Dear PAO,

Is there a possibility for the Supreme Court to still review a criminal case that has already attained finality, but there was gross negligence on the part of the lawyer of the accused? X was charged and subsequently convicted for Estafa. X claims that his private lawyer not only failed to present his evidence, which supports his defense that he did not really commit Estafa, but also filed the wrong remedy for his supposed a ppeal. To make matters worse, his private lawyer received the copy of the decision denying X’s appeal a few months ago and did not do anything. From what X was told, the decision has already attained finality. X would like to seek justice before the Supreme Court because he really feels that he was deprived of his right to defend himself on account of the negligence of his private lawyer, but he is unsure if his case can still be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Reynato

Dear Reynato,

Our justice system is not only composed of laws and jurisprudence that provide substantive rights and obligations to each and every person, but is also guided by rules of procedure which ensure the orderly administration and dispensation of justice.

Corollary, the filing of the appropriate cases, actions, and petitions, as well as the proper remedies, in the correct forum and in a timely manner, are essential procedural measures, among so many others. This ensures that the time and resources of our courts and quasi-judicial bodies, as well as the parties, are not wasted. As explained by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, in the case of Dr. Jose L. Malixi et al. v. Dr. Glory V. Baltazar (GR 208224, Nov. 22, 2017):

“Procedural rules are essential in the administration of justice. The importance of procedural rules in the adjudication of disputes has been reiterated in numerous cases. In Santos v. Court of Appeals, et al.:

“Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party. Adjective law is important in insuring the effective enforcement of substantive rights through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. These rules are not intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation but, indeed, to provide for a system under which suitors may be heard in the correct form and manner and at the prescribed time in a peaceful confrontation before a judge whose authority they acknowledge. The other alternative is the settlement of their conflict through the barrel of a gun.

“Moreover, in Le Soleil Int’l. Logistics Co., Inc,. et al. v. Sanchez, et al.:

“Time and again, we have stressed that procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the litigants; the rules were established primarily to provide order to, and enhance the efficiency of, our judicial system. x x x”

Nevertheless, there have been many instances where our Supreme Court has eased on the observance of procedural rules in order to ultimately deliver justice; that, even when a case has already been decided with finality, the High Court still took the time to re-evaluate the case before it. One of the grounds taken into consideration by the High Court is the negligence or incompetency of a party’s counsel. As explained by Associate Justice Ricardo Francisco in the case of Domingo De Guzman v. Sandiganbayan (GR 103276, April 11, 1996):

“The power of this Court to suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its operations whenever the purposes of justice require it, cannot be questioned. In not a few instances, this Court ordered a new trial in criminal cases on grounds not mentioned in the statute, viz: retraction of witness, negligence or incompetency of counsel, improvident plea of guilty, disqualification of an attorney de oficio to represent the accused in trial court, and where a judgment was rendered on a stipulation of facts entered into by both the prosecution and the defense. x x x

“Let us not forget that the rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided. Even the Rules of Court envision this liberality. This power to suspend or even disregard the rules can be so pervasive and encompassing so as to alter even that which this Court itself has already declared to be final, as we are now compelled to do in this case. And this is not without additional basis. For in ‘Ronquillo v. Marasigan,’ the Court held that:

“The fact that the decision… has become final, does not preclude a modification or an alteration thereof because even with the finality of judgment, when its execution becomes impossible or unjust, as in the instant case, it may be modified or altered to harmonize the same with justice and the facts.” (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Accordingly, X may consider seeking justice before the Supreme Court if his private lawyer indeed purposely failed to present during trial the evidence which supports his defense, filed the wrong legal remedy which also denied him another opportunity to present his evidence, and did not inform him of the decision/s relating to his case which, in turn, resulted in his inability to avail of the appropriate legal course of action before the appellate courts and to properly defend himself. While there is no guarantee that the high court will decide in favor of X, endeavoring to elevate his case, taking into consideration the aforementioned jurisprudence, may just be his last opportunity to clear his name and regain his liberty.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]