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.