Delgado V CA GR L-46392

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-46392 November 10, 1986
EMMA DELGADO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Nicolito L. Bustos for petitioner.
PARAS, J.:
This is a petition for "Certiorari and mandamus with prayer for a Writ of preliminary
injunction" to review the following orders:
(a) Order of the Court of Appeals dated April 20, l977 denying petitioner's
Urgent Motion to Set Aside Entry of Judgment, to Recall the Records and
allow the movant to personally receive copy of the decision dated
February 16, 1977;
(b) Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated June 3, 1977 denying
petitioner's Motion for Reconsiderationdated May 23, 1977; and
(c) Order dated May 11, 1977 of the Court of First In- stance 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:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds the accused
Gloria C. Tortona, Emma R. Delgado and Celia Capistrano guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Estafa thru Falsification of
Public and/or Official Documents, and each is hereby sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from two (2) years and four (4) months
of prision correccional, as minimum, 4 to six (6) years, also of prision
correccional, as maximum, to pay a fine of P5,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to indemnify the offended party
Erlinda Ruedas in the amount of P7,431.00. Each is further ordered to
pay, jointly and severally, said complainant moral damages in the amount
of P5,000.00, and one fourth of the costs of the proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
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:
IN VIEW WHEREOF, on reasonable doubt, judgment as to appellant
Capistrano is reversed with proportionate costs de officio and cancellation
of bail bond, but judgment as to appellant Delgado isaffirmed with
proportionate costs.
SO ORDERED.
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 All w 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 11, 1977 an Order was issued by respondent Court of First Instance of Manila
directing the arrest of herein petitioner Emma R. Delgado and the confiscation of her
bond for failure to appear at the execution of judgment on May 11, 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.
Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Delgado V CA GR L-46392

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Delgado V CA GR L-46392

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

Delgado V CA GR L-46392

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.