4 Ruling Case Digest For PEOPLE VS Bernas

Case digest PEOPLE vs.
BERNAS
FACTS:
Rufino Mirandilla Bermas was charged with the crime of rape committed against his
daughter Manuela Bermas. On the basis of the evidence of the prosecution, the Regional
Trial Court of Paranaque rendered its decision finding the accused guilty of rape and
sentenced him to suffer the extreme penalty of death.
The defense alleged that the accused was denied of his constitutional right to effective
and vigilant counsel. It appeared that on the day scheduled for his arraignment, the
accused was brought before the trial court without counsel. The court thereupon assigned
Atty. Rosa Elmira C. Villamin of the Public Attorney's Office to be the counsel de
officio. Thereafter, the complainant testified on direct examination with hardly any
participation by defense counsel, who inexplicably later waived the cross-examination
and then asked the court that she be relieved of her duty as counsel de officio.
Consequently, Atty. Roberto Gomez was appointed the new counsel de officio. While
Atty. Gomez was ultimately allowed to cross-examine the complainant, it should be quite
evident, however, that he barely had time to prepare therefor. Moreover, on the scheduled
reception of the defense evidence, Atty. Gomez failed to appear.
Hence, the court was constrained to appoint another counsel de officio in the name of
Atty. Nicanor Lonzame. However, for one reason or another, Atty. Lonzame ceased to
appear for and in behalf of the accused-appellant.
ISSUE: Whether or not accused-appellant was properly and effectively accorded his right
to counsel.
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The right to counsel must be more than just the
presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and
objections. The right to counsel means that the accused is amply accorded legal
assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to the case for the defense and
acts accordingly. The right assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in the
proceeding particularly at the trial of the case, his bearing constantly in mind of the basic
rights of the accused, his being well-versed on the case, and his knowing the fundamental
procedures, essential laws and existing jurisprudence. In the case at bar, accused-
appellant has not properly and effectively been accorded the right to counsel. The right to
counsel 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 person's basic rights; it is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with or
performed perfunctorily.

Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires every lawyer to serve his
client with utmost dedication, competence and diligence. He must not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in this regard renders him administratively
liable.
Obviously, in the instant case, the aforenamed defense lawyers did not protect, much less
uphold, the fundamental rights of the accused. Instead, they haphazardly performed their
function as counsel de oficio to the detriment and prejudice of the accused Sevilleno,
however guilty he might have been found to be after trial. Inevitably, this Court must
advise Attys. Agravante, Pabalinas and Saldavia to adhere closely and faithfully to the
tenets espoused in the Code of Professional Responsibility; otherwise, commission of any
similar act in the future will be severely sanctioned.
The Court sees no other choice than to direct the remand of the case to the court a quo for
new trial.
WHEREFORE, let this case be REMANDED to the court a quo for trial on the basis of
the complaint, aforequoted, under which he was arraigned. Atty. Ricardo A. Fernandez,
Jr. of the Anti-Death Penalty Task Force is hereby appointed counsel de officio for the
appellant.
Attys. Rosa Elmina Villamin of the Public Attorney's Office, Paraaque, Roberto Gomez
and Nicanor Lonzame are hereby ADMONISHED for having fallen much too short of
their responsibility as officers of the court and as members of the Bar and are warned that
any similar infraction shall be dealt with most severely.

4 Ruling Case Digest For PEOPLE VS Bernas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 Ruling Case Digest For PEOPLE VS Bernas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case digest PEOPLE vs.

You might also like