G.R. No. L-6707, February 8, 1912
THE UNITED STATES vs. GO-LENG

FACTS

Go-Leng was convicted by the trial court for violating Act No. 1761 (the Opium Law) and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, a fine of P300, and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The conviction was based on evidence found during a search of his house, which included opium, opium ashes, scales, a cooking pan, and smoking lamps. On appeal, Go-Leng, through his counsel, argued that the trial court violated his essential rights by compelling him to stand trial without the assistance of an attorney and by denying his request for time to procure one.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court deprived Go-Leng of his right to counsel, thereby invalidating the proceedings.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court found no merit in the claim that Go-Leng was denied his right to counsel. The record showed that when asked if he could afford a lawyer, Go-Leng answered affirmatively but stated he could not agree on the fee with a specific attorney. The trial court, noting that Go-Leng was not indigent and thus not entitled to a court-appointed counsel, and considering that the hearing had already been postponed previously, proceeded with the trial. Crucially, Go-Leng never formally requested a postponement to secure counsel, nor did he object to continuing the trial without one. Instead, he actively participated in his own defense by cross-examining prosecution witnesses and presenting evidence. The Court held that the right to counsel may be waived, and by voluntarily proceeding to trial and conducting his own defense, Go-Leng effectively waived that right. The proceedings were therefore valid. However, the penalty was modified: the prison sentence was set aside, and Go-Leng was ordered to pay only the fine of P300, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.