G.R. No. 555 : April 19, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. PANTALEON GIMENO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant, Pantaleon Gimeno, was convicted of robbery by the Court of First Instance of the Fifth Judicial District on November 21, 1901, and sentenced to six years and one day of presidio mayor, plus damages and costs. Prior to trial, the defendant applied for and was granted court-assigned counsel for his defense. However, on the day of the trial, the assigned attorney failed to appear. Consequently, the defendant was compelled to conduct his own defense without the assistance of counsel.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court committed a reversible error by proceeding with the trial and convicting the defendant despite the non-appearance of his court-assigned counsel, thereby depriving him of his right to counsel.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. The Court held that under Section 17 of General Orders, No. 58, a defendant has the right to be informed of his right to counsel and, if indigent, to have counsel assigned by the court. This right is fundamental, and the failure of the court to ensure that assigned counsel actually appears and performs his duty to defend the accused constitutes a denial of this right and is sufficient ground for reversal. The Court emphasized that the right to counsel must be effectively guaranteed, not merely formally granted.

DISSENTING OPINION:
One Justice dissented, arguing that the trial court had complied with the law by appointing counsel upon the defendant’s request. The dissent maintained that, in the absence of any objection from the defendant at trial or any showing in the record as to why the lawyer was absent, it should be presumed that the trial court had a valid reason to proceed and that the defendant consented to conduct his own defense. The dissenting Justice would have affirmed the conviction.

Note: Justice Torres did not sit in this case.