3. Bejarasco, Jr. vs.

Poeple, 641 SCRA 328, February 02, 2011

REMEDIAL LAW: The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of

due process, but is merely a statutory privilege that may be exercised
only in the manner prescribed by the law. The right is unavoidably
forfeited by the litigant who does not comply with the manner thus
prescribed.

FACTS: Petitioner was convicted for grave threats and grave oral
defamation. In due course, the petitioner, then represented by the Public
Attorneys Office (PAO), sought the reconsideration of the RTC decision,
but was denied. So on October 12, 2001, the petitioner, this time
represented by Atty. Luzmindo B. Besario (Atty. Besario), a private
practitioner, filed in the Court of Appeals (CA) a motion for extension of
time to file his petition for review which the latter granted. However,
Atty. Besario sought another extension, but still failed in the end to file
the petition for review. Thus, the CA dismissed his appeal and it became
final and executory.

Thereafter, the MTC issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner,

who surrendered himself. On July 16, 2003, the petitioner filed in the CA
his petition for review through another attorney, alleging that Atty.
Besario had recklessly abandoned him and had disappeared without
leaving a trace. The CA denied admission to the petition for review and
ordered it expunged from the records; and reiterated its March 13,
2002 resolution of dismissal. Aggrieved, the petitioner pleaded before the
SC claiming that Atty. Besarios reckless abandonment of his case
effectively deprived him of his day in court and of his right to due
process; and that said former counsels actuation constituted reckless and
gross negligence that should not be binding against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not, the petitioner is bound by the actuations of his

counsel.

RULING: YES. The general rule is that a client is bound by the counsels
acts, including even mistakes in the realm of procedural technique. The
rationale for the rule is that a counsel, once retained, holds the implied
authority to do all acts necessary or, at least, incidental to the
prosecution and management of the suit in behalf of his client, such that
any act or omission by counsel within the scope of the authority is
regarded, in the eyes of the law, as the act or omission of the client
himself. A recognized exception to the rule is when the reckless or gross
negligence of the counsel deprives the client of due process of law. For
the exception to apply, however, the gross negligence should not be
accompanied by the clients own negligence or malice, considering that
the client has the duty to be vigilant in respect of his interests by keeping
himself up-to-date on the status of the case. Failing in this duty, the client
should suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against him.
Truly, a litigant bears the responsibility to monitor the status of his case,
for no prudent party leaves the fate of his case entirely in the hands of
his lawyer. It is the clients duty to be in contact with his lawyer from time
to time in order to be informed of the progress and developments of his
case; hence, to merely rely on the bare reassurances of his lawyer that
everything is being taken care of is not enough.
 4. People vs. Mediado, 641 SCRA 366, February 02, 2011

CRIMINAL LAW: An accused who asserts self-defense admits his

infliction of the fatal blows and bears the burden of satisfactorily
establishing all the elements of self-defense; he has assumed the burden
of proving the justification of his act with clear and convincing
evidence. This is because his having admitted the killing required him to
rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the
Prosecutions evidence, which, even if it were weak, could not be
disbelieved in view of his admission.

FACTS: On March 20, 1997, Jimmy was having a conversation with

Rodolfo Mediado (Rodolfo) at the dancing hall located in Pulang Daga,
Balatan, Camarines Sur. He was around 35 meters away from Lilia, his
wife, who was at a meeting of the Mr. and Mrs. Club in the barangay hall.
At that moment, Lilia witnessed Jose emerge from behind Jimmy and
hack Jimmy twice on the head with a bolo. She next saw Jose move to
Jimmys left side and continue hacking him although he had already fallen
to the ground. Jose fled, but was caught.

Jose confessed to killing Jimmy but claimed that he did so only to defend
himself and his father (Rodolfo). Jose related that he had passed by the
barangay hall on his way to work, and had observed Jimmy punch
Rodolfo and hit him with a stone; that Jimmy then picked up a stone and
threw it at him (Jose); that to fend off the attack, he (Jose) unsheathed his
bolo and hacked Jimmy until he fell to the ground. Both the RTC and the
CA rejected Joses claim of self-defense and defense of a relative, and
found that treachery was employed by Jose when he attacked Jimmy from
behind.

ISSUE: Whether or not Jose is justified in killing Jimmy.

RULING: NO. Jose has not demonstrated to our satisfaction that the CA
committed any reversible error in making its findings of fact against Jose.
Specifically, the RTC and the CA correctly rejected Joses claim of self-
defense and defense of a relative because he did not substantiate it with
clear and convincing proof.

The Revised Penal Code delineates the standards for self-defense and
defense of a relative in Article 11, viz: Article 11. Justifying
circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the
following circumstances concur:

First. Unlawful aggression;

Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.

2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse,

ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and those by
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and
second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are
present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by
the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
xxx

Indeed, upon invoking the justifying circumstance of self-defense, Jose

assumed the burden of proving the justification of his act with clear and
convincing evidence. This is because his having admitted the killing
required him to rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the
weakness of the Prosecutions evidence, which, even if it were weak,
could not be disbelieved in view of his admission.

It is also notable that unlawful aggression is the condition sine qua

non for the justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of a
relative. There can be no self-defense unless the victim committed
unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-
defense. Also, the nature, number, and gravity of Jimmys wounds spoke
not of defense on the part of Jose but of a criminal intent to kill Jimmy. ]
They indicated beyond doubt the treacherous manner of the assault, that
is, that Jose thereby ensured that the killing would be without risk and
would deny to Jimmy any opportunity to defend himself.

Lastly, the testimonies of Jose and Rodolfo were infected with

inconsistencies. For one, Rodolfo did not mention that his son had carried
a bolo during the incident; instead, Rodolfo recalled that Jose and Jimmy
had engaged in a fistfight. Also, Rodolfos claim that he chose to return
home after being badly hurt from Jimmys attack was unnatural, for, if
that were true, he was thereby unnaturally leaving his son to engage the
attacker alone.

Hence, the Court affirmed the decisions of the RTC and CA with
modification as to the award of damages to make their amounts
consistent with the law and jurisprudence relating to an accused
adjudged guilty of a crime covered by Republic Act No. 7659, regardless
of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The correct amounts
are P75,000.00 as civil indemnity; P75,000.00 as moral damages;
and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, all to be granted without proof or
pleading. In addition, the Court notes that actual damages awarded to
the heirs was only P24,000.00. In furtherance of justice and consistent
with the ruling in People v. Villanueva that when actual damages proven
by receipts is lower than P25,000.00, the award of P25,000.00 as
temperate damages is justified in lieu of actual damages of a lesser
amount.