G.R. No. L-8984; March 13, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JUAN LABIAL and ARCADIO ABUSO, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The appellants, Juan Labial and Arcadio Abuso, were convicted in the lower court for violating paragraph 1, section 30 of the Election Law by voting illegally in the general elections held in Mambajao, Misamis, on June 4, 1912. The evidence of record conclusively established their guilt. The record did not show whether the appellants were represented by counsel during the trial, nor did it affirmatively show that the trial judge complied with the mandatory duty under Section 17 of General Orders No. 58 (as amended by Act No. 440 ) to inform an unrepresented accused of their right to counsel and to inquire if they desired such aid. On appeal, the appellants argued that this omission in the record warranted reversal of their conviction.

ISSUE:
Is the failure of the record to affirmatively show that the trial judge advised the unrepresented accused of their right to counsel a reversible error that warrants the acquittal or a new trial of the appellants?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
The Court held that in the absence of an affirmative showing in the record that the trial judge failed to advise the accused of their right to counsel, it must be presumed that the lower court complied with the law and regularly performed its official duty. The burden rests on the appellant to rebut this presumption of regularity in judicial proceedings. Mere silence or omission in the record regarding the advisement of rights is not sufficient to establish reversible error. The Court cited the doctrine from United States vs. Santos (4 Phil. Rep., 419), which indicated that for such a defect to be urged, it must first appear that the accused had asked for and was denied counsel.
However, the Court strongly advised trial judges to always ensure the record affirmatively reflects compliance with the statutory duty to advise an unrepresented accused of the right to counsel, to avoid any ambiguity on appeal. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, with costs against the appellants.