|
|
|
|
|
EMMA
DELGADO,
G. R. No. L-46392
November 10, 1986
-versus-
HON.
COURT OF APPEALS,
PARAS, J.:
This is a
Petition for Certiorari and
Mandamus
with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to review the
following
orders:
[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:
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:
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". This motion was
denied by respondent Court of
Appeals in its Resolution dated April 20, 1977.
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. On June 3, 1977, respondent Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion, hence, she filed the instant petition before this Court. 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. 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. WHEREFORE, the
assailed judgment is set aside
and a new one is hereby rendered, remanding the case to the trial court
for new trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|