Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > March 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 8984 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LABIAL

027 Phil 82:



[G.R. No. 8984. March 13, 1914. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN LABIAL and ARCADIO ABUSO, Defendants-Appellants.

Jose M. a de Marcaida for Appellants.

Attorney-General Villamor for Appellee.


1. CRIMINAL LAW; APPEAL; REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT; INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS. — The failure of the record to disclose affirmatively that the trial judge advised the accused of their right to have counsel is not sufficient ground to reverse the judgment of conviction and to send the case back for a new trial.



The appellants in this case were convicted in the court below of a violation of paragraph 1 of section 30 of the Election Law, in that they voted illegally at the general elections held in the municipality of Mambajao, Province of Misamis, P. I., on June 4, 1912.

The evidence of record conclusively establishes the guilt of the appellants of the offense with which they are charged and of which they were convicted, and we find no error in the proceedings prejudicial to the rights of the accused.

So far as can be gathered from the record, the accused were not represented by counsel at the trial of the case in the court below, and it does not affirmatively appear from the record whether the trial judge did or did not comply with the provisions of section 17 of General Orders No. 58 as amended by section 1 of Act No. 440, which are as

"If the defendant appear without counsel, he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have counsel before being arraigned, and must be asked if he desires the aid of counsel. If he desires and is unable to employ counsel, the court must assign counsel to defend him. A reasonable time must be allowed for procuring counsel."cralaw virtua1aw library

Section 1 of Act No. 440

"Section seventeen of General Order Number Fifty-eigth, issued from the office of the United States Military Governor, in the Philippine Islands on the twenty-third day of April, nineteen hundred, relating to criminal procedure, is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the following

"The counsel so employed or assigned must be a duly authorized member of the bar: Provided, nevertheless, That in provinces where duly authorized members of the bar are not available, the court may, in its discretion, admit or assign some person, resident in the province and of good repute for probity and ability, to act as counsel for the defendant, although the person so admitted or assigned be not a duly authorized member of the bar."cralaw virtua1aw library

Counsel for appellants insists that the judgment of the lower court should be reversed and the appellants acquitted because of the failure of the record to show that the trial judge complied with these provisions of law; and the Attorney-General in a motion dated October 20, 1913, appears to be in accord with counsel for the appellants as to the reversal of the judgment of conviction, but prays that the case be remanded to the court below for a new trial.

In the case of the United States v. Santos (4 Phil. Rep., 419), this court said: "If on answering the complaint he (the defendant) did so without the assistance of a lawyer, this would not be ground for alleging a defect in the procedure. To be able to urge this, it should first appear that the defendant had asked for the assistance of a lawyer to answer the complaint and that the trial had proceeded without any attention being paid to his request."cralaw virtua1aw library

Adhering to the doctrine laid down in that case, the only question to be determined in this case is whether the failure of the record to disclose affirmatively that the trial judge advised the accused of their right to have counsel is sufficient ground to reverse the judgment of conviction and to send the case back for a new trial. Upon this point we are all agreed that in the absence of an affirmative showing that the court below did in fact fail to advise the accused of their rights under the provisions of section 17 of General Orders No. 58, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 1 440, the mere omission affirmatively disclosing that he did so, is not reversible error.

In the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary, the court below must be presumed in matters of this kind to have complied with the provisions of law prescribing the procedure to be followed in the trial had before him.

In Elliott’s Appellate Procedure, section 291, the rule as to presumptions in favor of the legality and regularity of the proceedings in trial courts, is stated as

"It is an established rule in criminal cases, as well as in civil cases, that the appellate tribunal will indulge all reasonable presumptions in favor of the legality and regularity of the proceedings of the trial court. Where all the instructions are not in the record those asked by the defendant will be presumed to have been properly refused because included in the instructions given. Where the evidence is not in the record it will be presumed that the instructions were based upon it, and that there was no error, but if the instructions can not be correct upon any supposable state of the evidence this presumption will not prevail. It is held that where the record shows the presence of the accused at the beginning of the trial it will be presumed that he continued in court; this presumption would certainly prevail where it appeared that the accused had an opportunity to make, and did make, all of the motions that could be of service to him. It will be found, on investigation, that the rule that the trial court is presumed to have done its duty and conducted the proceedings legally and regularly is substantially the same in criminal cases as it is in civil cases. There is no valid reason why the rule should be different, nor do the decided cases warrant the conclusion that it is different; on the contrary, the decisions very generally refer to civil cases in support of the conclusions asserted. The doctrine deducible from the decided cases is, it may be said in a general way, that the presumption is, that there was no prejudicial error, and that error must be shown affirmatively by the record, or the presumption will prevail."cralaw virtua1aw library

The doctrine is further expanded in section 710 of the same author, as follows: "The rule that all reasonable presumptions and intendments will be made in favor of the rulings of the trial court is one of the best settled and most frequently applied rules in appellate procedure. The rule rests on a firm foundation. It is supported by the elementary principle that official acts are presumed to be rightfully performed. But when it is brought to mind that a court acts impartially, upon full information and with calm deliberation, the foundation of the rule stated will at once be perceived to be broader and stronger than that which underlines the rule supporting the acts of ministerial or executive officers."cralaw virtua1aw library

The doctrine, supported by many citations of authority, is thus stated in the Encyclopedia of Pleading and Practice, volume 2, page 420: "The general assumption obtains in all legal proceedings that judicial tribunals and officials act according to law. On appeal accordingly from the decision of an inferior judicial tribunal an appellate court will presume in review that it has complied with all the requirements of law, and that its determination rested on facts sufficient to sustain them. The burden rests upon the appellant to rebut this presumption of regularity."cralaw virtua1aw library

In Barnes’ Case (92 Va., 794, 803), the court

"It is also assigned as error by the accused that she was tried and convicted without the assistance of counsel in making her defense.

"The record does not show whether she had counsel or not; but if it showed that she did not have counsel, unless it appeared that she was denied that right, it would not be ground for reversing the judgment. Every person accused of crime has a right to have counsel to aid him in making his defense, but no one is compelled to have counsel. If a person accused of crime is able to employ counsel, but declines to do so, and goes to trial without counsel, and is convicted, that is no ground for reversing the judgment.

"If a prisoner is unable to employ counsel, the court may appoint some one to defend him, and it is a duty which counsel owes to his profession, to the court engaged in the trial, to the administration of justice, and to humanity, not to withhold his aid, nor spare his best efforts in the defense of one ’who has the double misfortune to be stricken with poverty and accused of crime. No one is at liberty to decline such an appointment, and few, it is to be hoped, would be disposed to do so.’ (Cooley’s Const. Lim., 406.) But we cannot presume that the trial court denied the prisoner her right to have counsel, or failed, if she were unable to employ counsel, to assign some one to aid her in her defense."cralaw virtua1aw library

So it has been held that "Where the record once shows the presence of the prisoner at his trial, it will be presumed to have continued to the end unless the contrary is affirmatively shown. The presumption is, rather, that the trial court did its duty, than that it did not." (Folden v. State, 13 Neb., 328, 332.)

And again: "Another specification of error is, that the record does not show that the prisoner had counsel at the trial. It is based upon an alleged presumption against the regularity of the proceedings -- a presumption directly opposite to that which we have shown to exist. It assumes that those rights of the prisoner were denied to him, which the record does not show affirmatively were granted. As well might it be assumed that the court charged the jury erroneously, and the Commonwealth be required to prove that the charge was in all points correct, even before it is attacked. The right to be heard by himself and counsel is doubtless a constitutional right, and if it had been denied there would have been error; but we are not to presume that it was denied, because the record does not exhibit the fact that it was accorded. There are many rights of an accused person, some constitutional and others not, of which the record takes no notice--such as the right to compulsory process for witnesses, the right to call witnesses, or to cross-examine those of the prosecution; and the right to be heard by himself and counsel is one of them. The safety of the accused is not imperiled by the silence of the record; for, if any of these rights be denied, there is an easy method of bringing upon the record the fact of the denial." (Cathcart v. Commonwealth, 37 Pa. St., 108, 111.)

In the case of Beale v. Commonwealth (25 Pa. St., 11, 18), the court held: "We are not to expect too much from the records of judicial proceedings. They are memorials of the judgments and decrees of the judges, and contain a general but not a particular detail of all that occurs before them. If we should insist on finding every fact fully recorded before a citizen can be punished for an offense against the laws, we should destroy public justice, and give unbridled license to crime. Much must be left to intendment and presumption, for it is often less difficult to do things correctly than to describe them correctly."cralaw virtua1aw library

Before closing our discussion of the rule as applied to this case, we deem it proper to indicate that although we do not hold the omission of an affirmative entry in the record showing that the trial judge had advised the accused as to his right to have counsel and that the accused had been asked if he desired the aid of counsel to be reversible error, nevertheless we think that in all cases wherein the accused is not defended by counsel the record should be made to show affirmatively that the trial judge has complied with the provisions of the statute in this regard. As was said by the supreme court of New Mexico, after making a somewhat similar ruling as to the effect in appellate proceedings of omissions from the

"Notwithstanding this ruling, we would not advise that a custom so honored by time and high authority should be disregarded under any circumstances." (Territory v. Webb, 2 N. M., 147, 160.)

The judgment entered in the court below convicting and sentencing the defendants should be affirmed, with their respective share of the costs of this instance against the appellants. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

March-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9267 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GERVASIO GUMARANG ET AL.,

    027 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9291 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CAMILA CUNANAN

    027 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 8254 March 3, 1914 - MARIANO GONZAGA ET AL. v. FELISA GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 8913 March 3, 1914 - NELLIE LOUISE COOK v. J. MCMICKING

    027 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9201 March 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO SUAN

    027 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 8223 March 4, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAINAGA

    027 Phil 18


    027 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 8429-27 March 7, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL.

    027 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 8662 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES BESUÑA

    027 Phil 39


    027 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 8983 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO EDPALINA

    027 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 9066 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES

    027 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 7946 March 9, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. SATURNINA RIZAL

    027 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 8227 March 9, 1914 - ANTONIO M. JIMENEZ v. FIDEL REYES

    027 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 8325 March 10, 1914 - C. B. WILLIAMS v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    027 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 8927 March 10, 1914 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. MARIA IGNACIA USON ET AT.

    027 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9147 March 10, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO LAMADRID ET AL.

    027 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 8603 March 13, 1914 - SEVERINO CORNISTA v. SEVERA TICSON

    027 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 8984 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LABIAL

    027 Phil 82

  • G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO VAQUILAR

    027 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 8748 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SANTOS P. PALMA

    027 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 8931 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARQUI

    027 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 8971 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO BAUA

    027 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 9006 March 14, 1914 - JOSE ANTONIO GASCON ENRIQUEZ v. A.D. GIBBS

    027 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 9059 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO

    027 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 9099 March 14, 1914 - J. MCMICKING v. SPRUNGLI & CO. ET AL.

    027 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 9169 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PANTELEON MARIANO ET AL.

    027 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 9348 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERO MANTE

    027 Phil 134


    027 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 8140 March 16, 1914 - FORTUNATO GASPAR v. ANACLETO QUINADARA

    027 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 8851 March 16, 1914 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.,

    027 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8200 March 17, 1914 - LEONARDO LUCIDO v. GELASIO CALUPITAN ET AL.

    027 Phil 148

  • Special proceeding March 17, 1914 - IN RE: EUGENIO DE LARA

    027 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 7333 March 18, 1914 - DEMETRIO ARCENAS v. ESTANISLAO LASERNA

    027 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 7790 March 19, 1914 - EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO v. MCKAY & ZOELLER

    027 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 8235 March 19, 1914 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. LEANDRA MANARANG

    027 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 8414 March 19,1914


    027 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8998 March 19, 1914 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

    027 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 9307 March 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9098 March 20, 1914 - JOSE M. GONZALEZ v. PERCY M. MOIR

    027 Phil 256

  • Special proceeding March 21, 1914 - IN RE: LUICIANO DE LA ROSA

    027 Phil 258


    027 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 9302 March 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON DUNGCA

    027 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 6960 March 23, 1914 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    027 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 7909 March 24, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ISABEL RAMIREZ

    027 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 8385 March 24, 1914 - LUCIO ALGARRA v. SIXTO SANDEJAS

    027 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 8314 March 25, 1914 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY COMPANY

    027 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 8461 March 25, 1914 - RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO v. CECILIO IMAZ

    027 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 9124 March 25, 1914 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    027 Phil 319

  • Special Proceeding March 25, 1914 - IN RE: EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA

    027 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 7721 March 25, 1914 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. GREGORIO YULO

    034 Phil 978

  • G.R. No. 7420 March 25, 1914 - NAZARIO CABALLO ET AL. v. CIPRIANO DANDOY ET. AL.

    027 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7762 March 25, 1914 - BEHN v. JOSE MCMICKING

    027 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 7593 March 27, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE M. IGPUARA

    027 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 7647 March 27, 1914 - DOMINGO CALUYA v. LUCIA DOMINGO

    027 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7670 March 28, 1914 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 8051 March 28, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MADRIGAL ET AL.

    027 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 9010 March 28, 1914 - J. H. CHAPMAN v. JAMES M. UNDERWOOD

    027 Phil 374

  • G.R. Nos. 9619 & 9620 March 28, 1914 - NGO YAO TIT EL AL. v. SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 7270 March 29, 1914 - GREGORIO JIMENEZ ET AL. v. PASCUALA LOZADA ET AL.

    027 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 7287 & 7288 March 29, 1914 - PEDRO MONTIERO v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA

    027 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 7896 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MCMICKING v. CRISANTO LICHAUGO ET AL.

    027 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 8313 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MA. Y. DE ALDECOA v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL.

    027 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 8362 March 30, 1914 - JOSE PEREZ PASTOR v. PEDRO NOEL ET AL.

    027 Phil 393


    027 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 8478 March 30, 1914 - LUIS ESPERANZA v. ANDREA CATINDING

    027 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 8527 March 30, 1914 - WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. GEO. N. HURD

    027 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 8579 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO

    027 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 8654 March 30, 1914 - EUGENIO RESOLME ET AL. v. ROMAN LAZO

    027 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 8689 March 30, 1914 - LIBRADO MANAS ET AL. v. MARIA RAFAEL

    027 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 8781 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER DICHAO

    027 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 8785 March 30, 1914 - UY ALOC ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING ET AL.

    027 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 9178 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE LASTIMOSA

    027 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 9217 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MARTINEZ

    027 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 9294 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO SANCHEZ

    027 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 9329 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO AGUAS

    027 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 9397 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE VAYSON

    027 Phil 447