You are on page 1of 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

EDUARDO AGBAYANI PER CURIAM: Facts: Sometime in September of 1993 in Malolos, Bulacan, the accused was charged by his two daughters, FEDELINA and DODIMA the crime of rape. The case was, however, provisionally dismissed by said Judge after the complainants desisted from pursuing the same. Eduardo Agbayani was thus consequently released from jail. Three (3) days thereafter he molested again Eden, one of his siblings. The next day, they go to Bulacan to report the incident to Fiscal Caraeg of Bulacan, who had, the year before, handled the rape case filed by Fedelina and Dodima. Fiscal Caraeg of Bulacan reported the complaint to Judge Danilo Manalastas who reopened the previous provisionally dismissed case and issued a warrant of arrest against the herein accused. The trial court convicted the accused. The defense contended that he was denied of the right to counsel. Issue: Did the lower court failed to apprise him of his right to have counsel of his own choice? Held: No. It is settled that the failure of the record to disclose affirmatively that the trial judge advised the accused of his right to counsel is not sufficient ground to reverse conviction. The reason being that the trial court must be presumed to have complied with the procedure prescribed by law for the hearing and trial of cases, and that such a presumption can only be overcome by an affirmative showing to the contrary. Thus it has been held that unless the contrary appears in the record, or that it is positively proved that the trial court failed to inform the accused of his right to counsel, it will be presumed that the accused was informed by the court of such right. WHEREFORE, appellant is guilty.