RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL

18. Amion v Chiongson

(A.M. RTJ-97-1371; January 22, 1999)

Facts: This is an administrative matter filed before the court charging the respondent judge for ignorance
of the law and oppression for vehemently insisting of appointing the accused-appellant counsel de officio
despite the appellant’s opposition because he has his own counsel of choice in the person of Atty.Depasucat.
However, many instances that Atty. Depasucat did not appear in court which prompted respondent judge
to assign Atty. Lao Ong from the PAO to represent the accused stating on record that his representation is
without prejudice to the appearance of the accused own counsel. This was done in order to avoid delay of
the trial since the complainant already expressed frustration on the so many postponement of the hearing.

Issue: Whether or not there is merit of invoking the right to counsel of his own choice as asserted by the
accused in the case at bar.

Held: The court finds the administrative complaint against respondent judge devoid of merit. An
examination of related provisions in the Constitution concerning the right to counsel, will show that the
"preference in the choice of counsel" pertains more aptly and specifically to a person under
investigation rather than one who is the accused in a criminal prosecution. Accused-complainant was not,
in any way, deprived of his substantive and constitutional right to due process as he was duly accorded all
the opportunities to be heard and to present evidence to substantiate his defense but he forfeited this right,
for not appearing in court together with his counsel at the scheduled hearings. It was the strategic
machination of delaying the proceeding by the accused that gave rise to the need of appointing him counsel
de officio by the court as delaying further the hearing is prejudicial to speedy disposition of a case and
causes delay in the administration of justice.