CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL; The right to counsel means person must be heard before being condemned.

before being condemned. The due process

that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a requirement is a part of a person's basic rights; it is not a mere formality that
counsel who commits himself to the case for the defense and acts may be dispensed with or performed perfunctorily. [Peop1e vs. Bermas; G.
accordingly. The right assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in R. No. 120420; April21, 1999; EN BANC--- Vitug, J.]
the proceeding particularly at the trial of the case, his bearing
constantly in mind of the basic rights of the accused, his being well-
versed on the case, and his knowing the fundamental procedures,
essential laws and existing jurisprudence.

FACTS: Rufino Mirandilla Bermas was charged with the crime of rape
committed against his daughter Manuela Bermas. On the basis of the
evidence of the prosecution, the Regional Trial Court of Paranaque rendered
its decision finding the accused guilty of rape and sentenced him to suffer the
extreme penalty of death. Hence, this automatic review. In this instant
appeal, the defense alleged that the accused was denied of his constitutional
right to effective and vigilant counsel. It appeared that on the day scheduled
for his arraignment, the accused was brought before the trial court without
counsel. The court thereupon assigned Atty. Rosa Elmira C. Villamin of the
Public Attorney's Office to be the counsel de officio. Thereafter, the
complainant testified on direct examination with hardly any participation by
defense counsel, who inexplicably later waived the cross-examination and
then asked the court that she be relieved of her duty as counsel de officio.
Consequently, Atty. Roberto Gomez was appointed the new counsel de
officio. While Atty. Gomez was ultimately allowed to cross-examine the
complainant, it should be quite evident, however, that he barely had time to
prepare therefor. Moreover, on the scheduled reception of the defense
evidence, Atty. Gomez failed to appear. Hence, the court was constrained to
appoint another counsel de officio in the name of Atty. Nicanor Lonzame.
However, for one reason or another, Atty. Lonzame ceased to appear for and
in behalf of the accused-appellant.

ISSUE: Whether or not accused-appellant was properly and effectively

accorded his right to counsel.

HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The right to counsel must
be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere
propounding of standard questions and objections. The right to counsel
means that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a
counsel who commits himself to the case for the defense and acts
accordingly. The right assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in the
proceeding particularly at the trial of the case, his bearing constantly in mind
of the basic rights of the accused, his being well-versed on the case, and his
knowing the fundamental procedures, essential laws and existing
jurisprudence. In the case at bar, accused-appellant has not properly and
effectively been accorded the right to counsel. The right to counsel proceeds
from the fundamental principle of due process which basically means that a