IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING THE CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AND THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING TRIAL?
>Yes. During the trial, the right to counsel means the right to effective counsel. During trial, the purpose of the counsel is not so much to protect the accused from being forced to confess, but
rather is to defend the accused.
> On the other hand, a custodial investigation has stricter requirements. A custodial investigation requires the presence of a competent and independent counsel, who is preferably the
accused’s own choice. Furthermore, the right to counsel could only be waived in writing and in the presence of counsel.
> A custodial investigation take note is not done in public, hence the danger that confessions will be extracted against the will of the defendant during the custodial investigation. This danger doesn't
really exist during trial since the latter is done in public.
WHY IS THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AFFORDED DURING TRIAL?
> The right to counsel afforded during trial because this right is embraced in one’s right to be heard
WHEN SHOULD THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL BE INVOKED?
> The right to counsel can be invoked at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal
> However, it can also be waived
> The accused is deemed to have waived his right to counsel when he voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the Court and and proceeds with his defense
> But in two cases, the Court held that the defendant cannot raise for the first time on appeal his right to have an attorney. If the question is not raised in the trial court, the prosecution may go to
trial. The question will not be considered in the appellate court for the first time when the accused fails to raise it in the lower court.
IS IT THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO APPOINT COUNSEL DE OFFICIO MANDATORY AT ALL TIMES?
> No, the duty to appoint counsel de officio is mandatory only up to the time of arraignment
DOES THE MISTAKE OF COUNSEL BIND THE CLIENT?
> As a rule, the mistake of counsel binds the client
> Therefore, the client cannot question a decision on the ground that his counsel was an idiot
> However, an exception to this if counsel misrepresents himself as a lawyer, and he turns out to be a fake lawyer. In this case, the accused is entitled to new trial because his right to be represented
by a member of the bar was violated. He was thus denied of his right to counsel and due process.
IS THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL ABSOLUTE?
> No since the right of choice must be exercised in a reasonable manner within reasonable time.
> The accused cannot insist on counsel that he cannot afford, one who is not a member of the bar, or one who declines for a valid
> Also the right of the accused to choose counsel is subject to the right of the state to due process and adequate justice.
WHEN CAN THE ACCUSED DEFEND HIMSELF IN PERSON?
> The accused can defend himself in person only if the court is convinced that he can properly protect his rights even without the assistance of counsel.