Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    P V Nadera Application of Canon

    Uploaded by

    Jeth Tan
    Nadera was accused of raping his two children, Maricris and Oleby. The lawyer was assigned as Nadera's counsel de oficio. During the trial, the lawyer did not conduct any cross-examination of Oleby because he was convinced she was telling the truth. He also did not present any evidence for his client or inform him of his rights. As a counsel de oficio, the lawyer failed in his duty to defend his client and protect his rights, even though his client's life was at stake.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    P V Nadera Application of Canon

    Uploaded by

    Jeth Tan
    46 views1 page
    Nadera was accused of raping his two children, Maricris and Oleby. The lawyer was assigned as Nadera's counsel de oficio. During the trial, the lawyer did not conduct any cross-examination of Oleby because he was convinced she was telling the truth. He also did not present any evidence for his client or inform him of his rights. As a counsel de oficio, the lawyer failed in his duty to defend his client and protect his rights, even though his client's life was at stake.

    Original Description:

    12345

    Original Title

    P v Nadera Application of Canon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Nadera was accused of raping his two children, Maricris and Oleby. The lawyer was assigned as Nadera's counsel de oficio. During the trial, the lawyer did not conduct any cross-examination of Oleby because he was convinced she was telling the truth. He also did not present any evidence for his client or inform him of his rights. As a counsel de oficio, the lawyer failed in his duty to defend his client and protect his rights, even though his client's life was at stake.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    46 views1 page

    P V Nadera Application of Canon

    Uploaded by

    Jeth Tan
    Nadera was accused of raping his two children, Maricris and Oleby. The lawyer was assigned as Nadera's counsel de oficio. During the trial, the lawyer did not conduct any cross-examination of Oleby because he was convinced she was telling the truth. He also did not present any evidence for his client or inform him of his rights. As a counsel de oficio, the lawyer failed in his duty to defend his client and protect his rights, even though his client's life was at stake.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    In this case, I happen to be the lawyer of the accused Nadera, the father of 2

    children he allegedly raped namely Maricris and Oleby. I was assigned to be


    the counsel de oficio of Nadera. My client pleaded not guilty to the charges
    filed against him. But then after the prosecution had presented evidence, my
    client pleaded guilty to the crime charged. I must admit that during the trial
    of the case, I did not conduct any more cross-examination because I was
    thoroughly convinced that Oleby was telling the truth and that she was
    indeed raped. I did not also attempt to present evidence for my client and I
    must have forgotten to inform him of his rights.
    Applicable Canons Rule 14.02. A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious
    and sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de oficio or as amici curiae,
    or a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters
    for rendition of free legal aid.
    Rule 15.07. A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws
    and the principles of fairness
    Let us not forget that a lawyer shall not refuse to defend his client even
    though he is appointed as counsel de oficio. According to Canon 14.02 A
    lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient cause, an
    appointment as counsel de oficio or as amici curiae. every person shall
    have a right to be protected by a lawyer even though he appears to be very
    guilty. A lawyer should always take necessary steps in exhausting all the
    available remedies for his clients cause because it is the right of the client to
    be protected. Lawyers shall always be competent in protecting his clients
    cause/interest even though he is acting as counsel de oficio because being a
    lawyer is a privileged burdened with conditions in which he must always act
    with candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his
    client. Moreover, A lawyer shall always update his client of all the actions
    available and steps that are necessary to be taken so a client would be wellinformed to his case.
    In the said case, the lawyer not only failed to object to the documentary
    evidence presented by the prosecution, he even expressed his conformity to
    the admission of the same. Neither did he present any evidence on behalf of
    accused-appellant. As counsel de oficio, the lawyer had the duty to defend
    his client and protect his rights, no matter how guilty or evil he perceives
    accused-appellant to be. The performance of this duty was all the more
    imperative because the life of accused-appellant hangs in the balance. His
    duty was no less because he was counsel de oficio.

    You might also like