150. Flores vs Ruiz

G.R. No. L-35707 May 31, 1979 FLORES vs JUDGE RUIZ DE CASRO, J! DOCRINE! "# $%&"' 'o (o)*s#+ )$%*& '$%a+ CANNO # a%v#. FACS! Flores filed a petition for Habeas Corpus filed after he has been allegedly arrested and detain ed illegally by Order  of Judge Ruiz finding him guilty of %*%$#(' (o*'#/'. Flores was actually arrested on August 2! "#$2 and has since  been detained in the %ro&incial Jail of Cagayan until his release by &irtue of a bond of %'((.((. )he reason reason for the delayed arrest is that Flores was gi&en a period *to inform the court whether or not he relin+uishes his possession o&er the land in +uestion.*

)he land in +uestion was le&ied upon and sold on e,ecution to satisfy the award of damages against Flores in a ci&il case. Flores failed failed to redeem the property sold in th e auction sale. Hence! Judge Ruiz ordered Flores to place in  possession  possession the heirs of -andac plaintiff in the ci&il case/. For the refusal of Flores to &acate &acate the disputed land! contempt  proceedings were instituted against Flores which led to his arrest and detention. Flores +uestions the legality of the proceedings proceedings for not ha&i ng been assisted by counsel counsel during the hearing hearin g of the motion for contempt! and for not h a&ing been duly informed of the contempt charge by being being furnished a copy of the motion! or p roperly *arraigned* before trial. Flores claims to ha&e been depri&ed due process of law which &oided the  proceedings against him as for lac0 of 1urisdiction of the court court to inflict the penalty imposed on him. Judge Ruiz contends that Flores has wai&ed his rig ht to counsel as e&idenced by the transcript of the stenograph ic notes. Flores alleges that no such proceedings too0 place! and that! in any e&ent! the transcript was not signed by the stenographer. According According to Flores! when Judge Ruiz lear ned that he was without counsel! Ruiz told Flores to deli&er  possession  possession of the premises within "( days. n spite of the plan of Flores Flores that the heari ng on that d ate be postponed postponed so that his counsel of record could appear for him or that a new counsel would would be hired to appear in his behalf! Judge Ruiz! howe&er! howe&er! demurred! and with the assistance of a certain Atty. %astores! Flores was was made to sign a n understan ding to deli&er up the premises within t he period indicated by the 1udge on pain of being imprisoned. ISSUE! 3O4 Flores was denied due process of law ELD! 567. )he right of the accused to counsel in criminal proceedings has ne&er been considered sub1ect to wai&er. wai&er. )he  practice has always been been for the trial court to pro&ide the accused with a counsel de officio! officio! if he has no counsel of his own choice! or cannot afford one. )his is because because 8e&en the most intelligent or educated man may ha&e no s0ill in the science of  the law! particularly in the rules of procedure! and! without counsel! he may be con&icted not because he is guilty but  because he does does not 0now how to establish establish his innocence and th is can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated.9

Here! it cannot be disputed that t he respondent court failed in its duty designed to satisfy the constitutional right of an accused to counsel. Flores does not appea r to ha&e been duly notified of the contempt charge! nor was properly *arraigned!* since he was not assisted by counsel during the hea ring. Admittedly with a counsel of record! Flores could could not ha&e willingly submitted to go to trial when his counsel failed to appear. t is certai nly much easier to belie&e that Flores as0ed for postponement! because of of the absence of his counsel! but that Judge Ruiz denied the plea. 4either has Judge Ruiz denied the allegation that there was a denial of right to due process for Flores Flores was not duly informed of the contempt charge! nor was his counsel furnished a copy thereof! as Flores Flores is entitled to one as a matter of right and as a matter:of duty duty of the court. All that Judge Ruiz said in his comment is that *defendant Flores has been granted his day in court to defend himself from the cha rges presented by reason of his contumacious acts.* )herefore! the proceedings on the contempt charge has been &itiated by lac0 of due process! process! entitling petitioner to the writ of habeas corpus he see0s. hig h prerogati&e writ considered as an e,ceptional remedy to release a person whose liberty liberty is a#as (o$)s is a high illegally restrained. 7uch defects results in the absence or loss of ;1urisdiction and t herefore in&alidates the trial and the conse+uent con&iction of the accused whose fundamental righ t was &iolated. )hat &oid 1udgment of con&iction may be challenged by collateral attac0! which precisely is the function of habeas corpus. )his writ may issue e&en if another remedy which is less effecti&e effecti&e may be a&ailed of by the defendant. ;4o court of 1ustice under our system of go&ernment go&ernment has the power to depri&e him of that ri ght. f the accused does not wai&e his right to be heard but on the contrary in&o0es the right! and the court denies it to him! that court no longer has 1urisdiction to proceed< it has no power to sentence the accused without hearing him in his defense< and the sentence thus pronounced is &oid and may be conaterany attac0ed in a habeas corpus proceeding.