People V Santocildes

TRIAL
G.R. No. 109149 

PEOPLE v SANTOCILDES
Quisumbing, J.
FACTS
Crime Rape
Parties Leoncio Santocildes Jr. – Accused-Appellant
Nature APPEAL of a decision of the RTC of Iloilo City, Br. 33
Events  Santocildes was charged with the crime of rape of a girl less than 9 years old
before Trial  Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of not guilty
RTC of  The prosecution presented:

Ilolilo City,  The victim, her mother, her playmate, and the medico-legal officer who
Br. 33 examined the victim
 The defense presented:
 The accused, German Toriales
 Accused denied committing the rape, and claimed that he merely tried to stop the
victim and her playmate from quarreling
 RTC found Santocildes guilty as charged
 Sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
 Santocildes filed a Notice of Appeal
 Alleged the ff:
o During trial, he was represented by a person named Gualberto C.
Ompong, who acted as his counsel and even conducted the direct
examination and cross-examinations of the witnesses
o On appeal, he secured the services of a new lawyer, Atty. Igmedio S.
Prado, Jr., who discovered that Gualberto C. Ompong is actually NOT
a member of the bar
o The Office of the Bar Confidant confirmed this fact
 Argued that he was denied due process, as he was deprived of his right to
be defended by a person authorized to practice law, through no fault of his
own  such deprivation should result in his acquittal
 OSG’s Arguments
 Notwithstanding the fact that appellant's counsel during trial was not a
member of the bar, appellant was afforded due process since he has
been given an opportunity to be heard
 The records reveal that Ompong "presented the evidence for the defense
with the ability of a seasoned lawyer and in general handled the case of
appellant in a professional and skillful manner."
SC RTC decision is SET ASIDE, and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for new trial
ISSUES with HOLDING:

1. W/N Santocildes was denied due process as he was deprived of his right to counsel during trial
– YES
 The right to counsel of an accused is enshrined in no less than Article III, Sections 12 and 14 (2) of
the 1987 Constitution
 This is reflected in Rule 115, Sec. 1 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which declares
the right of the accused at the trial to be present in person and by counsel at every stage of
the proceedings from the arraignment to the promulgation of judgment
 In the Court’s view, the right of the accused to be heard by himself and his counsel goes much
deeper than the question of ability or skill, as it guarantees to minimize the imbalance in the
adversarial system where the accused is pitted against the awesome prosecutory machinery of the
State
 Where the interplay of basic rights of the individual may collide with the awesome forces of
the state, what is needed is a professional: (1) learned in the law, and (2) ethically-committed
to defend the accused by all means fair and reasonable
 Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of the law,
particularly in the rules of procedure
o Without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does
not know how to establish his innocence
 In Delgado v CA, after conviction, Delgado moved to set aside the entry of judgment, as she found
out that her lawyer was not a member of the bar. The SC set aside the assailed judgment and
remanded the case to the trial court for new trial, explaining that she was denied due process:
 An accused person is entitled to be represented by a member of the bar in a criminal
case led against her
 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
 To underscore the primordial importance of the right to counsel, the Court notes that it has also
remanded cases where the accused is represented by members of the bar, but fail to genuinely
protect the interests of said accused
 In People v Bermas, the Court ordered the remand of a rape case when it found that accused
was given mere perfunctory representation by three successive counsels from the PAO
 The due process requirement is a part of a person's basic rights; it is not a mere formality that
may be dispensed with or performed perfunctorily
 CONCLUSION: In the case at bar, since accused was not duly represented by a member of the
Philippine Bar during trial, the trial court’s judgment should be set aside, and the case be remanded
for new trial
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment is SET ASIDE, and the case is hereby REMANDED to the trial court
for new trial.
With respect to the unauthorized practice of law by the person named Gualberto C. Ompong in connection
with this case, the local Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines of Iloilo City is DIRECTED to conduct
a prompt and thorough investigation regarding this matter and to report its recommendations to the Court
within ninety (90) days from notice of this order. Let all concerned parties, including the O ce of the Bar
Confidant, be each furnished a copy of this Decision for their appropriate action.
NOTES:
 Section 1 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court explicitly states who are entitled to practice law in the
Philippines
 Section 2 of Rule 138 clearly provides for the requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar

People V Santocildes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Santocildes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Santocildes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRIAL

G.R. No. 109149

Parties Leoncio Santocildes Jr. – Accused-Appellant

Nature APPEAL of a decision of the RTC of Iloilo City, Br. 33

RTC of  The prosecution presented:

ISSUES with HOLDING:

You might also like