siongco, Boton and Enriquez, induced 11-year old Nikko Satimbre, a resident of Balanga, Bataan, to board a bus bound for Pilar, Bataan and promised the latter a Gameboy. He was then bought to Dinalupihan, Bataan where he was kept for the night. Two days after, Siongco called Elvira Satimbre, Nikkos mother, and demanded P400,000.00, in exchange for the release of her son. Siongco further threatened that Nikko would be killed if Elvira failed to give the ransom money. Nikko was moved to Taguig City and was cautioned not to tell anybody that he was kidnapped. Appellants were finally arrested in an entrapment operation conducted by the PAOCTF four days after Nikko was kidnapped. The RTC convicted appellants of kidnapping with serious illegal detention, then punishable by death, with the exception of Boton, on the ground of reasonable doubt. The CA affirmed the conviction byt modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua. On review, the appellants claimed that they were deprived of their right to an independent and competent counsel when the RTC appointed Atty. Michael Moralde (Atty. Moralde) as their counsel de oficio during the pre-trial conference, direct examination and cross-examination of the prosecutions principal witness, Nikko. This was so, despite Atty. Moraldes manifestation during Nikkos cross- examination that the defense of his actual client, accused Boton, conflicts with that of the other accused.
ISSUE: Whether Appellants were deprived of their right to an independent and competent counsel by the appointment of Atty.Moralde.
HELD: NO, A scrutiny of the records shows that Atty. Moralde was appointed as appellants counsel de oficio in six (6) hearings, because their regular counsel de oficio, Atty. Antoniano from the Public Attorneys Office (PAO), was inexplicably absent. There is no denial of the right to counsel where a counsel de oficio is appointed during the absence of the accused's counsel de parte, or in this case the regular counsel de oficio, pursuant to the court's desire to finish the case as early as practicable under the continuous trial system. The choice of counsel by the accused in a criminal prosecution is not a plenary one. If the chosen counsel deliberately makes himself scarce, the court is not precluded from appointing a de oficio counsel, which it considers competent and independent, to enable the trial to proceed until the counsel of choice enters his appearance. Otherwise, the pace of a criminal prosecution will be entirely dictated by the accused, to the detriment of the eventual resolution of the case.