ManilaSECOND
DIVISION
EMMA
DELGADO,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. L-46392
November 10, 1986
-versus-
HON.
COURT OF APPEALS,
and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
D
E C I S I O N
PARAS, J.:
This is a
Petition for
Certiorari and
Mandamus
with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to review the
following
orders:
[a] Order of the Court of Appeals dated
April
20, l977, denying petitioner's Urgent Motion to Set Aside Entry of
Judgment,
to Recall the Records and allow the movant to personally receive copy
of
the decision dated February 16, 1977;
[b] Resolution of the Court of Appeals
dated
June
3, 1977, denying petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated May 23,
1977; and
[c] Order dated May 11, 1977 of the
Court of
First
Instance of Manila ordering petitioner's arrest and confiscation of her
bond.
Emma R.
Delgado, herein petitioner, together with
Gloria C. Tortona, Celia Capistrano and Catalino Bautista alias
Atty. Paulino Bautista, the last named still at-large, was charged with
estafa thru falsification of public and/or official documents resulting
in deceiving one, Erlinda Rueda, a Medical Technologist, in arranging
her
travel to the United States. All the accused [except Catalino
Bautista]
pleaded not guilty upon arraignment and trial on the merits ensued.
Herein
petitioner Emma R. Delgado was assisted and represented by her counsel
de parte, Atty. Lamberto G. Yco. On December 13, 1973, the
date
set for the continuation of the defense evidence, said Atty. Yco failed
to appear despite proper and previous notice. Instead, he sent a
telegram
requesting for postponement on the ground allegedly that he was sick.
No
medical certificate was, however, submitted. The trial fiscal objected,
believing that the motion was dilatory because there had been numerous
postponements in the past at petitioner's behest. The trial court
sustained
the fiscal's objection thereto, considered Emma Delgado to have waived
presentation of her evidence, and considered the case submitted for
decision.
Thereafter, a
judgment of conviction was rendered
by the trial court dated March 20, 1974, the dispositive portion of
which
reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
Court
finds the accused Gloria C. Tortona, Emma R. Delgado and Celia
Capistrano
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Estafa thru
Falsification
of Public and/or Official Documents, and each is hereby sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from two [2] years and four [4] months of
prision correccional, as minimum, four [4] to six [6]
years,
also
of prision correccional, as maximum, to pay a fine of
P5,000.00,
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to indemnify
the offended party, Erlinda Ruedas, in the amount of P7,431.00. Each is
further ordered to pay, jointly and severally, said complainant moral
damages
in the amount of P5,000.00, and one fourth of the costs of the
proceedings.
Accused Gloria
C. Tortona did not appeal from the
aforesaid Decision. Accused Celia Capistrano and petitioner Emma R.
Delgado
appealed to the Court of Appeals raising the issue of "whether or
not, on the basis of the evidence and the law, the judgment appealed
from
should be maintained."
On December 6,
1976, the Court of Appeals rendered
judgment affirming the decision of the trial court as to herein
accused-petitioner
Emma R. Delgado and reversing the judgment as to Celia Capistrano, the
dispositive part of which judgment reads as follows:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, on reasonable doubt,
judgment
as to appellant Capistrano is reversed with proportionate costs de
officio
and cancellation of bail bond, but judgment as to appellant Delgado is
affirmed with proportionate costs.
On December 27,
1976, an entry of final judgment
was issued and on February 1, 1977, the records of the case were
remanded
to the lower court for execution of judgment.
Believing that
there was irregularity in the sending
of notices and copy of the decision as petitioner was not informed or
notified
of said Decision by her counsel on record, Atty. Lamberto G. Yco,
herein
petitioner filed on February 17, 1977 with respondent Court of Appeals
an "Urgent Motion to Set Aside Entry of Judgment, to Recall the Records
and Allow the Movant to Personally Receive Copy of the Decision".cralaw:red
This motion was
denied by respondent Court of
Appeals in its Resolution dated April 20, 1977.
On May 11, 1977, an Order was issued by
respondent
Court of First Instance of Manila directing the arrest of herein
petitioner
Emma R. Delgado and the confiscation of her bond for failure to appear
at the execution of judgment on May 11, 1977.cralaw:red
On May 27, 1977,
petitioner filed a Motion for
the Reconsideration of the Order denying her Motion to Set Aside Entry
of Judgments, etc., invoking as one of the grounds therein, the newly
discovered
fact that petitioner came to know for the first time only on May 19,
1977
that Atty. Lamberto G. Yco is not a member of the Philippine Bar.
Petitioner
prayed that she be granted a new trial on the ground that she was
deprived
of her right to be defended by competent counsel.cralaw:red
On June 3, 1977,
respondent Court of Appeals denied
petitioner's motion, hence, she filed the instant petition before this
Court.cralaw:red
The main thrust
of petitioner's arguments is that
she is entitled to a new trial and, therefore, all the assailed orders
of respondent courts should be vacated and set aside, because her
"lawyer,"
Atty. Lamberto G. Yco, is not a lawyer.cralaw:red
We find the
petition impressed with merit
This is so
because an accused person is entitled
to be represented by a member of the bar in a criminal case filed
against
her before the Regional Trial Court. Unless she is represented by a
lawyer,
there is great danger that any defense presented in her behalf will be
inadequate considering the legal perquisites and skills needed in the
court
proceedings. This would certainly be a denial of due process.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the
assailed judgment is set aside
and a new one is hereby rendered, remanding the case to the trial court
for new trial.
Feria, Fernan,
Alampay, and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.,
concur. |