People vs nadera petitioner was found guilty of the

People
vs. Nadera.
 Petitioner was found guilty of the crime of
perjury . She filed a timely motion for new trial on
the ground that she was deprived of her day in
court because of the gross negligence of her
counsel, Atty. Ricardo Valmonte, and his utter
lack of diligence in the performance of his duty
to represent her in every stage of the suit. Her
counsel, inter alia, failed to: file the demurrer to
evidence, failed to inform client of such failure to
file, failure to attend the hearing, failure to seek
proper relief and failure to appear of
promulgation of judgment. MTC denied the
motion for new trial because the ground upon it
was based was not in the Rules of Court for new
trial in criminal cases. Did the MTC commit
grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion?
Answer: No. There was no grave abuse of discretion on
the part of MTC. However, , in view of the circumstances
of this case, outright deprivation of liberty will be the
consequence of petitioner’s criminal conviction based
solely on the evidence for the prosecution . Thus, to
prevent a miscarriage of justice and to give meaning to
the due process clause of the Constitution, the Court
deems it wise to allow petitioner to present evidence in
her defense. The rule that the negligence of counsel
binds the client admits of exceptions. The recognized
exceptions are: (1) where reckless or gross negligence
of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, (2)
when its application will result in outright deprivation of
the client’s liberty or property or (3) where the interests
of justice so require. In such cases, courts must step in
and accord relief to a party-litigant. Callangan vs.
People.
Right To Be Informed
Purpose: (1) to furnish the accused with a description of
the charge against him as will enable him to make his
defenses, (2) to avail himself of his conviction or
acquittal against a further prosecution for the same
cause, and (3) to inform the court of the facts alleged.
If the information fails to allege the material elements of
the offense, the accused cannot be convicted thereof
even if the prosecution is able to present evidence
during the trial with respect to such elements.
The real nature of the crime charged is determined from
the recital of facts in the information. It is not determined
based neither on the caption or preamble thereof nor
from the specification of the provision of law allegedly
violated.
 Defendants Rudy Regala and Delfin Flores were
charged with the crime of murder with assault
upon an agent of a person in authority in an
information filed before the CFI of Masbate. It is
contended that the appellant cannot be
convicted of the complex crime of homicide with
assault upon an agent of a person in authority.