PO1 TABOBO III v. PEOPLE

PO1 Celso Tabobo III y Ebid Vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 220977

June 19, 2017

FACTS:

On January 19, 2005, at around 7:00 a.m., Manuel Zachary Escudero y Araneta (Escudero) was walking and two men riding on a motorcycle in tandem suddenly grabbed his cellphone and shot him resulting to his death. The incident was reported to the police and conducted a manhunt operation; the team arrested two suspects who fit the description given by witnesses, namely, Victor Ramon Martin y Ong (Martin) and Leopoldo Villanueva. Both were detained at the detention cell of the Police Station-9 (PS-9) located at the rooftop.

On January 20, 2005, at around 4:00 a.m., Police Officer 2 Jesus De Leon (P02 De Leon) was interviewing Martin at the second floor of PS-9 when the latter requested to remove his handcuffs to answer the call of nature. When P02 De Leon removed the handcuffs, Martin suddenly grabbed his service firearm. A scuffle ensued and the gun went off. The petitioner, who was then at the ground floor, heard the gunshot and proceeded to the second floor, after seeing P02 De Leon almost subdued by Martin, the petitioner fired his gun twice and hit Martin on the chest. Martin was rushed to the Ospital ng Maynila but he was declared dead upon arrival.

Consequently, the petitioner was charged with the crime of Homicide for Martin's death before the R TC of Manila. P02 De Leon initially took the witness stand for his direct examination. However, he was not able to complete his testimony prompting the R TC to order his direct testimony to be stricken off the records. Accordingly, the case was considered submitted for decision.

On May 15, 2013, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting the petitioner of the crime charged. In so ruling, the RTC held that the petitioner failed to prove that all the elements of justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger are present in this case.

On July 1, 2013, the petitioner filed an appeal by accepting his justification and further allow him temporary liberty under his original bond and a motion for reconsideration and new trial for his counsel's gross mistake and negligence deprived him of his right to due process.

The RTC issued an Order allowing the petitioner to post cash bail in the amount of P150, 000.00. However, the RTC deferred the resolution of the motion for new trial and informed the petitioner that should he choose to avail of the remedy of appeal, the entire records would be forwarded to the CA. Hence, the petitioner appealed to the CA.

The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA reasoned that the prosecution need not prove the elements of homicide considering that the burden of proof in this case has shifted to the petitioner for interposing the justifying circumstance of defense of a stranger. However, it concurred with the findings of the RTC that the defense failed to prove the existence of all the elements of defense of a stranger.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner is denied of due process due to the gross negligence and incompetence of his counsel before the trial court.

HELD:

Yes. The petitioner is deprived of due process.

The rule provides that the negligence and mistakes of counsel bind the client. The only exception would be where the lawyer's gross negligence would result in the grave injustice of depriving his client of the due process of law.

In Sanico v. People, the Court held that:

If the incompetence of counsel was so great and the error committed as a result was so serious that the client was prejudiced by a denial of his day in court, the litigation ought to be reopened to give to the client another chance to present his case. The legitimate interests of the petitioner, particularly the right to have his conviction reviewed by the RTC as the superior tribunal, should not be sacrificed in the altar of technicalities.

Thus, the petitioner must establish with clear and convincing evidence that the killing was justified, and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor. However, the petitioner was deprived of such opportunity to effectively present his evidence and to defend himself due to the gross and palpable negligence and incompetence of his counsel. Such deprivation amounts to a denial of the petitioner's due process, vitiating the integrity of the proceedings before the trial court.