G.R. No. L-33277 November 25, 1983
JORGE C. PACIFICAR, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO and THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF ILOILO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Jorge C. Pacificar was convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a decision promulgated on June 30, 1970. The judgment became final on August 5, 1970, and an entry of judgment was made on November 4, 1970. The case arose from an incident on January 28, 1965, where Pacificar, while on a cargo truck, shot and killed Melecio Abiado. Pacificar claimed self-defense, alleging that the deceased, who was seated on the truck’s roof, made threatening statements and was in the act of sliding down to attack him. The prosecution evidence established that Pacificar fired multiple shots at the victim, who sustained fatal gunshot wounds.
The procedural controversy centers on the representation by Pacificar’s counsel, Atty. Benjamin Defensor. Unbeknownst to the Court of Appeals, Atty. Defensor had been appointed and confirmed as Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo on June 11, 1969, over a year before the appellate court’s decision was promulgated. He only informed the court of this appointment on October 5, 1970, after the judgment had become final. Pacificar’s new counsel, Atty. Wenceslao G. Laureta, subsequently filed a motion to cancel the entry of judgment, which was denied. Pacificar then filed this certiorari proceeding, alleging a denial of procedural due process because his counsel of record was disqualified from representing him due to his appointment as fiscal.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner was deprived of his right to procedural due process when the Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming his conviction while his counsel of record had previously been appointed as a provincial fiscal, thereby allegedly creating a conflict of interest and ineffective representation.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The Court held that there was no deprivation of procedural due process. The right to due process is satisfied when a party is given an opportunity to be heard. The records showed that Atty. Defensor actively represented Pacificar throughout the appellate proceedings, filing the appellant’s brief and arguing the case. His subsequent appointment as fiscal did not automatically nullify these proceedings or the judgment rendered. The Court emphasized that due process is not violated by a mistake of counsel, especially where the party himself is not faultless in diligently protecting his own interest.
Crucially, the Court found that even if the entry of judgment were set aside, the petition would still fail. Pacificar failed to demonstrate any meritorious defense that would justify a reversal. The Court of Appeals’ decision was based on a rigorous analysis of the evidence, which conclusively rejected the claim of self-defense. It found that the victim’s acts constituted only a threatening attitude, not unlawful aggression necessary to invoke self-defense. The number of shots fired also indicated an intent to kill, not merely to repel an attack. Therefore, no substantial prejudice resulted from the alleged representation issue, as the conviction was firmly grounded on the evidence. The denial of due process must be coupled with a showing of a meritorious defense, which was absent here.