Daily Serving of Legal Matters

It is of common knowledge that once a case is filed in court, especially criminal case, against a person, he must be represented with a counsel or a lawyer. To be represented with a counsel is one of the fundamental rights of the accused. There are two types of counsels representing an accused in court.  These are counsel de parte and counsel de oficio. Counsel de parte is the counsel of choice of the accused engaged by him to represent him in court.  It is in line with his constitutional right to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. Most often than not, this counsel de parte is a private practitioner and his legal services are not for gratis. However, if the accused cannot afford the services of a counsel, he must be provided with one. This counsel provided by court to defend the accused is known as counsel de oficio. As provided in the Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, it is a duty of the court to inform the accused of his right to ...

In one of the courts here in General Santos City (where I am appearing as a defense lawyer), some of the cases I inherited were tried in absentia. Trial in Absentia in the sense that trials were had in the absence of the accused. Is this not a violation of the right of the accused to be present during trials? “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.” (Section 14, paragraph 2, Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution) Due process requires for the accused to be present in all of the stages of the criminal proceeding. “However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused...

When I watched the news last March 3, 2014, this http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/video/nation/regions/03/03/14/dried-fish-thief-shamed-tanauan has caught my attention. Imagine, a suspect of stealing a bunch of dried fish was ordered to walk around the supermarket of Tanauan City in Batangas wearing a brand that read like "Ako'y Magnanakaw.  Huwag Tularan."   (I am a thief, do not follow me).  Definitely, the suspect was walking in the path of shame. What has worsened the whole shameful act was the go-signal given by the mayor himself of the city according to the report. Is this walk of shame warranted by law? Due Process of Law: Every person is entitled to due process.  It is guaranteed by no less than the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines that  "No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law." Due process implies that every person should be given a day in court to defend or face any accusation fil...