violation of their right, when they maintain the Provincial
Prosecutor as their counsel. Furthermore the accused
was convicted of statutory rape, there being no
impediment of the complainant’s right to counsel. In fact
an examination of related provisions in the constitution
concerning the right to counsel, will show that the
“preference in the choice of counsel” pertains more aptly
and specifically to a person under investigation rather
that one who is the accused in a criminal prosecution.
People vs. Onabia.
In convicting an accused, it is not enough that
proof beyond reasonable doubt has been
adduced; it is also essential that the accused
has been duly afforded his fundamental rights.
Rufino Mirandilla Bermas pleaded not guilty to
the crime of rape, complainant Manuela Bermas,
15 years old, was raped by her own father,
appellant Rufino Bermas, while she was lying
down on a wooden bed inside their house. The
defense proffered the testimony of the accused,
who denied the charge, and that of his married
daughter, Luzviminda Mendez, who attributed
the accusation made by her younger sister to a
mere resentment by the latter. The defendant
averred that the accused was denied his
constitutional right to effective and vigilant
counsel. Was the accused denied the right to
counsel?
Answer: Yes. This Court finds and must hold, most
regrettably, that accused-appellant has not properly and
effectively been accorded the right to counsel. So
important is the right to counsel that it has been
enshrined in our fundamental law and its precursor laws.
Indeed, even prior to the advent of the 1935
Constitution, the right to counsel of an accused has
already been recognized under General Order No. 58,
dated 23 April 1900, stating that a defendant in all
criminal prosecutions is entitled to counsel at every
stage of the proceedings, and that if he is unable to
employ counsel, the court must assign one to defend
him.
The constitutional mandate is reflected in the 1985
Rules of Criminal Procedures which declares in Section
1, Rule 115, thereof, that it is a right of the accused at
the trial to be present in person and by counsel at every
stage of the proceedings from the arraignment to the
promulgation of the judgment. The presence and
participation of counsel in the defense of an accused in
criminal proceedings should never be taken lightly.
People vs. Bermas.
Antonio Pedres was accused of the crime of
rape. The undersigned Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor of Albay, upon written complaint of
Maribel Pedres, offended party, assisted by her
aunt, Julita M. Garcia, hereby accuses Antonio
Pedres of the crime of rape, the above-named
accused, with lewd design and in grave violation
of his moral ascendancy and thru force and
intimidation, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully
and
feloniously had sexual
intercourse with his own daughter, the herein
offended party, Maribel M. Pedres, against her
will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.

