In the pretrial conference, Atty. Manzano appeared for all the petitioners. However, during the time set for presentation of evidence, Atty. Manzano failed to appear despite prior notice. Thus, one of the accused absented himself from the same hearing. This prompted the Court to issue a warrant of arrest for the absentee for his failure to appear. Thereafter, Atty. Manzano withdrew as counsel de officio. Thus, the accused was assisted by PAO lawyers. ISSUE: Whether there was deprivation of the accused’s right to counsel RULING: NO. The Court is not persuaded that the absence of the counsel de oficio in one of the hearings of this case amounts to a denial of the right to counsel. Nor does such absence warrant the nullification of the entire trial court proceedings and the eventual invalidation of its ruling. In People v Manalo , the Court held that the fact that a particular counsel de oficio did not or could not consistently appear in all the hearings of the case, is effectively a denial of a right to counsel, especially so where, as in the instant case, there is no showing that the several appointed counsel de oficio in any way neglected to perform their duties to the appellant and to the trial court and that the defense had suffered in any substantial sense therefrom RULE 116: ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA 1. RAMISCAL JR. v SANDIGANBAYAN (GR 172476-99) FACTS: Ramiscal was a retired officer of AFP and the former president of AFP-Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS). During his incumbency, the BOD of AFP-RSBS approved the acquisition of. of land for development as housing projects. The Ombudsman found probable cause to administratively charge Ramiscal with regards to the said transaction specifically for falsification of public documents. Ramiscal filed his first Motion for Reconsideration with a supplemental motion regarding the findings of the Ombudsman. With this, a panel of prosecutors was tasked to review the records of the case, they found out that Ramiscal Jr., indeed participated in an affixed his signature on the contracts and found probable cause. The Ombudsman acted positively on the findings of the prosecutor and scheduled the arraignment of Ramiscal Jr. However, Ramiscal Jr., refused to enter a plea for petitioner on the ground that there is a pending resolution of his second Motion for Reconsideration. Issue: Whether the second Motion for Reconsideration is valid and should suspend his arraignment. Ruling: NO. Sec 7 of Rule 11 of the Rules provides that only one motion for reconsideration or reinvestigation of an approved order or resolution shall be allowed xxxxx the filing of a motion for reconsideration/reinvestigation shall not bar the filling of the corresponding information in Court on the basis of the finding of probable cause in the resolution subject of the motion.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 45 pages?
- Fall '14
- Law, Appellate court, Evidence law, Trial court