View full case

BALTAZAR D. AMION v. JUDGE ROBERTO S. CHIONGSON

FACTS:

Baltazar D. Amion filed a complaint against Judge Roberto S. Chiongson, alleging ignorance of the law and oppression in relation to Criminal Case No. 94-159772 pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 50, Bacolod City. The complaint was based on the appointment of a counsel de oficio for Amion despite his objection, as he already had his own retained counsel. Amion explained that his counsel was unable to attend the scheduled hearing due to illness and, despite his opposition, the trial proceeded with the appointed counsel de oficio. Amion claimed that this violated his right to due process and his right to be defended by counsel of his choice. He also accused Judge Chiongson of being unfair and ignorant of the law. Additionally, Amion alleged previous oppression by Judge Chiongson when he was still a Municipal Trial Judge in a previous case. In response, Judge Chiongson explained that he did not accede to Amion's plea for his inhibition, and that the case had not progressed due to various postponements and changes of counsel.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the appointment of a counsel de oficio violates the accused-complainant's right to due process and his constitutional right to be defended by counsel of his own choice.

  2. Whether the accused-complainant and his counsel engaged in acts of delay and harassment.

  3. Whether the accused in a criminal prosecution has the exclusive right to choose his counsel, to the detriment of other equally competent and independent attorneys.

  4. Whether there was a denial of the accused-complainant's right to due process due to the appointment of a counsel de oficio during the absence of the accused's counsel de parte.

  5. Whether the respondent judge should be held liable for oppression and gross ignorance of the law in cases under him while he was still in the Municipal Trial Court.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that the appointment of a counsel de oficio does not violate the accused-complainant's right to due process or his constitutional right to choose his own counsel. The accused-complainant has been repeatedly represented by a counsel de parte who failed to appear during hearings, causing delay in the proceedings. Thus, the trial court's appointment of a counsel de oficio was justified.

  2. The Supreme Court found that the accused-complainant and his counsel engaged in acts of delay and harassment. The accused-complainant filed multiple motions for inhibition, a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus, and this administrative complaint with the intention of delaying the resolution of the criminal case. The Court noted that the criminal case had been pending for almost four years, and the accused-complainant had employed various tactics to delay the trial.

  3. The accused in a criminal prosecution does not have the exclusive right to choose his counsel to the exclusion of other competent and independent attorneys. The preference in the choice of counsel does not grant the accused an absolute prerogative that would obstruct the progress of the criminal prosecution. Other competent and independent counsels may still represent the accused.

  4. There was no denial of due process as the accused-complainant was given sufficient opportunities to present his side, but he forfeited this right by not appearing in court with his counsel at the scheduled hearings. The appointment of a counsel de oficio during the absence of the accused's counsel de parte was justified to ensure the expeditious termination of the case under the continuous trial system.

  5. The charges of oppression and gross ignorance of the law against the respondent judge have no legal or factual basis, as explained in the comments submitted. The respondent judge's actuation in the murder case demonstrated zeal and determination to expedite the case and render justice.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The right to choose counsel applies more to a person under investigation rather than an accused in a criminal prosecution.

  • The accused in a criminal prosecution does not have an exclusive right to choose his counsel, and the preference in the choice of counsel does not hinder the progress of the criminal prosecution.

  • The accused's right to due process is not violated if he had sufficient opportunities to present his side, but forfeited this right by not appearing in court with his counsel.

  • The appointment of a counsel de oficio is justified to ensure the expeditious termination of the case under the continuous trial system.

  • Judges should administer justice impartially and without delay, and should be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility to promptly administer justice.