SIA vs.

PEOPLE & TERESITA LEE

Facts:
Petitioners were charged w/ the RTC of Naga with 3 counts of
violation of PD 957 (Subdivision & Condo Buyers Protective Decree).
A MTQ was filed by the petitioners on the ground of jurisdiction &
that the prosecutor has no authority to file the information. The
MTQ was denied by the trial court & so trial ensued. Petitioners also
filed with the CA a petition for Certiorari w/ TRO but was again
dismissed. Petitioners insist that they wanted to have a counsel of
their own choice to represent them and not a counsel de officio.
They allegedly pleaded only w/ the presence of a counsel de officio
since their postponement was not approved by the court for the
absence of counsel of their choice.

Issue: W/N there was violation w/ the right of the petitioners to
have a counsel of their own choice?

Held: NO!
Sec. 12, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution assuring an accused of
counsel of his choice pertains specifically to a person under
investigation. Even if we were to extend the choice of a counsel to
an accused in a criminal prosecution, the matter of the accused
getting a lawyer of his preference cannot be absolute & arbitrary as
would make his choice of counsel refer exclusively to the
predilection of the accused. The word preferably does not convey
the message that the choice of the lawyer by a person under
investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent &
independent attorneys from handling the defense. If the rule was
otherwise, then, the tempo of a custodial investigation, will be
solely in the hands of the accused who can impede, nay, obstruct
the progress of the interrogation by simply selecting a lawyer, who
for one reason or another, is not available to protect his interest.
This absurd scenario could not have been contemplated by the
framers of the charter.