G.R. No. 90294 September 24, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO RIO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ricardo Rio was convicted of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the Regional Trial Court of Makati. He interposed an appeal, and the records were forwarded to the Supreme Court due to the penalty imposed. In December 1989, Rio, in letters to the Court, manifested his intention to withdraw his appeal, citing his poverty and inability to retain a private counsel. The Court, upon the Solicitor General’s recommendation, required the branch clerk of the trial court to ascertain from Rio, pursuant to Section 13, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, whether he desired the appointment of a counsel de oficio on appeal.
The branch clerk of court complied and reported that Rio informed him he was no longer interested in pursuing his appeal and had withdrawn it. However, the Court noted that Rio’s sole reason for withdrawal was poverty. Consequently, acting on another recommendation from the Solicitor General, the Court denied the motion to withdraw the appeal. It appointed a counsel de oficio for Rio, emphasizing that poverty should not bar access to justice.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant’s manifestation to withdraw his appeal, based solely on poverty, should be allowed, or whether the court has a duty to appoint counsel de oficio to ensure his right to appeal is not forfeited.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the withdrawal and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic is anchored on the constitutional and statutory duty to provide legal assistance to the indigent. Section 11, Article III of the 1987 Constitution guarantees that free access to the courts and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied by reason of poverty. This right is operationalized by Section 13, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which imposes a duty on the clerk of court to ascertain if a confined appellant desires court-appointed counsel on appeal.
The Court held that the right to counsel does not cease upon conviction but continues during appeal. Rio’s expressed reason for withdrawal—poverty—triggered the court’s protective duty. Allowing withdrawal under such circumstances would effectively deny his constitutional right to appeal and adequate legal assistance. The Court is mandated to ensure that justice is accessible to all, especially the poor, embodying the principle that “those who have less in life must have more in law.” Therefore, the Court appointed counsel de oficio to prosecute the appeal. After a review of the merits with the assistance of appointed counsel, the Court found no reason to reverse the trial court’s finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, with an increase in the civil indemnity.