Delgado vs. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 357
Nature: This is a petition for Certiorari and
mandamus with prayer for a Writ of preliminary injunction
Keywords: counsel who represented the accused in
not member of the bar; Estafa thru falsification of public/official documents;
right to counsel
Summary: Delgado together
with 3 others were charged for estafa causing the frustration of one medical
student. Delgado was assisted by one Atty. Yco. The said lawyer has filed for
multiple postponement of trial and one time he failed to appear in court by
reason of him being allegedly sick. No medical certificate was furnished. The
court was not impressed with such actuation and had considered the same as
Delgado’s waiver of her right to trial. The lower
court convicted her and the others. She appealed before the CA and the CA
sustained the lower court’s rule. Delgado later
found out that Yco is not a member of the IBP.
PARAS, J.
Facts: Emma R. Delgado, herein petitioner,
together with Gloria C. Tortona, Celia Capistrano and Catalino Bautista alias
Atty. Paulino Bautista, the last named still at large, was charged with estafa
thru falsification of public and/or official documents resulting in deceiving
one Erlinda Rueda, a Medical Technologist, in arranging her travel to the
United States.
All the accused
(except Catalino Bautista) pleaded not guilty upon arraignment and trial on the
merits ensued. Herein petitioner Emma R. Delgado was assisted and represented
by her counsel de parte, Atty. Lamberto G. Yco. On December 13, 1973, the date
set for the continuation of the defense evidence, said Atty. Yco failed to
appear despite proper and previous notice. Instead, he sent a telegram
requesting for postponement on the ground allegedly that he was sick. No
medical certificate was however submitted. The trial fiscal objected, believing
that the motion was dilatory because there had been numerous postponements in
the past at petitioner's behest. The trial Court sustained the fiscal's
objection thereto, considered Emma Delgado to have waived presentation of her
evidence, and considered the case submitted for decision.
Thereafter, a
judgment of conviction was rendered by the trial court and finds the accused
Gloria C. Tortona, Emma R. Delgado and Celia Capistrano guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public
and/or Official Documents. Each is further ordered to pay, jointly and
severally, said complainant moral damages in the amount of P5,000.00, and one fourth
of the costs of the proceedings.
Accused Gloria C.
Tortona did not appeal from the aforesaid decision. Accused Celia Capistrano
and petitioner Emma R. Delgado appealed to the Court of Appeals raising the
issue of "whether or not on the basis of the evidence and the law the
judgment appealed from should be maintained."
Court of Appeals
rendered judgment affirming the decision of the trial court.
On December 27, 1976,
an entry of final judgment was issued and on February 1, 1977, the records of
the case were remanded to the lower court for execution of judgment.
Believing that there
was irregularity in the sending of notices and copy of the decision as
petitioner was not informed or notified of said decision by her counsel on
record, Atty. Lamberto G. Yco, herein petitioner filed on February 17, 1977
with respondent Court of Appeals an "Urgent Motion to Set Aside Entry of
Judgment, to Recall the Records and Allw the Movant to Personally Receive Copy
of the Decision.
This motion was
denied by respondent Court of Appeals in its Resolution dated April 20, 1977.
On May 11, 1977 an
Order was issued by respondent Court of First Instance of Manila directing the
arrest of herein petitioner Emma R. Delgado and the confiscation of her bond
for failure to appear at the execution of judgment on May 11, 1977.
On May 27, 1977,
petitioner filed a Motion for the Reconsideration of the Order denying her
Motion to Set Aside Entry of Judgments, etc., invoking as one of the grounds
therein, the newly discovered fact that petitioner came to know for the first
time only on May 19, 1977 that Atty. Lamberto G. Yco is not a member of the
Philippine Bar. Petitioner prayed that she be granted a new trial on the ground
that she was deprived of her right to be defended by competent counsel.
On June 3, 1977,
respondent Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion, hence, she filed the
instant petition before this Court.
The main thrust of
petitioner's arguments is that she is entitled to a new trial and therefore,
all the assailed orders of respondent courts should be vacated and set aside,
because her "lawyer," Atty. Lamberto G. Yco, is not a lawyer.
Issue: WON petitioner is entitled to a new
trial and therefore, all the assailed orders of respondent courts should be
vacated and set aside, because her "lawyer," Atty. Lamberto G. Yco,
is not a lawyer.
Held: YES. We find the
petition impressed with merit
Ratio: This is so
because an accused person is entitled to be represented by a member of the bar
in a criminal case filed against her before the Regional Trial Court. 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. This would certainly be a denial of
due process.
Ruling: WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment is SET
ASIDE, and a new one is hereby rendered, remanding the case to the trial court
for new trial.
Doctrine: – The mistake of
counsel will bind his client. The only exception is when the counsel represents
himself as a lawyer and is not one because in that case the accused is denied
of his right to counsel and due process.
