GR 154297; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 154297-300; February 15, 2008
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, MAXIMO B. USITA, JR. and WILFREDO C. ANDRES, petitioners, vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, SPECIAL DIVISION, respondent.
FACTS
The Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) sought to be relieved as court-appointed counsel (counsel de oficio) for former President Joseph Estrada and his son Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada in their criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan. PAO argued that the accused were not indigent persons and were therefore disqualified from availing of its statutory legal aid services under Letter of Implementation No. 20 and Presidential Decree No. 1725. The Sandiganbayan initially granted the request of the PAO Chief to be relieved due to administrative workload but subsequently denied a similar motion filed by eight remaining PAO lawyers. In a Resolution dated May 28, 2002, the court reduced the number of PAO lawyers but retained petitioners Atty. Maximo B. Usita, Jr. and Atty. Wilfredo C. Andres to continue as counsels de oficio alongside private sector appointees. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Resolutions retaining two PAO lawyers as counsels de oficio for non-indigent accused.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan and declaring the issue moot. The Court held that the Sandiganbayan’s power to appoint counsel de oficio under Section 7, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is broad and discretionary, aimed at ensuring the accused’s constitutional right to counsel. This power is not strictly limited by the PAO’s charter, which defines its primary clientele as indigents. The Sandiganbayan’s appointment was a valid exercise of judicial prerogative to meet the exigencies of the case, particularly as the accused initially declined counsel, and the court needed to safeguard their rights. The retention of two PAO lawyers, even after the accused engaged private counsel, was a reasonable precaution against possible future changes in representation. The Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan’s action was neither capricious nor arbitrary and did not constitute a evasion of duty. Furthermore, as the criminal cases against the Estradas had been finally resolved by the time of the decision, the petition seeking relief from appointment was rendered moot.