Garry, a former sales agent of Mega Star Commercial, was charged with the crime of Estafa when he allegedly collected a check from one of the clients of the company, and despite demand refused to remit the amount of P53,170.00 to the company. At the trial of the case, a certain Eulogia B. Manila, represented herself as a lawyer and acted as counsel for Garry.
After trial, Garry was convicted. He appealed his conviction to the CA, where he was again represented by Eulogia Manila. The CA refused to overcome his conviction, however. When Inacay learned of the CA’s decision, he requested Manila to file the appropriate petition with the Supreme Court, but the latter refused and told him to find another lawyer.
It was while talking to another lawyer that he found out that Eulogia is not a lawyer, and he was able to secure a Certification from the Office of the Bar Confidant to that effect. In his petition before the Supreme Court, Garry claims that he was denied due process since he was not represented by a lawyer. He, likewise, avers that the lower courts erred in convicting him of the offense charged since there was no evidence presented showing that he actually encashed the check paid by GLH and misappropriated the proceeds thereof.
The Issue:
Whether or not Garry was deprived of due process when he was represented in his trial by a person who posed as lawyer but in fact is otherwise.
The Ruling:
The petition is granted.
Section 1, Article III of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Section 14(2), Article III of the Constitution further mandates that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel.
In criminal cases, the right of the accused to be assisted by counsel is immutable. Otherwise, there will be a grave denial of due process. The right to counsel proceeds from the fundamental principle of due process which basically means that a person must be heard before being condemned.”Thus, even if the judgment had become final and executory, it may still be recalled, and the accused afforded the opportunity to be heard by himself and counsel.”
“The right to counsel is absolute and may be invoked at all times. More so, in the case of an on-going litigation, it is a right that must be exercised at every step of the way, with the lawyer faithfully keeping his client company.”Unless the accused is represented by a lawyer, there is great danger that any defense presented in his behalf will be inadequate considering the legal perquisites and skills needed in the court proceedings. This would certainly be a denial of due process.
In this case, Inacay, during the proceedings before the trial court and the appellate court, was represented by Manila who, based on the Certification issued by the OBC, is not a lawyer. At that time, Inacay had no inkling that he was being represented by a sham lawyer. It was only when his conviction of the offense charged was upheld by the appellate court did Inacay learn that Manila is not a lawyer. Clearly, Inacay was not assisted by counsel in the proceedings before the lower courts and, hence, was denied of due process.
In People v. Santocildes, Jr., the Court held that:
The presence and participation of counsel in criminal proceedings should never be taken lightly. 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 person’s basic rights; it is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with or performed perfunctorily.(Citations omitted)
Considering that there was a denial of due process, there is a need to set aside the judgment of conviction against Inacay and remand the case to the trial court for new, trial. Further, Manila, for representing herself as a lawyer, should be held liable for indirect contempt of court.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 15, 2016 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 35652 is hereby SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80, for new trial.
With respect to the unauthorized practice of law by the person named Eulogia B. Manila in connection with this case, the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines of Quezon City is DIRECTED to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation regarding this matter and to report its recommendations to the Court within ninety (90) days from notice of this Resolution. Let all concerned parties, including the Office of the Bar Confidant, be each furnished a copy of this Resolution for their appropriate action.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Perez, and Caguioa,** JJ., concur.
Peralta, J., on official leave.
G.R. No. 223506, November 28, 2016, GARRY V. INACAY, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
Citations omitted.