Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

People V Santocildes Digest

The petitioner was charged and found guilty of raping a girl under 9 years old. On appeal, the petitioner's new lawyer discovered that the person who represented the petitioner during the trial, Gualberto C. Ompong, was not actually a licensed lawyer. The court held that an accused person is entitled to representation by a licensed lawyer in a criminal trial. Without proper legal representation, there is a risk that the defense will be inadequate and the accused may be convicted not due to guilt but due to not knowing how to prove their innocence. This would be a denial of due process. Therefore, the court set aside the judgment and granted the petitioner a new trial.

Uploaded by

Jay Sosa
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

People V Santocildes Digest

The petitioner was charged and found guilty of raping a girl under 9 years old. On appeal, the petitioner's new lawyer discovered that the person who represented the petitioner during the trial, Gualberto C. Ompong, was not actually a licensed lawyer. The court held that an accused person is entitled to representation by a licensed lawyer in a criminal trial. Without proper legal representation, there is a risk that the defense will be inadequate and the accused may be convicted not due to guilt but due to not knowing how to prove their innocence. This would be a denial of due process. Therefore, the court set aside the judgment and granted the petitioner a new trial.

Uploaded by

Jay Sosa
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEONCIO SANTOCILDES, JR. QUISUMBING, J.

: Facts: On February 17, 1992, appellant was charged with the crime of rape of a girl less than nine (9) years old, committed on December 28, 1991, in the town of Barangay San Luis, San Joaquin, Iloilo. Upon arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty. Trial ensued and the prosecution presented as its witnesses the victim, her mother, her six (6) year-old playmate, and the medico-legal officer who examined the victim. The Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentences him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua together its accessory penalty. Appellant contends that he was represented during trial by a person named Gualberto C. Ompong, who for all intents and purposes acted as his counsel and even conducted the direct examination and cross-examinations of the witnesses. On appeal, however, appellant secured the services of a new lawyer, Atty. Igmedio S. Prado, Jr., who discovered that Gualberto C. Ompong is actually not a member of the bar. Further verification with the Office of the Bar Confidant confirmed this fact.i[5] Appellant therefore argues that his deprivation of the right to counsel should necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime charged. Issue: Is the petitioner entitled to a new trial? Held: 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. Even the most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the science of the law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and, without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence. The right of an accused to counsel is guaranteed to minimize the imbalance in the adversarial system where the accused is pitted against the awesome prosecutory machinery of the State. Such a right proceeds from the fundamental principle of due process which basically means that a person must be heard before being condemned. The due process requirement is a part of a persons basic rights; it is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with or performed perfunctorily. WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment is SET ASIDE.

You might also like