People v. Daban
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves the conviction of appellant Roscoe Daban y Ganzon for a crime for which he was sentenced to death. The case was automatically elevated to the Supreme Court for review. 2. Procedural History: Respondent Sixto P. Demaisip initially served as counsel de parte for the appellant. After numerous extensions to file the appellant's brief, he successfully moved to be appointed as counsel de oficio due to the appellant's father's inability to fund printing expenses. Despite further extensions as counsel de oficio, the brief was not filed, leading to an order for Demaisip to explain his failure. 3. The Petition: The explanation offered by respondent Demaisip for the failure to file the brief was that the appellant's escape rendered the appeal useless and abandoned, citing his opinion based on settled jurisprudence. This explanation was deemed unsatisfactory by the Supreme Court, which found it to be a disregard of facts and an ignorance of the law regarding automatic review of death penalty cases and the finality of judgments.
Issue(s)
Whether the escape of an appellant automatically renders the appeal useless and unnecessary, thereby justifying the failure to file an appellant's brief. Whether respondent counsel de oficio was guilty of neglect of duty for failing to file the appellant's brief despite numerous extensions.
Ruling
The Supreme Court suspended respondent Sixto P. Demaisip from the practice of law until further orders, except for the sole purpose of filing the brief for appellant Roscoe Daban y Ganzon within twenty days from receipt of the resolution. The resolution is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the escape of an appellant automatically renders the appeal useless and unnecessary: The Court held that respondent Demaisip's explanation disregarded the facts and betrayed ignorance of the law. While it was true that appellant Roscoe Daban y Ganzon escaped on June 15, 1971, Demaisip had previously assured the Court in a motion dated May 13, 1971, that a draft of the brief was already finished. This indicated that he could have filed the brief prior to the escape. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that in cases where the death penalty is imposed, the judgment of conviction is not final until reviewed by the Supreme Court. This automatic review, as explained by former Chief Justice Moran, is something neither the court nor the accused could waive or evade. Therefore, the mere fact of escape could not be relied upon as a sufficient cause for failure to file the brief, as the appeal was still subject to review and could not be considered automatically abandoned or useless. On the issue of whether respondent counsel de oficio was guilty of neglect of duty: The Court found respondent Demaisip guilty of gross neglect of duty. He had obtained seventeen extensions in total, demonstrating a pattern of delay and failure to fulfill his professional obligations. The Court reiterated that membership in the bar carries a responsibility to live up to its exacting standards, and lawyers are called upon to aid in the administration of justice. Even when serving without remuneration as counsel de oficio, a lawyer must not diminish their zeal. The Court cited previous rulings emphasizing that a counsel de oficio has as high a duty to the accused as one employed by the defendant, requiring the exercise of best efforts and professional ability, and rendering effective assistance with due diligence, not mere perfunctory representation. The Court concluded that Demaisip was recreant to the trust reposed in him, and his notorious conduct of neglect and indifference unnecessarily clogged the court's docket.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer appointed as counsel de oficio has a duty to exercise the same zeal and diligence as a counsel de parte, and failure to do so, despite repeated extensions, constitutes neglect of duty punishable by suspension from the practice of law. The escape of an appellant does not automatically render the appeal useless or abandoned, especially in cases involving the death penalty which require automatic review by the Supreme Court.