ordered to pay the amount of P50,000.

00 to the complainant and

SECOND DIVISION another amount for costs, without subsidiary penalty in case of failure
G.R. No. 109149, December 21, 1999 to pay the civil liability and the cost.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEONCIO If qualified under Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
SANTOCILDES, JR. y SIGA-AN, accused-appellant. R.A. 6127, as amended, and he has agreed in writing to abide by the
same rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited
DECISION with the full duration of his preventive imprisonment; otherwise, he
shall only be credited with 4/5 of the same.
QUISUMBING, J.:
SO ORDERED.
Where an accused was not duly represented by a member of the
Philippine Bar during trial, the judgment should be set aside and the
case remanded to the trial court for a new trial. A person who Hence, appellant duly filed a Notice of Appeal.[3] In his brief,[4]
misrepresents himself as a lawyer shall be held liable for indirect appellant made the following assignment of errors:
contempt of court.
Subject of the present appeal is the decision dated October 29, I. THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
1992, of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 33, convicting ERROR IN FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF RAPE
accused-appellant of the crime of rape, sentencing him to suffer the INSPITE OF CONFLICTING TESTIMONIES OF THE PRIVATE
penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to pay the offended COMPLAINANT AND HER WITNESSES ON MATERIAL POINTS.
party the amount of P50,000.00 and to pay the costs.
The antecedent facts of the case are as follows: II. THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED THOUGH
On February 17, 1992, appellant was charged with the crime of NO FAULT OF HIS OWN TO BE DEFENDED BY A PERSON
rape[1] of a girl less than nine (9) years old, committed on December AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW AMOUNTING TO DENIAL OF
28, 1991, in the town of Barangay San Luis, San Joaquin, Iloilo. DUE PROCESS.
Upon arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty. Trial
ensued and the prosecution presented as its witnesses the victim, her Considering the importance of the constitutional right to counsel,
mother, her six (6) year-old playmate, and the medico-legal officer who we shall now first resolve the issue of proper representation by a
examined the victim. member of the bar raised by appellant.
For the defense, appellant presented one German Toriales and Appellant contends that he was represented during trial by a
himself. Appellant denied committing the rape and claimed that he person named Gualberto C. Ompong, who for all intents and purposes
merely tried to stop the two girls, the victim and her playmate, from acted as his counsel and even conducted the direct examination and
quarreling. cross-examinations of the witnesses. On appeal, however, appellant
On October 29, 1992, the trial court rendered a decision[2] finding secured the services of a new lawyer, Atty. Igmedio S. Prado, Jr., who
appellant guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the decision discovered that Gualberto C. Ompong is actually not a member of the
states: bar. Further verification with the Office of the Bar Confidant confirmed
this fact.[5] Appellant therefore argues that his deprivation of the right
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable to counsel should necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime
doubt of the crime of rape and sentences him to suffer the penalty of charged.
reclusion perpetua together its accessory penalty. The accused is
 The Office of the Solicitor General, on the other hand, maintains banc case of People v. Bermas, G.R. No. 120420, April 21, 1999, the
that notwithstanding the fact that appellants counsel during trial was Court, speaking through Justice Vitug, admonished three (3) PAO
not a member of the bar, appellant was afforded due process since he lawyers for failing to genuinely protect the interests of the accused and
has been given an opportunity to be heard and the records reveal that for having fallen much too short of their responsibility as officers of the
said person presented the evidence for the defense with the ability of court and as members of the Bar. Verily, we can do no less where the
a seasoned lawyer and in general handled the case of appellant in a accused was not even duly represented by a certified member of the
professional and skillful manner. However, the right of the accused to Philippine Bar, no matter how zealous his representation might have
be heard by himself and his counsel, in our view, goes much deeper been.
than the question of ability or skill. It lies at the heart of our adversarial
system of justice. Where the interplay of basic rights of the individual The presence and participation of counsel in criminal
may collide with the awesome forces of the state, we need a proceedings should never be taken lightly.[8] Even the most intelligent
professional learned in the law as well as ethically committed to or educated man may have no skill in the science of the law,
defend the accused by all means fair and reasonable. particularly in the rules of procedure, and, without counsel, he may be
On the matter of proper representation by a member of the bar, convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how
we had occasion to resolve a similar issue in the case of Delgado v. to establish his innocence.[9] The right of an accused to counsel is
Court of Appeals.[6] In Delgado, petitioner and two others were guaranteed to minimize the imbalance in the adversarial system where
convicted by the trial court of the crime of estafa thru falsification of the accused is pitted against the awesome prosecutory machinery of
public and/or official documents. One accused did not appeal. the State.[10] Such a right proceeds from the fundamental principle of
Petitioner Delgado and her remaining co-accused appealed to the due process which basically means that a person must be heard
Court of Appeals, which affirmed petitioners conviction but acquitted before being condemned. The due process requirement is a part of a
her co-accused. After entry of judgment, petitioner discovered that her persons basic rights; it is not a mere formality that may be dispensed
lawyer was not a member of the bar and moved to set aside the entry with or performed perfunctorily.[11]
of judgment. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners motion, hence,
she filed a petition for certiorari with this Court. The Court set aside The right to counsel of an accused is enshrined in no less than
the assailed judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for a Article III, Sections 12 and 14 (2) of the 1987 Constitution. This
new trial, explaining that - constitutional mandate is reflected in Section 1 of Rule 115 of the 1985
Rules of Criminal Procedure which declares the right of the accused
This is so because an accused person is entitled to be represented at the trial to be present in person and by counsel at every stage of
by a member of the bar in a criminal case filed against her before the the proceedings from the arraignment to the promulgation of
Regional Trial Court. Unless she is represented by a lawyer, there is judgment. In turn, Section 5 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
great danger that any defense presented in her behalf will be vests the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the
inadequate considering the legal perquisites and skills needed in the practice of law to the Supreme Court. Section 1 of Rule 138 of the
court proceedings. This would certainly be a denial of due process.[7] Rules of Court explicitly states who are entitled to practice law in the
Philippines, and Section 2 thereof clearly provides for the
requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. Jurisprudence
Indeed, the right to counsel is of such primordial importance that
has also held that the right to practice law is not a natural or
even if an accused was represented by three successive counsels
from the Public Attorneys Office, the Court has ordered the remand of constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise. It is
a rape case when it found that accused was given mere perfunctory limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications
duly ascertained and certified. The right does not only presuppose in
representation by aforesaid counsels such that appellant was not
properly and effectively accorded the right to counsel. In the recent en its possessor integrity, legal standing and attainment, but also the
exercise of a special privilege, highly personal and partaking of the
nature of a public trust.[12] Indeed, so strict is the regulation of the
practice of law that in Beltran, Jr. v. Abad,[13] a Bar candidate who has
already successfully hurdled the Bar examinations but has not yet
taken his oath and signed the roll of attorneys, and who was caught in
the unauthorized practice of law was held in contempt of court. Under
Section 3 (e) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person who
undertakes the unauthorized practice of law is liable for indirect
contempt of court for assuming to be an attorney and acting as such
without authority.

WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment is SET ASIDE, and the

case is hereby REMANDED to the trial court for new trial.

With respect to the unauthorized practice of law by the person

named Gualberto C. Ompong in connection with this case, the local
Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines of Iloilo 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 order. Let all concerned parties,
including the Office of the Bar Confidant, be each furnished a copy of
this Decision for their appropriate action.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.