f. Sanctions

Grounds and Sanctions

If the private counsel for the accused, the public attorney, or the prosecutor:

• Knowingly allows the case to be set for trial without disclosing that a necessary witness would be unavailable
• Files a frivolous motion (and without merit) solely for delay;
• Makes a false statement to obtain continuance; OR
• Willfully fails to proceed to trial without justification (Rule 119, Sec. 8).

Then the court may punish such counsel, attorney, or prosecutor, as follows:

The Modes of Discovery under Rules 23 to 29 do not apply to criminal procedure. The applicable provision is Sections 12 and 13 of Rule 119. (Go v. People, G.R. No. 185527, 2014)

Note: The right to counsel attaches upon the start of the custodial investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions from the accused. Custodial investigation starts when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds questions to the person to elicit incriminating statements. Police line-up is not part of the custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution cannot yet be invoked at this stage. (People v. Pepino, G.R. No. 174471, 2016)

Note: In the case of Ibanez v. People, since the beginning of the proceedings in the trial court until the filing of the petition before the Supreme Court, three counsel de oficio were appointed to represent the accused. Their counsel de oficio actively participated in the proceedings before the trial court including the direct and cross-examination of the witnesses. The accused were duly represented by a counsel de oficio all throughout the proceedings except for one hearing when their court appointed lawyer was absent. Going by the records, there was no indication that any of the counsel de oficio had been negligent in protecting the accused's interests. The counsel de oficio kept on attending the trial court hearings in representation of the accused despite the latter's unjustified absences. The Court was not persuaded that the absence of the counsel de oficio in one of the hearings of amounts to a denial of right to counsel. Nor does such absence warrant the nullification of the entire trial court proceedings and the eventual invalidation of its ruling. (Ibanez v. People, G.R. No. 190798, 2016)