Case Digest (G.R. No. 120420)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 120420)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Rufino Mirandilla Bermas, G.R. No. 120420, April 21, 1999, Supreme Court En Banc, Vitug, J., writing for the Court. The respondent-appellant is Rufino Mirandilla Bermas, who was charged by complaint with raping his daughter Manuela Bermas (then 15) on or about August 3, 1994; the complaint was filed August 8, 1994 and the accused waived preliminary investigation. The prosecution presented, among other things, the victim’s testimony and a medico-legal report; the accused testified and presented his married daughter as a defense witness.At arraignment on October 3, 1994 the trial court appointed Atty. Rosa Elmira C. Villamin of the Public Attorney’s Office as counsel de officio and the accused pleaded not guilty; pre-trial was waived. During the initial reception of evidence on October 19, 1994, the prosecution placed the complainant on the stand but appointed defense counsel Villamin very briefly participated and then sought to be relieved; the trial court granted the request and appointed Atty. Roberto Gomez as replacement. Atty. Gomez was allowed only a very short recess (about ten minutes) to prepare before conducting cross-examination. The prosecution rested after the medico-legal officer’s testimony.
Counsel de officio changed again: because of nonappearance and requests to be relieved, the court appointed Atty. Nicanor Lonzame, who himself at first sought relief but then stayed. The defense presented the accused and his married daughter as witnesses. Trial concluded and, by decision dated May 2, 1995, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 274, Parañaque (presiding judge Hon. Amelita G. Tolentino) convicted the accused of rape and sentenced him to death, ordered indemnity and costs. Because the death penalty was imposed, the case went to the Supreme Court by automatic review under Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 22 of Republic Act No. 7659.
In a 61-page brief the defense raised multiple grounds of error focusing principally on deprivation of due process through ineffective and perfunctory representation by multiple court-appointed counsel de officio (PAO counsel and two succeeding appointees), including failure to move to quash on several grounds, failure to adequately cross-examine, virtual abandonment, and other procedural lapses. After reviewing the record, the Court found the accused was not properly and effectively afforded the right to counsel and remanded the case for a new trial; it also appointed new counsel de officio and admonished the prior appointed lawyers.
Issues:
- Was accused Rufino Bermas denied his constitutional right to effective counsel and due process by the repeated, inadequate, and perfunctory performance and substitutions of counsel de officio during trial?
- If there was such deprivation, should the conviction be upheld on the record or must the case be remanded for a new trial?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)