Title
Delgado vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-46392
Decision Date
Nov 10, 1986
Emma Delgado convicted of estafa through falsification, appealed due to representation by a non-lawyer. Supreme Court ruled denial of competent counsel violated due process, ordered new trial.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-46392)

Background of Proceedings and Trial Court Decision

During trial, on the set date for continuation of defense evidence, Delgado’s counsel, Atty. Yco, failed to appear and only sent a telegram citing illness without a medical certificate. The prosecution objected, alleging dilatory tactics due to numerous prior postponements. The trial court sustained the objection, deemed Delgado to have waived presentation of her evidence, and considered the case submitted for decision. On March 20, 1974, the trial court convicted Delgado and others as principals of estafa through falsification, sentencing them to prison and ordering indemnification and fines.

Appeals and Court of Appeals Ruling

Gloria Tortona did not appeal; however, Delgado and Celia Capistrano did. On December 6, 1976, the Court of Appeals affirmed Delgado’s conviction but reversed Capistrano’s acquittal, citing reasonable doubt. A final judgment entry was issued on December 27, 1976, and the case records were remanded to the trial court on February 1, 1977 for execution.

Petitioner’s Allegations of Procedural Irregularities

Delgado asserted that she was never notified of the Court of Appeals’ decision through her counsel, Atty. Yco, prompting her to file an Urgent Motion on February 17, 1977, to set aside the entry of judgment, recall the records, and personally receive a copy of the decision. The Court of Appeals denied this motion on April 20, 1977.

Order for Arrest and Bond Confiscation

On May 11, 1977, the trial court issued an order for Delgado’s arrest and bond confiscation due to failure to appear for execution of judgment. Subsequently, on May 27, 1977, Delgado filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’ denial, presenting the newly discovered fact that her counsel, Atty. Yco, was not a legitimate member of the Philippine Bar. She argued that this deprived her of her right to competent legal representation and prayed for a new trial.

Court of Appeals Denial of Reconsideration and Petition to the Supreme Court

The Court of Appeals denied the motion on June 3, 1977. Delgado then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari and mandamus, with a prayer for preliminary injunction, seeking to set aside the prior rulings and assert her right to a new trial based on denial of effective assistance of counsel.

Supreme Court’s Findings and Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court found merit in Delgado’s petition because the right to legal representation by a duly licensed member of the Philippine Bar in criminal proceedings before the Regional Trial Cou

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.