Case Summary (G.R. No. L-23815)
Petitioner's Appointment and Motion to Withdraw
On October 13, 1964, petitioner was appointed Election Registrar for Cadiz, Negros Occidental, by the Commission on Elections. Having previously represented one of the accused privately, he filed a motion to withdraw as counsel de parte. Upon denial of that motion, the trial court designated him counsel de oficio to prevent prejudice to his civil‐service status and to avoid further delay. On November 3, 1964, petitioner submitted an urgent motion to withdraw as counsel de oficio, citing the Commission’s full‐time service requirement and the anticipated pressure of his election‐registrar duties.
Trial Court Orders and Denial of Withdrawal
In its November 6, 1964 order, the court emphasized that the prosecution had already rested. It recounted petitioner’s prior requests for postponement—on at least ten occasions between May 1963 and September 1964—and noted that petitioner was aware of the trial resumption when he assumed office on October 13, 1964. Despite these factors, the court found no incompatibility between his duties as election registrar and his obligations as counsel de oficio. It upheld the designation and denied the withdrawal motion, reasoning that allowing withdrawal would delay completion of the trial.
Petition for Certiorari and Court’s Balancing of Interests
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, alleging that the trial court’s refusal to permit withdrawal constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that mere inconvenience or increased workload did not satisfy the high threshold for certiorari relief. While it recognized the paramount importance of the accused’s right to effective counsel, it concluded that this case did not present circumstances warranting overturning the trial court’s discretionary denial.
Jurisprudential Standards for Counsel De Oficio
The decision reviewed established doctrine requiring de oficio counsel to discharge duties with zeal equal to that of counsel retained and paid by the accused. Citing People v. Daban and earlier rulings such as In re Robles Lahesa and People v. Estebia, the Court reiterated that membership in the bar is a privilege conditioned upon faithful performance of professional obligations. The absence of remuneration does not justify lackadaisical representation; rather, it underscores the lawyer’s service to justice.
Constitutional and Statutory Right to Counsel
Under the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-23815)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Adelino H. Ledesma was counsel de parte for one of the two accused in a criminal case pending before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch I, Silay City.
- On October 13, 1964, Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz by the Commission on Elections and began discharging those duties immediately.
- He first moved to withdraw as counsel de parte, but the trial court denied the motion and, to preserve his civil service status, designated him counsel de oficio for both accused.
- On November 3, 1964, Ledesma filed an urgent motion to withdraw as counsel de oficio, citing:
• A Commission on Elections policy requiring full-time service in his new role.
• The volume and pressure of his election-related work, which he alleged would prevent him from adequately defending the accused. - The trial court, by order dated November 6, 1964, denied his motion and likewise denied his subsequent motion for reconsideration.
- Petitioner then instituted a petition for certiorari challenging the refusal to allow his withdrawal as counsel de oficio.
Procedural History
- Criminal proceedings began in the Municipal Court of Cadiz on July 11, 1962, based on an alleged offense committed on February 17, 1962.
- Numerous continuances were granted at the defense’s instance on May 17, June 13, June 14, October 28, November 27 of 1963, and February 11, March 9, June 8, July 26, and September 7 of 1964.
- The prosecution had already rested, and two government witnesses were ready to testify when the October 16, 1964 order was issued.
- After trial court denial of withdrawal motions, the certiorari petition was