Consequences of denial of right to counsel

The denial of the right t counsel, which may either be the absence of assistance of counsel or the
inadequate and grossly negligent representation of counsel, may have the following adverse results or
consequences:

1. Admission of guilt given by the accused in custodial investigation, including receipts he signed for
items which are inculpatory in nature, are not admissible in evidence, and if properly objected to will not
be received in evidence against him. Thus, regardless of whether or not the extrajudicial confession of an
accused is true, as long as it was given without the assistance of counsel, it becomes inadmissible in
evidence although it was a product of the accused’s free will and violation.

Similarly, the receipt issued and signed by the accused without the assistance of his counsel
acknowledging receipt from him of prohibited drug seized from him by police officers is inadmissible as it
is in violation of his right to counsel.

2. If the judgment of conviction had become final and executory, it may still be recalled, and the
accused afforded the opportunity to be heard by counsel, where he has been denied the right to cousel
during the hearing.

3. Where an accused was represented in the RTC by a person who claimed to be a lawyer and was
thereafter convicted, but it was later discovered that his counsel was not really a lawyer, he was entitled
to have his own conviction set aside and a new trial undertaken.

4. A resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing an appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief
may be recalled and the appeal reinstated, where it appears that the “lawyer” who perfected the appeal
and failed to file the appellant’s brief turned out to be a fake lawyer.

5. If the incompetence, ignorance or inexperience of counsel is so great and the error committed as
a result thereof is so serious that the client, who otherwise has a good cause or defense is prejudiced and
denied his day in court, the litigation may be re- opened to give the accused another chance to present
his case. There had been occasions when the court gave the accused another chance to present his
evidence after a showing that the conviction has been brought about by his counsel’s gross ignorance of
law and procedure.

6. Where the failure of the defense to present its evidence is due to the absences of the counsel for
the accused, despite the trial court’s warning that such failure would amount to a waiver of the client’s
right to present evidence in his defense, the accused should be given another chance to present his
evidence. For the judicial conscience cannot rest easy on a conviction based solely on the evidence of the
prosecution just because the presentation of the defense evidence had been barred by a technicality.
Rigid application of rules must yield to the duty of courts to render justice where justice is due- to secure
to every individual all possible legal means to prove his innocence of a crime which he or she might be
charged.

7. In a custodial investigation, the accused has the right to a competent and independent counsel of
his choice. Where the accused has persistently and insistently disavows knowledge of the lawyer who
allegedly assisted him in the taking of his extrajudicial admission during custodial investigation and the
prosecution has failed to present the lawyers as a witness to show his role therein, the extrajudicial
confession is NOT ADMISSIBLE in evidence, as his right to a competent and independent counsel of his
own choosing has been denied.

However, a lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he
never raised any objection against the appointment of the lawyer during the course of the investigation
and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer, which
is presumed given in accordance with the constitutional requirements.

8. The accused’s confession given to a prosecutor after the information has been filed in court
without the assistance of a competent and independent counsel, preferable of his own choice, violates
his right t counsel and the confession is inadmissible. A legal officer of a city is not an independent counsel,
as he is burdened with the task antithetical to the interest of an accused, similar to that of a prosecutor
who undoubtedly cannot represent an accused during custodial investigation due to conflict of interest.

Similarly, in a custodial investigation before the NBI, the counsel chosen by the NBI investigators
for the accused was an applicant for a position in the NBI and was in fact hired thereafter. The Court held
that he was not a competent and independent counsel, so that the statements taken by the NBI
investigators with the counsel’s assistance were held not admissible in evidence.

9. Where the trial court conducted hearing even in the absence of the counsel for the accused and
subjected the offended party in a charge of rape, to lengthy cross- examination and thereafter convicted
the accused and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, the accused’s right to counsel had been
violated and the trial court did not exhibit the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, as to render the
proceedings and the decision of conviction null and void, warranting a remand and trial de novo.

WHEN APPEARANCE BY COUNSEL IS NOT OBLIGATORY

 Municipal TC- a party may conduct his litigation in person or with the aid of an agentor friend
appointed by hum for the purpose or with the aid of an attorney.

 RTC and Appellate Courts- a party in the civil suit may either conduct his litigation personally or
by attorney UNLESS the party is a juridical person, in which case it may appear only by attorney.
And even if he has chosen to appear by counsel, he may at any time dispense with the services of
his lawyers and prosecute or defend his case personally.

 Administrative proceeding- the right to counsel is NOT indispensable to due process. If a

respondent has chosen to represent himself without the assistance of a counsel, he could not
later claim that he has been denied due process. For there is nothing in the Constitution that says
that a party in anon- criminal proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel and that,
without such representation, he shall NOT BE BOUND by such proceedings.
 A party who conducts his own litigation in person or waives his right to counsel may not
realize the benefit of representation by counsel, and he is the party who needs most the services
of a lawyer.

The rule that appearance by counsel is not obligatory applies only in civil and
administrative cases. The rule does not apply in criminal cases involving grave and less grave
offenses, where an accused must be represented by counsel del parte or counsel de oficio and in
which his right to counsel is not waivable.

CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Professional standards serve as the lawyer’s chart and compass to resolve difficult
questions of duty and help minimize ethical delinquencies. The earliest recorded attempts to
attain such end were the requirement of the lawyer’s oath and the statement of his duties, which
trace back to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries ad which traditionally have been the basis
of all disciplinary proceedings.

It was not until 1917 when the Philippine Bar realized that something more than the oath
and duties of a lawyer was needed to attain full measure of public respect. In that year, the PBA
adopted as its own, Canons 1 to 32 of the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar
Association.

In 1946, it again adopted as its own, Canons 33 to 47 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
of the America Bar Association. Their enforcement by the courts and their observance by all
lawyers indictive of a due appreciation of their responsibilities to the courts, to the clients, t the
bar and to the public are necessary to the profession to deserve the respect due.

The IBP adopted in 1980, a proposed Code of Professional Responsibility, which it later
submitted to the SC for approval.

On June 21, 1988, the SC promulgated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The Code consists of 22 Canons and 77 Rules:

1. The Law and Society
2. The Lawyer
3. The Legal Profession
4. The Lawyer and The Courts
5. The Lawyer and The Clients.

The Code establishes norms of conduct and ethical standards for all lawyers, including those in
the government service. The Code is binding upon all lawyers and failure to live up to any of its
provisions is a ground for disciplinary action.