100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 22 - 23 out of 68 pages.
Peoplevs. Nadera.Petitioner was found guilty of the crime ofperjury. She filed a timely motion for new trial onthe ground that she was deprived of her day incourt because of the gross negligence of hercounsel, Atty. Ricardo Valmonte, and his utterlack of diligence in the performance of his dutyto represent her in every stage of the suit. Hercounsel, inter alia, failed to: file the demurrer toevidence, failed to inform client of such failure tofile, failure to attend the hearing, failure to seekproper relief and failure to appear ofpromulgation of judgment. MTC denied themotion for new trial because the ground upon itwas based was not in the Rules of Court for newtrial in criminal cases. Did the MTC commitgrave abuse of discretion in denying the motion?Answer: No. There was no grave abuse of discretion onthe part of MTC. However, , in view of the circumstancesof this case, outright deprivation of liberty will be theconsequence of petitioner’s criminal conviction basedsolely on the evidence for the prosecution. Thus, toprevent a miscarriage of justice and to give meaning tothe due process clause of the Constitution, the Courtdeems it wise to allow petitioner to present evidence inher defense. The rule that the negligence of counselbinds the client admits of exceptions. The recognizedexceptions are: (1) where reckless or gross negligenceof counsel deprives the client of due process of law, (2)when its application will result in outright deprivation ofthe client’s liberty or property or (3) where the interestsof justice so require.In such cases, courts must step inand accord relief to a party-litigant. Callangan vs.People.Right To Be InformedPurpose: (1) to furnish the accused with a description ofthe charge against him as will enable him to make hisdefenses, (2) to avail himself of his conviction oracquittal against a further prosecution for the samecause, and (3) to inform the court of the facts alleged. If the information fails to allege the material elements ofthe offense, the accused cannot be convicted thereofeven if the prosecution is able to present evidenceduring the trial with respect to such elements.The real nature of the crime charged is determined fromthe recital of facts in the information. It is not determinedbased neither on the caption or preamble thereof norfrom the specification of the provision of law allegedlyviolated.Defendants Rudy Regala and Delfin Flores werecharged with the crime of murder with assaultupon an agent of a person in authority in aninformation filed before the CFI of Masbate. It iscontended that the appellant cannot beconvicted of the complex crime of homicide withassault upon an agent of a person in authority.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 68 pages?
Ulysses, Appellate court, Legal burden of proof, Trial court, Rights of the accused