8/12/2019 Sayson v People Digest

1/2

RAMON F. SAYSON vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

CORTES, J.:

Facts:On March 25, 1972, an information for the crime of Estafa through Falsification of

a Commercial Document was filed against the herein petitioner, Ramon F. Saysonbefore the Court of First Instance of Manila for having come in possession of a blank USdollar check with intent to defraud Ernesto Rufino, Sr. and/or Bank of America forge andfalsify or cause to be forged and falsified the said check, by then and there writing orfilling or causing to be written or filled up the following words and figures: "March 10,1972," "Atty. Norberto S. Perez," "2,250.00" and forging the signature of the Asst.Cashier, Manager of the Bank of America, Dania Branch, making it appear, that the said

check was duly issued by the Bank of America.

Arraigned on December 8, 1972, petitioner pleaded not guilty. On October 9,1974, after several postponements, the prosecution rested its case.

At the hearing of December 9, 1974, when the defense was scheduled topresent its evidence, only the petitioner appeared. He said that his counsel had anothercase in a different court. In the morning of the said day, his lawyer also sent a telegramto the court requesting cancellation of the hearing because he was sick. The courtdenied the motion for postponement and the case was considered submitted fordecision without petitioner's evidence.

The trial court rendered judgment on January 30, 1975, finding the accusedguilty.

Issue:

Was the appellant denied of his right to counsel?

Held:

The duty of the court to appoint a counsel de oficio when the accused has no

counsel of choice and desires to employ the services of one is mandatory only at thetime of arraignment (Rule 116, Section 6, Revised Rules of Court). This is no longer sowhere the accused has proceeded with the arraignment and the trial with a counsel ofhis choice but when the time for the presentation of the evidence for the defense hasarrived, he appears by himself alone and the absence of his counsel was inexcusable.

At the most, the appointment of a counsel de oficio in situations like the presentcase is discretionary with the trial court, which discretion will not be interfered with in the

8/12/2019 Sayson v People Digest

2/2