195 9, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged SImplicio FACTS: On Sept. 4, 1959, illanue!a illanue!a "ith crime of #alicious #ischiedf, $efore the %ustice of the Peace Court of said #unicipalit&. Said accused "as represented $& counsel de oficio, oficio, $ut later on replaced $& counsel de parte. 'he complainant in the same case "as representr& $& Cit& Attorne& Attorne& Ariston Ariston (ule of San Pa$lo Cit&, ha!ing entered his appearance as pri!ate)prosecutor, ha!ing secuting the permission of the the Secretar& of %ustice. Counsel for the accused presented a *#otion in inhi$it (iscal (ule from Acting as Pri!ate prosecutor in this case, *this time in!o+ing sec. -, ule 1-/, no" sec. 5, ule 10, e!ised ules, "hich $ars certain attorne&s from practicing.
ISSUE 2hether of not Att&. Att&. (ule !iolate sec. - of ule 1-/ no" Sec. 5, ule 10, re!ised ules of Court, "hich $ars certain attorne&s from practicing.
Attorne& (ule did not constitute co nstitute pri!ate RULING: 'he Court holds that the appearance of Attorne& practice, "ithin the meaning and contemplation of the ules. Practice is more than isolated appearance, for it consists in fre3uent or customar& action, a succession of acts of the same +ind. 'he "ord private practice of la" implies that one must ha!e presented himself to $e in the acti!e and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional ser!ices are a!aila$le to the pu$lic for compensation, as a source of his li!elihood or in consideration of his said ser!ices. It has ne!er $een refuted that Cit& Attorne& Attorne& (ule had $een gi!en permission $& his immediate super!isor, the Secretar& of %ustice, to represent the complainant in the case at $ar, "ho is a relati!e.
PEOPLE v VILLANUEVA
Facts: Villanueva was accused of raping his 11 year-old year-old stepdaughter Nia. (The ling of the complaint complaint was rought rought aout y a !iss mar! that Nia"s rother saw on her nec!.#
$t was alleged that one night% Villanueva% holding a !nife against Nia"s nec!% threatened to !ill her if she ever told anyone of the odious act. Villanueva attempted attempted to insert his penis% ut it would not t. (&ccording to Nia% it was too ig.# Villanueva contented himself to lic!ing Nia"s genetalia.
$n his defense% Villanueva Villanueva gives an alii that he could not have raped her and that the semen found on the victim"s vagina could not have een his (he already had vasectomy#. The lower court% however% found Villanueva guilty of raping Nia and imposes the death penalty.
$n this mandatory review y the '% Villanueva alleges that he is entitled to a new trial ecause of his counsel"s failure to present his common-law wife (Nia"s mother#.
$ssue: )*N Villanueva is entitled to a new trial.
+eld:
Villanueva is not entitled to a new trial.
The failure of the defense to present present Nia"s mother y reason reason of the alleged ine,perience of his lawyer is not a ground for new trial. The error of his defense counsel is neither an error of law nor an irregularity that will merit a new trial. The client is ound y the action of his counsel in the conduct of his case and cannot e heard to complain that the result of the litigation might have een dierent had his counsel proceeded dierently. $f this were to e allowed% then there would e no end to suits so long as new counsel could e employed who could allege that the previous counsel had not een diligent.
Villanueva is still guilty of rape. There is no uestion aout the crediility of the Nia as a witness. The trial /udge had occasion to determine the demeanor of the witness. The alii of Villanueva is also self-serving. $t doesn"t" matter if Villanueva"s 0penis did not penetrate. )hat is important is that there was contract etween the peis and the laia of the vagina. The fact that Nia"s hymen was intact does not negate rape% ecause it is not an element of rape. +owever% the charge cannot ualify as ualied rape% ecause the allegation that the accused is the stepfather (in fact he is not% he is merely a surrogate father and there e,ists no legal relation of step-father and step-daughter# was not averred in the complaint.
la"phil.net
G.R. No. L-19450
epu$lic of the Philippines SUPREE C!URT #anila 6AC G.R. No. L-19450
a" #$% 19&5
T'E PE!PLE !F T'E P'ILIPPINES% plaintiff)appellee, !s. SIPLICI! (ILLANUE(A% defendant)appellant.
Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Magno T. Buese for defendant-appellant. PARE)ES% J.:
On Septem$er 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged Simplicio illanue!a illanue!a "ith the Crime of #alicious #ischief $efore the %ustice of the Peace Court of said municipalit&. Said accused "as represented $& counsel de officio $ut officio $ut later on replaced $& counsel de parte. parte. 'he complainant in the same case "as represented $& Cit& Attorne& Ariston Ariston (ule of San Pa$lo Cit&, ha!ing entered his appearance as pri!ate prosecutor, after securing the permission of the Secretar& of %ustice. 'he condition of his appearance as such, "as that e!er& time he "ould appear at the trial of the case, he "ould $e considered on official lea!e of a$sence, and that he "ould not recei!e an& pa&ment for his ser!ices. 'he appearance of Cit& Attorne& (ule as pri!ate prosecutor "as 3uestioned $& the counsel for the accused, in!o+ing the case of Aquino, of Aquino, et al. vs. Blanco, et al ., ., L)15-, o!. -0, 194/, "herein it "as ruled that 7"hen an attorne& had $een appointed a ppointed to the position of Assistant Assistant Pro!incial (iscal or Cit& Cit& (iscal and therein 3ualified, $& operation of la", he ceased to engage in pri!ate la" practice.7 Counsel then argued that the %P Court in entertaining the appearance of Cit& Attorne& (ule in the case is a !iolation of the a$o!e ruling. On 8ecem$er 1/, 19: the %P issued an order sustaining the legalit& of the appearance of Cit& Attorne& (ule. ;nder date of %anuar& 4, 191, counsel for the accused presented a 7#otion to Inhi$it (iscal (ule from Acting as Pri!ate Prosecutor in this Case,7 this time in!o+ing Section -, ule -/, no" Sec. 5, ule 10, e!ised ules of Court, "hich $ars certain attorne&s from practicing. Counsel claims that Cit& Attorne& (ule falls under this limitation. 'he %P Court ruled on the motion $& upholding the right of (ule to appear and further stating that he <(ule= "as not actuall& enagaged in pri!ate la" practice. 'his Order "as appealed to the C(I of Laguna, presided $& the >on. >ilarion ;. %arencio, "hich rendered ?udgment on 8ecem$er -:, 191, the pertinent portions of "hich read 'he present case is one for malicious mischief. 'here $eing no reser!ation $& the offended part& of the ci!il lia$ilit&, the the ci!il action "as deemed impliedl& instituted "ith the criminal action. 'he offended part& had, therefore, the right to inter!ene in the case and $e represented $& a legal counsel $ecause of her interest in the ci!il lia$ilit& of the accused. Sec. 1, ule 1-/ of the ules of Court pro!ides that in the court of a ?ustice of the peace a part& ma& conduct his litigation in person, "ith the aid of an agent or friend appointed $& $ & him for that purpose, or "ith the aid of an attorne&. Assistant Cit& Attorne& Attorne& (ule appeared in the %ustice of the Peace Court Cou rt as an agent or friend of the offended part&. It does not appear that he "as $eing paid for his ser!ices or that his appearance ap pearance "as in a professional capacit&. As As Assistant Cit& Attorne& Attorne& of San Pa$lo he had no control or inter!ention "hatsoe!er in the prosecution of crimes committed in the municipalit& of Alaminos, Laguna, $ecause the prosecution of criminal cases coming from Alaminos Alaminos are handled $& the Office of the Pro!incial (iscal and not $& the Cit& Attorne! of San Pa$lo. 'here could $e no possi$le conflict in the duties of Assistant Assistant Cit& Attorne& (ule as Assistant Cit& Cit& Attorne& of San Pa$lo and as pri!ate prosecutor in this criminal case. On the o ther hand, as alread& pointed out, the offended part& in this criminal case had a right to
$e represented $& an agent or a friend to protect her rights in the ci!il action "hich "as impliedl& instituted together "ith the criminal action. In !ie" of the foregoing, this Court holds that Asst. Cit& Attorne& Attorne& Ariston 8. (ule ma& appear $efore the %ustice of the Peace Court of Alaminos, Laguna as pri!ate prosecutor in this criminal case as an agent or a friend of the offended part&. part&. 2>(O, the appeal from the order of the %ustice of the Peace Court of Alaminos, Laguna, allo"ing the apprearance of Ariston Ariston 8. (ule as pri!ate prosecutor is dismissed, "ithout costs. 'he a$o!e decision is the su$?ect of the instant proceeding. 'he appeal should $e dismissed, for patentl& $eing "ithout merits.1äph!1."#t merits.1äph!1."#t Aside from the considerations ad!anced $& the learned trial ?udge, heretofore reproduced, and "hich "e consider plausi$le, the fallac& of the theor& of defense counsel lies in his confused interpretation of Section - of ule 1-/ e claims that Cit& Attorne& (ule, in appearing as pri!ate prosecutor in the case "as engaging in pri!ate practice. 2e $elie!e that the isolated appearance of Cit& Attorne& (ule did not constitute pri!ate practice "ithin the meaning and contemplation of the ules. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in fre3uent or customar& actions, a succession of acts of the same +ind. In other "ords, it is fre3uent ha$itual eercise 2I'> ALL '> (O@OI@, the decision appealed from should $e, as it is here$& affirmed, in all respects, "ith costs against appellant.. Beng$on, %.&., %oncepcion, 'e(es, &.B.)., Barrera, *i$on, 'egala, Ma+alintal, Beng$on, &.. &.., and aldivar, &&., concur. Bautista Angelo, &., too+ no part.
'he La"phil Pro?ect ) Arellano La" (oundation
