People vs Nadera Petitioner was found guilty of the crime of perjury She filed

People vs nadera petitioner was found guilty of the

This preview shows page 22 - 23 out of 68 pages.

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.
Image of page 22
Image of page 23

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 68 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • Ulysses, Appellate court, Legal burden of proof, Trial court, Rights of the accused

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture