People of the Philippines V.

Santocildes

FACTS: Accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape of a girl less than nine years old.
The court rendered a decision finding appellant guilty as charged. However, during the
proceeding, accused-appellant was not represented by a member of the Bar. Hence, he filed a
Notice of Appeal and praying that the judgment against him be set aside on the ground that he
was denied of his right to be represented by a counsel which results to the denial of due process.
The Office of the Solicitor General maintains that notwithstanding the fact that appellant's
counsel during the trial was not a member of the Bar, he was afforded due process since he was
given opportunity to be heard and records reveal that said person handled the case in a
professional and skillful manner.

ISSUE: Whether or not a person not member of the Philippine Bar may represent an accused in
a criminal proceeding.

HELD: NO. The presence and participation of counsel in criminal proceedings should never be
taken lightly. Even the most intelligent or educated man may be convicted without a counsel, not
because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his innocence.

The right of the accused to counsel is guaranteed to minimize the imbalance in the adversarial
system where the accused is pitted against the awesome prosecutory machinery of the State. A
person has the right to due process, he must be heard before being condemned - a part of
person's basic rights. The right to counsel of an accused is enshrined in the Constitution (Art.
III,Secs. 12 & 14(2)], Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sec. 1 of Rule 115), Art. 8, Sec. 5 of the
Constitution and the Rules of Court (Sec. 1 of Rule 138) The assailed judgment is Set Aside, and
the case is hereby Remanded to the trial court for new trial.
 166 SCRA 316 – Legal Ethics
Zaldivar vs Gonzales
FACTS: Zaldivar was the governor of Antique.  He was charged before the Sandiganbayan for
violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Gonzales was the then Tanodbayan who
was investigating the case. Zaldivar then filed with the Supreme Court a petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition and Mandamus assailing the authority of the Tanodbayan to investigate graft cases
under the 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court, acting on the petition issued a Cease and
Desist Order against Gonzalez directing him to temporarily restrain from investigating and filing
informations against Zaldivar.
Gonzales however proceeded with the investigation and he filed criminal informations against
Zaldivar. Gonzalez even had a newspaper interview where he proudly claims that he scored one
on the Supreme Court; that the Supreme Court’s issuance of the TRO is a manifestation theta the
“rich and influential persons get favorable actions from the Supreme Court, [while] it is difficult
for an ordinary litigant to get his petition to be given due course”.
Zaldivar then filed a Motion for Contempt against Gonzalez. The Supreme Court then ordered
Gonzalez to explain his side. Gonzalez stated that the statements in the newspapers were true;
that he was only exercising his freedom of speech; that he is entitled to criticize the rulings of the
Court, to point out where he feels the Court may have lapsed into error. He also said, even
attaching notes, that not less than six justices of the Supreme Court have approached him to ask
him to “go slow” on Zaldivar and to not embarrass the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzalez is guilty of contempt.
HELD: Yes. The statements made by respondent Gonzalez clearly constitute contempt and call
for the exercise of the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court. His statements necessarily
imply that the justices of the Supreme Court betrayed their oath of office. Such statements
constitute the grossest kind of disrespect for the Supreme Court. Such statements very clearly
debase and degrade the Supreme Court and, through the Court, the entire system of
administration of justice in the country.
Gonzalez is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. What Gonzalez seems
unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not
absolute and that freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated
with the requirements of equally important public interests. One of these fundamental public
interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of
justice. There is no antinomy between free expression and the integrity of the system of
administering justice.
Gonzalez, apart from being a lawyer and an officer of the court, is also a Special Prosecutor who
owes duties of fidelity and respect to the Republic and to the Supreme Court as the embodiment
and the repository of the judicial power in the government of the Republic. The responsibility of
Gonzalez to uphold the dignity and authority of the Supreme Court and not to promote distrust in
the administration of justice is heavier than that of a private practicing lawyer.
Gonzalez is also entitled to criticize the rulings of the court but his criticisms must be bona fide.
In the case at bar, his statements, particularly the one where he alleged that members of the
Supreme Court approached him, are of no relation to the Zaldivar case.
The Supreme Court suspended Gonzalez indefinitely from the practice of law