People v Agbayani 284 SCRA 315 (1998)

Facts: The appellant was charged for raping his 14-year old daughter and was found guilty of the crime of rape. A motion for a new trial was filed before the court by the new counsel of the accused assailing the irregularities prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused invoking the failure of the court to inform the accused of his right to choose his own counsel and the violation of the appellants right for a 2 day preparation for trial.

Issue: Whether or not the failure of the record to disclose affirmatively that the trial judge advised the accused of the right to have counsel is sufficient ground to reverse the judgment of conviction and to send the case back for a new trial.

Held: It is settled that the failure of the record to disclose affirmatively that the trial judge advised the accused of his right to counsel is not sufficient ground to reverse conviction. The reason being that the trial court must be presumed to have complied with the procedure prescribed by law for the hearing and trial of cases, and that such a presumption can only be overcome by an affirmative showing to the contrary. Thus it has been held that unless the contrary appears in the record, or that it is positively proved that the trial court failed to inform the accused of his right to counsel, it will be presumed that the accused was informed by the court of such right.

Section 9 of Rule 116 of the Rules of Court provides that after a plea of not guilty, the accused is entitled to two (2) days to prepare for trial unless the court for good cause grants him further time. It must be pointed out that the right must be expressly demanded. Only when so demanded does denial thereof constitute reversible error and a ground for new trial. Further, such right may be waived, expressly or impliedly. In the instant case, appellant did not ask for time to prepare for trial, hence, he effectively waived such right. It is untenable to believe that the counsel who represented the appellant was not prepared during the trial as records showed he was able to cross-examine the complainant and there was no ground to claim he is incompetent to represent the appellant in court. The SC thereby affirmed the decision of the lower court.