CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL; The right to counsel means that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to the case for the defense and acts accordingly. The right assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in the proceeding particularly at the trial of the case, his bearing constantly in mind of the basic rights of the accused, his being wellversed on the case, and his knowing the fundamental procedures, essential laws and existing jurisprudence. FACTS: Rufino Mirandilla Bermas was charged with the crime of rape committed against his daughter Manuela Bermas. On the basis of the evidence of the prosecution, the Regional Trial Court of Paranaque rendered its decision finding the accused guilty of rape and sentenced him to suffer the extreme penalty of death. Hence, this automatic review. In this instant appeal, the defense alleged that the accused was denied of his constitutional right to effective and vigilant counsel. It appeared that on the day scheduled for his arraignment, the accused was brought before the trial court without counsel. The court thereupon assigned Atty. Rosa Elmira C. Villamin of the Public Attorney's Office to be the counsel de officio. Thereafter, the complainant testified on direct examination with hardly any participation by defense counsel, who inexplicably later waived the cross-examination and then asked the court that she be relieved of her duty as counsel de officio. Consequently, Atty. Roberto Gomez was appointed the new counsel de officio. While Atty. Gomez was ultimately allowed to cross-examine the complainant, it should be quite evident, however, that he barely had time to prepare therefor. Moreover, on the scheduled reception of the defense evidence, Atty. Gomez failed to appear. Hence, the court was constrained to appoint another counsel de officio in the name of Atty. Nicanor Lonzame. However, for one reason or another, Atty. Lonzame ceased to appear for and in behalf of the accused-appellant. ISSUE: Whether or not accused-appellant was properly and effectively accorded his right to counsel. HELD: The HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and objections. The right to counsel means that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to the case for the defense and acts accordingly. The right assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in the proceeding particularly at the trial of the case, his bearing constantly in mind of the basic rights of the accused, his being well-versed on the case, and his knowing the fundamental procedures, essential laws and existing jurisprudence. jurisprudence. In the case at bar, accused-appellant has not properly and effectively been accorded the right to counsel. The right to counsel proceeds from the fundamental principle of due process which basically means that a
person must be heard before being condemned. The due process requirement is a part of a person's basic rights; it is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with or performed perfunctorily. [P eop1e vs . B ermas ; G .
R. No. 12042 120420; 0; A pril21, pril21, 1999 1999;; E N B ANC ----- Vitug, Vitug, J .]