100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 21 - 22 out of 68 pages.
Answer: New Trial; An error or mistake committed by acounsel in the course of judicial proceedings is not aground for new trial. — An error or mistake committed bya counsel in the course of judicial proceedings is not aground for new trial. In People vs. Mercado, wedeclared: It has been repeatedly enunciated that “a clientis bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of acase and cannot be heard to complain that the resultmight have been different if he proceeded differently. Aclient is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. If suchgrounds were to be admitted as reasons for reopeningcases, there would never be an end to a suit so long asnew counsel could be employed who would allege andshow that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligentor experienced or learned. Briones vs. People.In this case, it was found out by the court thatpetitioner Villanueva through her former counsel,had taken a wrong procedure. After the RTCrendered an adverse decision, she should havesought relief from the Sandiganbayan inconformity with R.A. No. 8249 Under R.A. No.8249, the Sandiganbayan shall exerciseexclusive appellate jurisdiction over finaljudgments, resolutions or orders of regional trialcourts whether in the exercise of their ownoriginal jurisdiction or of their appellatejurisdiction as herein provided. Thus, in thiscase, the CA was correct in dismissing theappeal for lack of jurisdiction. Does the grossnegligence of petitioner’s counsel violated herconstitutional right?Answer:In light of what has been shown, the Court isinclined to suspend the rules to give the petitioner achance to seek relief from the Sandiganbayan.TheCourt likewise makes exception to the general rule thatthe mistakes and negligence of counsel bind the client. Itbears stressing at this point, that the rule which statesthat the mistakes of counsel bind the client may not bestrictly followed where observance of it would result inoutright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property, orwhere the interests of justice so require. Villanueva vs.People.Absence of ViolationAquino was charged with a special complexcrime of robbery with homicide.Aquino prays forthe remand of the case to the lower courtbecause he was denied of his right to theassistance of counsel due to the grossincompetence of his previous counsel who wasless than zealous in defending his interest. Hiscounsel confined his defense to the illegal arrestsubsequent to arraignment and disregarded hisplea to present other witnesses. WasAquino’sright to assistance of counsel was violated?Answer:No.Court said that: Aquino was assisted by acounsel and if he had difficulties with this counsel, heshould have informed the trial court of this fact. He hadthe opportunity to do so, yet he chose to keep quiet. Hecould have insisted on presenting his own version of theevents but he did nothing, thereby clearly indicating hisfull agreement with his counsels chosen strategy.