Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 447 views

    Reyes vs. Court of Appeals: (G.R. No. 111682. February 6, 1997)

    Uploaded by

    May Joy Managdag
    The petitioner was accused of falsifying documents and assisting people to travel to the US. At trial, her counsel failed to appear at a hearing, so the court considered her to have waived her right to present evidence. She was found guilty. Later, she discovered her counsel was not actually a licensed lawyer. The Supreme Court ruled she was entitled to a new trial, as being unrepresented by a licensed lawyer in a criminal trial denies due process. The judgment was set aside and the case remanded for a new trial with proper legal representation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Reyes vs. Court of Appeals: (G.R. No. 111682. February 6, 1997)

    Uploaded by

    May Joy Managdag
    447 views2 pages
    The petitioner was accused of falsifying documents and assisting people to travel to the US. At trial, her counsel failed to appear at a hearing, so the court considered her to have waived her right to present evidence. She was found guilty. Later, she discovered her counsel was not actually a licensed lawyer. The Supreme Court ruled she was entitled to a new trial, as being unrepresented by a licensed lawyer in a criminal trial denies due process. The judgment was set aside and the case remanded for a new trial with proper legal representation.

    Original Description:

    0

    Original Title

    C

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner was accused of falsifying documents and assisting people to travel to the US. At trial, her counsel failed to appear at a hearing, so the court considered her to have waived her right to present evidence. She was found guilty. Later, she discovered her counsel was not actually a licensed lawyer. The Supreme Court ruled she was entitled to a new trial, as being unrepresented by a licensed lawyer in a criminal trial denies due process. The judgment was set aside and the case remanded for a new trial with proper legal representation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    447 views2 pages

    Reyes vs. Court of Appeals: (G.R. No. 111682. February 6, 1997)

    Uploaded by

    May Joy Managdag
    The petitioner was accused of falsifying documents and assisting people to travel to the US. At trial, her counsel failed to appear at a hearing, so the court considered her to have waived her right to present evidence. She was found guilty. Later, she discovered her counsel was not actually a licensed lawyer. The Supreme Court ruled she was entitled to a new trial, as being unrepresented by a licensed lawyer in a criminal trial denies due process. The judgment was set aside and the case remanded for a new trial with proper legal representation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Gross negligence of counsel

    REYES vs. COURT OF APPEALS


    [G.R. No. 111682. February 6, 1997]
    FACTS:

    Petitioner Zenaida Reyes was accused of falsifying a deed of sale of four (4) parcels of
    land by feigning and signing the name of Pablo Floro
    Hearings were scheduled for the presentation of petitioners evidence on six different
    dates
    On motion of private prosecutor, the court declared petitioner to have waived the right to
    present her evidence
    The RTC rendered its decision finding petitioner guilty of falsification
    Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts ruling
    Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit

    ISSUE: Whether the trial court properly held petitioner to have waived the right to present
    evidence because of her counsels negligence.

    RULING:
    PETITION IS GRANTED.
    Keeping in mind that this case involves personal liberty, the negligence of
    counsel was certainly so gross that it should not be allowed to prejudice petitioners
    constitutional right to be heard. The judicial conscience certainly cannot rest easy on a
    conviction based solely on the evidence of the prosecution just because the presentation
    of the defense evidence had been barred by technicality. Rigid application of rules must
    yield to the duty of courts to render justice where justice is due to secure to every
    individual all possible legal means to prove his innocence of a crime with which he or
    she might be charged.

    The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan for a new trial for
    the purpose of allowing petitioner to present evidence in her defense with directive to the
    court thereafter to decide the case with all deliberate speed.
    DELGADO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
    G.R. No. L-46392 November 10, 1986

    FACTS:

    Emma R. Delgado, herein petitioner, together with Gloria C. Tortona, Celia Capistrano and
    Catalino Bautista was charged with estafa thru falsification of public and/or official
    documents resulting in deceiving one Erlinda Rueda, a Medical Technologist, in arranging
    her travel to the United States
    Petitioner Emma R. Delgado was assisted and represented by her counsel de parte, Atty.
    Lamberto G. Yco
    December 13, 1973 - the date set for the continuation of the defense evidence, said Atty. Yco
    failed to appear despite proper and previous notice
    The Trial Court considered Emma Delgado to have waived presentation of her evidence, and
    considered the case submitted for decision
    March 20, 1974 - RTC - guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Estafa thru
    Falsification of Public and/or Official Documents
    December 6, 1976 - CA affirmed the decision of the RTC
    February 17, 1977 - petitioner filed with respondent Court of Appeals an "Urgent Motion to
    Set Aside Entry of Judgment, to Recall the Records and Allw the Movant to Personally
    Receive Copy of the Decision denied on April 20, 1977
    May 11, 1977 - an Order was issued by respondent Court of First Instance of Manila
    directing the arrest of herein petitioner Emma R. Delgado and the confiscation of her bond
    for failure to appear at the execution of judgment on May 11, 1977
    May 27, 1977 - petitioner filed a Motion for the Reconsideration of the Order
    - newly discovered fact that petitioner came to know for the first time only
    on May 19, 1977 that Atty. Lamberto G. Yco is not a member of the
    Philippine Bar

    ISSUE: WON the petitioner is entitled to a new trial


    RULING: YES. An accused person is entitled to be represented by a member of the bar in a
    criminal case filed against her before the Regional Trial Court. Unless she is represented by a
    lawyer, there is great danger that any defense presented in her behalf will be inadequate considering
    the legal perquisites and skills needed in the court proceedings. This would certainly be a denial of
    due process.
    The assailed judgment is SET ASIDE, and a new one is hereby rendered,
    remanding the case to the trial court for new trial.

    You might also like