VICIA D. PASCUAL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 160540, March 22, 2007,
“x x x.
PETITIONER WAS ACCORDED HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
DUE PROCESS
Petitioner was not denied due process on the mere
premise that she was not able to submit her affidavit regarding where she
allegedly spent the councils money. Due process means that a party has been
given the opportunity to be heard.[10] When
a party has been afforded a chance to present his or her own side, he cannot
feign denial of due process.[11] In
this case, the records are evident that petitioner herself participated as the
only witness for the defense during the trial. She cannot now claim very
belatedly that her constitutional right to due process was violated and that
she was denied her day in court. What is repugnant to due process is the
absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard through pleadings or otherwise,[12] which
is not the case here.
Petitioner likewise contends that it was due to her
former counsel’s incompetence and negligence that she failed to offer her
affidavit as evidence during the trial. This contention does not hold ground considering
that she neither objected nor called the attention of her former lawyer when
the latter manifested in open court that petitioner (as then accused) was
adopting in Criminal Case No. 98-1015 the evidence in Criminal Case No.
98-1014,[13] which
evidence did not include petitioners affidavit. Had petitioner truly believed
that her counsel then was inept and careless, she could have easily terminated
his services at that very instance. In failing to do so, we can only conclude
that she acquiesced to the manner her former lawyer handled her case.
The doctrinal rule is that litigants should suffer the
consequences of the negligence or incompetence of their counsel whom they
themselves hired and had full authority to fire at anytime and replace even
without any justifiable cause.[14]
X x x.”
Footnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes
(now Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals), and concurred in by Associate
Justices Remedios Salazar-Fernando and Edgardo F. Sundiam of the Seventh
Division of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, pp. 72-88.
[2] Id., p. 100.
[3] Id., pp. 33-34.
[4] ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). −
Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow
xxx
1. With
unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the
prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by
the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same,
even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by
denying having received such money, goods, or other property. xxx
[5] Decided by Judge Francisco B. Ibay, RTC,
Makati City, Branch 135. Rollo, pp. 31-37.
[6] Id., p. 82.
[7] Id., pp. 83-88.
[8] Supra note 2.
[9] Rollo, pp. 17-18.
[10] Roxas v. Vasquez, 432 Phil. 148
(2002).
[11] Dayrit v. Philippine Bank of
Communications, 435 Phil. 120 (2002); Development Bank of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 362 Phil. 1 (1999).
[12] Sps. Friend, et al. v. Union Bank of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 165767, 29 November 2005, 476 SCRA 453; Salonga
v. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. 111478, 13 March 1997, 269 SCRA 534; Bacelonia
v. Court of Appeals, 445 Phil. 300 (2003).
[13] Rollo, p. 80.
[14] Salva v. CA, 364 Phil. 281 (1997); Alabanzas
v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 29 November 1991, 204 SCRA 304; Sps.
Friend, et al. v. Union Bank of the Philippines, supra.
[15] Villanueva
v. Sps. Alejo and Virginia Salvador, G.R. No. 139436, 25 January 2006; People
v. Chua, G.R. No. 128280, 4 April 2001, 356 SCRA 225; Ayson v.
Enriquez Vda. De Carpio, G.R. No. 152438, 17
June 2004, 432 SCRA 449; Reburiano v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil.
294 (1999).
[16] Velasquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 138480, 25 March 2004, 426 SCRA 309; L.T. Datu & Co., Inc. v.
Sy, G.R. No. 143701, 23 March 2004, 426 SCRA 189.
[17] San Agustin v. People, G.R. No.
158211, 31 August 2004, 437 SCRA 392.
[19] Filadams Pharma, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 132422, 30 March 2004, 426 SCRA 460.
[20] Velasco v. People, G.R. No. 166479, 28
February 2006.
