This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-06-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| That Atty. Palencia was merely counsel de oficio does not excuse her lack of zeal and vigor in defending appellant. The duty of a lawyer to serve his client with competence and diligence[46] applies without distinction to counsel de parte or de oficio, and becomes even more compelling when the client is accused of a grave crime and is in danger of forfeiting his life if convicted.[47] | |||||
|
2001-09-24 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opted to file a Manifestation and Motion in lieu of the Appellee's Brief. In said pleading, the OSG completely acquiesces to the arguments of BERNARDINO. It focuses on the trial court's failure to comply with the rigid requirements of Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, which was magnified by the lamentable conduct of BERNARDINO's counsel, Atty. Balo. It also mentions of the uncanny similarity of these cases to People v. Sta. Teresa,[15] where the Court similarly bemoaned the trial court's failure to conform to the exacting standards of the accused's constitutional right to due process, and the lackluster performance of the accused's counsel. The OSG then recommends the remand of these cases to the court a quo for further proceedings. | |||||
|
2001-09-24 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| On the first requirement, it bears to note that a searching inquiry must focus on the voluntariness of the plea and the full comprehension of the consequences of the plea[19] so that the plea of guilty can be truly said to be based on a free and informed judgment. While there can be no hard and fast rule as to how a judge may conduct a "searching inquiry," it would be well for the court to do the following: (1) Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into the custody of the law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations; and (c) under what conditions he was detained and interrogated during the investigations. These the court shall do in order to rule out the possibility that the accused has been coerced or placed under a state of duress either by actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent or avenging quarters.[20] | |||||