Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    People vs. Serzo

    Uploaded by

    Laila Ismael Salisa
    Mario Serzo was convicted of murder for stabbing Alfredo Casabal. Serzo claimed he was denied his right to counsel. During arraignment, Serzo appeared without counsel so the court appointed one. However, at trial the same counsel represented and cross-examined Serzo. The court held that Serzo was not denied his right to counsel as he was provided with counsel at all stages of the proceedings. While an accused has the right to hire their own counsel, they cannot use this to delay proceedings or prejudice the state's right to speedy justice.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Serzo

    Uploaded by

    Laila Ismael Salisa
    34 views1 page
    Mario Serzo was convicted of murder for stabbing Alfredo Casabal. Serzo claimed he was denied his right to counsel. During arraignment, Serzo appeared without counsel so the court appointed one. However, at trial the same counsel represented and cross-examined Serzo. The court held that Serzo was not denied his right to counsel as he was provided with counsel at all stages of the proceedings. While an accused has the right to hire their own counsel, they cannot use this to delay proceedings or prejudice the state's right to speedy justice.

    Original Title

    310. People vs. Serzo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mario Serzo was convicted of murder for stabbing Alfredo Casabal. Serzo claimed he was denied his right to counsel. During arraignment, Serzo appeared without counsel so the court appointed one. However, at trial the same counsel represented and cross-examined Serzo. The court held that Serzo was not denied his right to counsel as he was provided with counsel at all stages of the proceedings. While an accused has the right to hire their own counsel, they cannot use this to delay proceedings or prejudice the state's right to speedy justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    34 views1 page

    People vs. Serzo

    Uploaded by

    Laila Ismael Salisa
    Mario Serzo was convicted of murder for stabbing Alfredo Casabal. Serzo claimed he was denied his right to counsel. During arraignment, Serzo appeared without counsel so the court appointed one. However, at trial the same counsel represented and cross-examined Serzo. The court held that Serzo was not denied his right to counsel as he was provided with counsel at all stages of the proceedings. While an accused has the right to hire their own counsel, they cannot use this to delay proceedings or prejudice the state's right to speedy justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    People v.

    Serzo Digest

    People v. Serzo

    Rights of the Accused

    Facts:

    1. Appellant Mario Serzo was convicted of murder by the lower court for the stabbing/killing of
    Alfredo Casabal after the latter rescued minors being held by the former.

    2. Pre-trial was waived and the case proceeded to trial on the merits.

    3. The accused alleged that he was denied the right to counsel. During the arraignment he appeared
    without counsel,so the court appointed a counsel de officio. Thereafter, he moved that the
    arraignment be reset so he can engage the services of his own counsel however, during the
    arraignment, he still appeared without one. The arraignment proceeded with him being assisted by
    the counsel de officio.

    4. During the trial, the same counsel appeared and cross-examined for the accused.

    Issue: Whether or not the accused was denied of his right to counsel

    HELD: NO. Herein, the accused was provided with a counsel de officio who assisted him in all stages
    of the proceedings.The option to hire ones counsel cannot be used to sanction reprehensible dilatory
    tactics, trifle with the Rules or prejudice the equally important right of the State and the offended
    party to speedy and adequate justice.

    The right to counsel is guaranteed by the Constitution to minimize the imbalance in the adversarial
    system where an accused is pitted against the awesome prosecution machinery of the state. It is also
    a recognition of the accused not having the skill to protect himself before a tribunal which has the
    power to take his life or liberty.

    The right covers the period from custodial investigation until judgment is rendered, even on appeal.
    RA 7438 provides that any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall at all
    times be assisted by counsel.

    The right is however not absolute and is waivable; a) the state must balance the private against the
    state's and offended party's equally important rightto speedy and adequate justice, and b) the right
    is waivable as long as the waiver is unequivocal, knowing, and intelligently made.

    You might also like