{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

These constitute threats to

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: , the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel." By analogy, but without prejudice to the sanctions imposed by law for the illegal practice of law, it is amply shown that the rights of accused were sufficiently and properly protected by the appearance of Mr. Posadas. An examination of the record will show that he knew the technical rules of procedure. Hence, there was a valid waiver of the right to sufficient representation during the trial, considering that it was unequivocally, knowingly, and intelligently made and with the full assistance of a bona fide lawyer, Atty. Abdul Basar. Accordingly, denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a valid waiver of rights has been made. (People v. Tulin, G.R. 111709, Aug. 30, 2001) POLITICAL LAW TEAM: ADVISER: ATTY. EDWIN REY SANDOVAL; SUBJECT HEAD: RACHEL MARIE L. FELICES; ASST. SUBJECT HEADS: WIVINO E. BRACERO II & HERAZEUS CHRISTINE Y. UY; MEMBERS: LAWRENCE PAULO H. AQUINO, LEANDRO RODEL V. ATIENZA, MARINETH EASTER AN D. AYOS, CARLO R. BALA, WILFREDO T. BONILLA, JR., KEEL ACHERNAR R. DINOY, APRIL V. ENRILE, KENNETH JAMES CARLO C. HIZON, JOSE MARIA G. MENDOZA, ROGER CHRISTOPHER R. REYES, ROMILINDA C. SIBAL, JASMIN M. SISON, ZARAH PATRICIA T. SUAREZ, RALPH JULIOUS L. VILLAMOR. BILL OF RIGHTS Note: In Flores v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L‐35707, May 31, 1979, the Supreme Court held that the right to counsel during the trial cannot be waived, because “even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence”. Q: X was criminally charged in court. He hired as counsel Y, who has many high‐profile clients. Due to his many clients, Y cannot attend the hearing of the case of X. He requested many times to have the hearings postponed. The case dragged on slowly. The judge in his desire to finish the case as early as practicable under the continuous trial system appointed a counsel de officio and...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online