Answer New Trial An error or mistake committed by a counsel in the course of

Answer new trial an error or mistake committed by a

This preview shows page 21 - 22 out of 68 pages.

Answer: New Trial; An error or mistake committed by a counsel in the course of judicial proceedings is not a ground for new trial. — An error or mistake committed by a counsel in the course of judicial proceedings is not a ground for new trial. In People vs. Mercado , we declared: It has been repeatedly enunciated that “a client is bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of a case and cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different if he proceeded differently. A client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. If such grounds were to be admitted as reasons for reopening cases, there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be employed who would allege and show that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or learned. Briones vs. People. In this case, it was found out by the court that petitioner Villanueva through her former counsel, had taken a wrong procedure. After the RTC rendered an adverse decision, she should have sought relief from the Sandiganbayan in conformity with R.A. No. 8249 Under R.A. No. 8249, the Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided. Thus, in this case, the CA was correct in dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Does the gross negligence of petitioner’s counsel violated her constitutional right? Answer: In light of what has been shown, the Court is inclined to suspend the rules to give the petitioner a chance to seek relief from the Sandiganbayan. The Court likewise makes exception to the general rule that the mistakes and negligence of counsel bind the client. It bears stressing at this point, that the rule which states that the mistakes of counsel bind the client may not be strictly followed where observance of it would result in outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property, or where the interests of justice so require. Villanueva vs. People. Absence of Violation Aquino was charged with a special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Aquino prays for the remand of the case to the lower court because he was denied of his right to the assistance of counsel due to the gross incompetence of his previous counsel who was less than zealous in defending his interest. His counsel confined his defense to the illegal arrest subsequent to arraignment and disregarded his plea to present other witnesses. WasAquino’s right to assistance of counsel was violated? Answer: No. Court said that: Aquino was assisted by a counsel and if he had difficulties with this counsel, he should have informed the trial court of this fact. He had the opportunity to do so, yet he chose to keep quiet. He could have insisted on presenting his own version of the events but he did nothing, thereby clearly indicating his full agreement with his counsels chosen strategy.
Image of page 21
Image of page 22

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture