Chapter IV

PRESENTATION INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

This chapter provides the Presentation, Interpretation, and Analysis of

data gathered through archival research, key informant interviews and survey

from the staff and clienteles of the Public Attorney’s Office (hereinafter, PAO for

brevity) in the District of General Santos and, also, some officials of the courts in

General Santos City.

This chapter is further divided into three (3) parts. The first part presents

the guidelines and procedures set by the Public Attorney’s Office in its

acceptance of clients and/or criminal cases. The data are gathered through the

archival method of research. The second part discusses how the Public

Attorney’s Office in the district of General Santos handled criminal cases from

2016 to 2018. The researcher gathered these data through archival method and

key informants’ interviews. The third part deals with the effectiveness of the

Public Attorney’s Office in the district of General Santos in providing legal aid and

assistance to its clienteles. Survey method and Key Informant Interview were

used to gather data.

Part I. Guidelines and Procedures for the Criminal Cases Accepted by the

Public Attorney’s Office

The respondents of the study provided information regarding the

guidelines and procedures for the criminal cases handled by PAO. The
 29

researcher has received a copy of the PAO Operations Manual, which states and

identifies the clienteles qualified to avail of the services of PAO, and the manner

it handles those cases. The said document sets, defines, and consolidates the

policies, rules, issuances, and procedures that the PAO Lawyers and employees

should observe in handling, recording and reporting cases of indigents and other

persons qualified of the PAO’s assistance.

Chapter II of the manual defines the qualifications of clients who can

receive legal assistance from the Public Attorney’s Office. Following the

Administrative Code of 1987, as amended by the Republic Act No. 9406, and in

relation to the Presidential Decree No. 1 and Republic Act No.6035, the Public

Attorney’s Office is mandated to represent, free of charge, indigents, and other

persons qualified for legal assistance in all civil, criminal, labor, administrative

and other quasi-judicial cases where, after due evaluation, it is determined that

the interest of justice will be served thereby. Accordingly, PAO shall extend legal

assistance to qualified persons whose case is meritorious.

The Public Attorney’s Office set qualifications or tests to gauge the merits

and the conditions that qualify an individual as an indigent. Furthermore, the

Office has also set and defined qualifications of other persons who can be

provided legal assistance by the institution.

A. Merit Test

As stated in the 2016 Revised PAO Operations Manual under Article 2, a case

shall be considered meritorious, if an assessment of the law and evidence on

 30

hand, discloses that the legal services of the office will assist, be in aid of, or be in

the furtherance of justice, taking into consideration the interests of the party and

those of the society. In such cases, the Public Attorney should agree to represent

the party concerned. A contrario, a case is deemed unmeritorious, if it appears

that it has no chance of success, is intended merely to harass or injure the

opposite party, or to work oppression or wrong. In such situations, the Public

Attorney must decline the case.

On the other hand, a case will be considered unmeritorious for three

situations: first, if it appears that it has no chance of success; second, if it is

intended merely to harass or injure the opposite party; and third, if the purpose of

filing a case is to oppress the other party.

Additionally, a public attorney may represent an indigent client even if the case

he or she filed is against a public officer, government office, agency or

instrumentality, provided that the said case is meritorious. Nevertheless, caution

should be exercised that the office be not exposed to charges of harassment,

unfairness or haste in the filing of suits.

Lastly, the manual dictates that in criminal cases, the accused enjoys the

constitutional presumption of innocence until the contrary is proven; hence, cases

of defendants in criminal actions are always considered meritorious (Public

Attorney's Office, 2016).

 31

B. Indigency Test

The operation manual stated that Public Attorneys and personnel shall

exercise diligence in ascertaining the indigency qualification of applicants. To

execute such prescription, an indigency test has been set by the Public

Attorney’s Office. An applicant will be considered as an indigent under these

conditions:

1. Residing in Metro Manila, whose individual net income does not exceed

P14,000.00 a month;

2. Residing in other cities, whose individual net income does not exceed

P13,000.00 a month; and

3. Residing in all other places, whose individual net income does not exceed

P12,000.00 a month.

The manual further provide that the pension received by retirees should not

be included in the term “income”. The term "net income" (as stated in the

aforementioned condition) shall be understood to refer to the basic income of the

litigant excluding statutory and authorized deductions. "Statutory deductions"

shall refer to withholding taxes, GSIS, SSS, PAG-IBIG, Health Insurance and

PhilHealth premiums; and, other loan amortizations duly supported by written

contracts.

Under Article 3 of the same manual, ownership of land shall not constitute a

ground for disqualification of an applicant for free legal assistance. [In view of the
 32

ruling in Juan Enaje vs. Victorio Ramos, et al. (G.R. No. L-22109, January 30,

1970), that the determinative factor for indigency is the income of the litigant and

not his ownership of real property.]

To ensure that only those qualified shall be extended free legal assistance,

and to aid in determining the nature of the deductions, the applicant will be

required to execute an Affidavit of lndigency and submit any of the following

documents:

1. Latest Income Tax Return or Payslip, or other proofs of net income; or

2. Certificate of lndigency from the Department of Social Welfare and

Development, City Social Welfare and Development Office, or the Municipal

Social Welfare and Development Office having jurisdiction over the residence of

the applicant; or,

3.Certificate of lndigency from the Punong Barangay/Barangay Chairman having

jurisdiction over the residence of the applicant (Public Attorney's Office, 2016).

C. Cases Which May Be Provisionally Accepted

Public Attorneys may accept or handle cases provisionally, pending

verification of the applicant's indigency and evaluation of the merit of his/her case

in the following instances:

First, when a warrant of arrest has been issued, and assistance is needed in

filing a Motion to Post Bail Bond or Reduction thereof for his/her provisional
 33

liberty; second, when a person is arrested and/or detained, and appropriate

immediate legal action is necessary to protect his/her rights; third, when a

pleading has to be filed immediately or an appeal has to be perfected to avoid

adverse effects to the applicant; fourth, when the Public Attorney is appointed by

the court as counsel-de-oficio to represent the defendant during the trial of the

case, provided, however, that if a subsequent investigation discloses that the

client is not indigent, the lawyer should request the court to relieve him/her by

filing a Motion for Withdrawal of Appearance from the case; fifth, where the

Public Attorney is designated on the spot as counsel de oficio for the purpose

only of arraignment, pre-trial or promulgation of decision; sixth, in cases involving

violence against women and their children under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-

Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), where immediate

preparation and filing of pleading/s is necessary to avoid adverse effects to the

victims, except, where there is conflict of interest. Non-indigent women and their

children may seek PAO's assistance; seventh, in cases involving Children in

Conflict with the Law (CICL), where there is an immediate need of counsel;

eighth, in cases involving credit card holder/s considered as "delinquent" by the

credit card company, and immediate action is necessary; and, ninth, cases which

require provisional assistance and other similar urgent cases (Public Attorney's

Office, 2016).
 34

D. Persons/Entities Qualified for Legal Assistance Pursuant to

Memoranda of Agreement/Understanding, Department of Justice

Directives and special laws

The following persons or entities are qualified to received legal assistance as

prescribed by the memoranda of agreements and understanding signed by PAO

and other institutions:

1. Department of Agrarian Reform lawyers against whom criminal and/or

administrative complaints have been filed for acts committed in connection with

the performance of their official duties;

2. Farmer-beneficiaries of the Agrarian Reform Law, in: a.) agrarian-related civil

or criminal cases pending before the courts; and, b.) cases against farmer-

beneficiaries pending before the courts or the Department of Agrarian Reform

Adjudication Board (DARAB), where one of the parties is already represented by

a lawyer from the Department of Agrarian Reform;

3. Indigent laborers in meritorious labor cases;

4. Indigent aliens;

5. Qualified Overseas Contract Workers in all cases within the original and

exclusive jurisdiction of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration;

6. Barangay Health Workers;

 35

7. Department of Social Welfare and Development in the filing of petitions for

involuntary commitment of minors, as well as petitions for the declaration that a

child is abandoned or neglected;

8. Members of the Association of Local Social Welfare and Development Officers

of the Philippines, Incorporated (ALSWDOPI), in criminal and administrative

complaints/cases related to, or in connection with the exercise of their profession

or performance of duties, unless there is a conflict of interest, or when a member

does not qualify under the PAO's lndigency Test, in which case, provisional

assistance shall be afforded to him/her;

9. Qualified Print and Broadcast Media Practitioners, as well as their staff and

crew, who, by reason of, or in connection with the performance of their

profession, are harassed with suits and complaints intended to hamper the

freedom of the press and suppress their individual liberties;

10. Dangerous Drugs Board (DOB), its authorized representatives and drug

offenders in the filing of Petitions for voluntary confinement, except when there is

conflict of interest;

11. Complaints of Filipinos against foreigners for violation of immigration, alien

registration and other local laws; respondent foreigners in deportation cases;

Bureau of Immigration (Bl) clients in connection with the Notarization of

applications; and such other legal services that may be assigned by the

Commissioner;
 36

12. Members of the Press Photographers of the Philippines (PPP) under

investigation for a complaint, or on trial, including inquest proceedings, relating

to, or in connection with, the exercise of profession or performance of duties; and

the families of PPP members who are victims of media killings;

13. Officials of the Philippine National Police (PNP) holding the ranks of Police

Officer I (P01) to Senior Police Officer IV (SP04), when sued in the performance

of their duties;

14. Torture victims pursuant to the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (R.A. 9745)

15. Philippine Statistics Authority Census Personnel with respect to Notarization

of their Contracts of Service;

16. Qualified Taiwanese Nationals upon Notice by the Legal Aid Foundation,

Taiwan;

17. Qualified constituents of member municipalities of the League of

Municipalities of the Philippines;

18. The Office for Competition (OFC) and/or its members and the sector

regulators and/or its officials in cases proscribed by the mandate of the Office of

the Solicitor General (OSG) through the specially constituted PAO Task Force;

19. Qualified refugees and displaced peoples within the Philippines;

20. Asylum seekers, refugees and stateless persons in the Autonomous Region

and Muslim Mindanao (ARMM);

 37

21. Public school teachers who are appointed as Board of Election Inspectors

(BEi) and are being sued in relation to the said function;

22. Individuals or Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP)-

accredited Urban Poor Organization indorsed by the PCUP, subject to PAO rules

and regulations;

23. Newly committed inmates and other qualified inmates of the Bureau of Jail

Management and Penology (BJMP) facilities. (Public Attorney's Office, 2016)

E. Other persons qualified for assistance.

These are other persons who are qualified for assistance: first, except in

election related cases, immediate members of the family, and relatives within the

4th civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of the Public Attorney, may avail of

his/her services regardless of qualification under the indigency test, subject to the

approval of the Chief Public Attorney, upon the recommendation of the Regional

Public Attorney or Service Head, as the case may be. The lawyer concerned

shall submit an Affidavit of Kinship, file a leave of absence during hearings, and

submit a monthly status report on the case.

Second, Public Attorneys and PAO employees may avail of the services of

the Public Attorney's Office in criminal cases, provided the Office is not the

adverse party (Sec. 4[b) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A.

9406); Lastly, Public Attorneys and PAO employees may also avail of the

services of the PAO in any case filed against them in courts, tribunals, quasi-
 38

judicial agencies and other offices in relation to the performance of duties,

provided the Office is not the adverse party and upon approval of the Chief

Public Attorney (Public Attorney's Office, 2016).

F. Persons not qualified for legal assistance

The manual also defines persons and cases that are not qualified and

therefore should not be handled by the Public Attorney’s Office. Where the Public

Attorney denies service to an applicant pursuant to the foregoing and preceding

provisions, he/she shall issue to the applicant a Denial/Disqualification Form.

Below are the persons who are not qualified to legal assistance:

1. Juridical person/s and private/stock corporations; except juridical entities which

are non-stock, non-profit organizations, whose individual members will pass the

indigency test of the Office. In cases involving land disputes, the PAO can

represent said juridical person/s provided they are not the lessor/s thereof;

2. Parties who do not pass the Merit and lndigency Tests, unless appointed as

counsel de oficio in criminal cases, and only under existing laws, rules and

regulations, or pursuant to the 2nd paragraph of Article 2, Chapter II, hereof;

3. Parties represented by de parte counsels, unless said counsels had withdrawn

their services, subject to the merit and indigency requirements of the party

seeking legal aid;

 39

4. Landlords or lessors of residential and commercial lands and/or buildings, with

respect to the filing of collection or unlawful detainer suits against their tenants or

lessees; and,

5. Political candidates and parties in all election related matters (Public Attorney's

Office, 2016).

G. Cases Not To Be Represented

Public Attorneys shall not extend legal assistance in the following cases:

1. Where they would be representing conflicting interests;

2. Cases involving violations of Batas Pambansa No. 22 (B.P. 22), otherwise

known as the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law'', unless the Public Attorney is

appointed by the court as counsel de oficio, subject to Paragraph 5, Article 4,

Chapter II of this Manual .

3. Prosecution of Criminal Cases, except in the following instances where there

exists no conflict of interest and the accused is not a client of the Public

Attorney's Office in the subject case, to wit:

a. When the Public Attorney's Office assisted the offended party/complainant

during the preliminary investigation stage in the Prosecutor's Office, on first

come-first-served basis, and the case is on appeal or certiorari before the

courts.
 40

b. When there is a directive from the Secretary of Justice or other government

authorities to assist the Prosecutor(s) assigned to prosecute the criminal case

in court; and

c. Complaints for BP 22 cases arising from an existing case for money claims

being handled by the PAO.

d. Adoption cases, except in instances where the adopter is the biological

parent or the step-parent of the adoptee, subject to the indigency test (Public

Attorney's Office, 2016).

Part II. The Handling of Criminal Cases of General Santos City District

Public Attorney’s Office from 2016 to 2018.

The PAO Operations Manual also detailed the proper handling of criminal

cases, and other cases. Chapter III of said manual talks about the two rules of

procedures and the duties of the Public Attorneys to its clienteles. It also talks

about how public attorneys and courts should conduct speedy trial to each case.

Duties of the Public Attorneys are also specified in the manual.

Furthermore, the Second part of this chapter includes the number of cases

handled by the Public Attorney’s Office in the district of General Santos from

2016 to 2018.
 41

As an institution, PAO has followed certain rules and procedure in its

districts throughout the country. These rules and procedures can be found in the

PAO Operation Manual. Public Attorneys and the staff of PAO were asked to

comply in the said manual or otherwise be hold accountable to their incorrect

actions. In its district of General Santos CIty, PAO is following the Operation

Manual set and approved by the Chief Public Attorney, Dr. Persida V. Rueda-

Acosta, along with the PAO Deputy Chief Public Attorneys and eighteen

Regional Public Attorneys (during the signing of the 2016 Revised PAO

Operations Manual, Negros Island Region is still a legally created region) (Public

Attorney's Office, 2016).

A. The Proper Handling of Criminal Cases

In handling criminal cases, two procedures are used to determine what the

public attorney should do. First is the summary procedure. Cases covered by the

rules on summary procedure are light offenses cases punishable by one (1) day

to six (6) months in prison or a fine of not more than five (5) thousand pesos. In

cases like this, the Public Attorney will file a Motion to Quash/ Dismiss or file a

Counter-Affidavit upon learning of the filing of information against a client. Trial

may proceed depending on the evaluation by the court (Public Attorney's Office,

2016).

The second procedure is called the regular procedure. Public Attorneys

should immediately secure a copy of the Information and affidavit of the

complainant and his/her witnesses and other documentary evidence against the
 42

accused, interview the accused, evaluate the legality of the arrest, the

correctness of the nature of the charge and rights of the accused under existing

laws, including his/her right to demand speedy trial; the theory of defense, his/her

witnesses and his/her documentary evidence, if any; and, the plea of the

accused, or the possibility of plea bargaining (Public Attorney's Office, 2016).

Public Attorneys should then move for a preliminary

investigation/reinvestigation within five (5) days from learning of the filing of the

information, if beneficial to the accused, and if he/she is entitled thereto. In case

of an adverse resolution, the Public Attorney may file a Motion for

Reconsideration or appeal the same to the Regional Prosecutor’s

Office/Secretary of Justice, and determine the existence of a ground for a Motion

to Quash or Dismiss. Where applicable, the Public Attorney shall file the same

prior to arraignment, except when to do so would not work to the advantage of

the accused.

The Chapter III of the PAO Operations Manual also discussed the duties

of the Public Attorneys and the other things they should do in handling their

clienteles. The first of the Public Attorneys duties is what they should do where

the clientele or accused is detained.

If the Public Attorney knows that a person charged of a crime is detained,

either because he/she is charged of a bailable crime but has no means to post

bail; is charged of a non-bailable crime; or is serving a term of imprisonment in

any penal institution, the Public Attorney shall first, file a Motion manifesting that
 43

the detainee/prisoner demands arraignment/trial and, for this purpose, that the

custodian of the detainee/prisoner be ordered to bring the detainee/prisoner to

the court, from time to time, as ordered; Second, upon receipt of notice from the

custodian that he/she has in his/her custody a detainee/prisoner who demands

trial, the Public Attorney shall file a Motion that said detainee/prisoner be brought

to court for arraignment/trial (Public Attorney's Office, 2016).

For an accused who desires to post bail, where the case has not been

raffled to a regular branch of the court, the Public Attorney shall file a Motion to

Fix Amount of Bail before the Executive Judge. Where the bail initially fixed by

the judge to whom the case is raffled is outside the financial ability of the

accused, the Public Attorney may move for its reduction (Public Attorney's Office,

2016).

In situations such as the arraignment, the Public Attorney’s duties should

ascertain the schedule for the arraignment of the accused. Should there be none,

he/she shall immediately file a Motion to Set Case for Arraignment of the

accused within thirty (30) days from the time the court acquired jurisdiction over

the person of the accused. The Public Attorney should also file the said motion

within ten (10) days from the date of the raffle or from receipt of the information if

the accused is a detention prisoner. (Public Attorney's Office, 2016)

Immediately after arraignment, the public attorney may move either in

open court or in writing that pre-trial be scheduled within thirty (30) days from the

time the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused who is out on
 44

bail; or within ten (10) days after the arraignment if the accused is a detention

prisoner. (Public Attorney's Office, 2016)

During Pre-trial, the Public Attorney has four (4) responsibilities to protect

the rights of his clientele:

A Public Attorney ensures that the agreements or admissions made or

entered into during the preliminary and/or pre-trial conference are faithfully and

accurately reflected in the written form before signing the transcription, to the end

that the accused shall be bound only by the admission/s made by him/her, and

by the agreement/s that he/she actually entered into;

Second, determine if the Pre-trial Order is an accurate reflection of the

actions taken, the facts stipulated and the pieces of evidence marked. Should

there be errors or inaccuracies, move for the same to be rectified, prior to the

agreed/scheduled initial presentation of evidence.

Thereafter, the Public Attorney shall move for the setting of the case for

trial to commence, with at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for the same, but

likewise making sure that the initial presentation of evidence be set within thirty

(30) days from receipt of the Pre-trial order. In the event that the pre-trial has

already been scheduled and the complainant fails to appear despite due notice,

move for the termination of the pre-trial and the setting of the case for trial (Public

Attorney's Office, 2016).

 45

Another duty of the Public Attorneys is to set a time limit on trial of the

accused. When the case is set for trial by the Court, the Public Attorney shall

take note and see to it that the case is set for continuous trial on a weekly or

other short term trial calendar at the earliest possible time, except for cases

falling under the Rules of Summary Procedure (Public Attorney's Office, 2016).

The entire trial period shall not exceed one hundred eighty (180) days

from the first day of trial for cases tried under regular procedure, and sixty (60)

days for cases tried under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, except when the trial court

is authorized in writing by the Chief Justice or by the Court Administrator (Public

Attorney's Office, 2016).

If the accused enters a plea of not guilty, the Public Attorney has at least

fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial, which shall commence within thirty (30) days

from receipt of the pre-trial order (Public Attorney's Office, 2016).

The Public Attorney shall take note of the period set forth in R.A. 8493 for

the Speedy Trial and/or Resolution of cases, and shall see to it that only the

allowable periods of delay as provided in Section 10 thereof be excluded from

computing the time within which trial must commence (Public Attorney's Office,

2016).

If there is an order for the accused to be tried again, the Public Attorney

shall see to it that the trial shall commence within thirty days from notice of the

order; except when witnesses are unavailable, or other factors make trial within

thirty (30) days impractical; in which case, the period may be extended, but such
 46

extension shall not exceed one hundred eighty (180) days from notice of the

order for new trial (Public Attorney's Office, 2016).

If an accused is not brought to trial within the time limit required by Section

7 of R.A. 8493, the Public Attorney shall move to dismiss the charge/information

on the ground of the denial of his/her right to speedy trial. The Public Attorney

shall prove the violation of the time limits set by the Act, and rebut that the delay

is attributable to any allowed exclusion from the period set by law. (Public

Attorney's Office, 2016)

Where the accused is detained and the time limits are not observed, the

Public Attorney should move to have the case dismissed on the ground of denial

of the right to speedy trial. (Public Attorney's Office, 2016)

The Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the accused was not brought to

trial within the time limit shall be filed by the Public Attorney prior to the trial or

entry of a plea of guilty; otherwise, such failure to so move shall constitute a

waiver of the right of dismissal under Section 13, R.A. 8493. (Public Attorney's

Office, 2016)

Another Duty of Public Attorney is where the accused has been detained

for a period at least equal to the minimum of the penalty for the offense charged

against him, without the court having motu proprio ordered his release, the

Public Attorney shall file a motion for the release of the accused on his own

recognizance. (Public Attorney's Office, 2016)

 47

B. The Number of Cases Handled by PAO GenSan

The following data includes the number of cases handled by the Public

Attorney’s Office in the district of General Santos from 2016 to 2018. Informants

have also given the researcher the following chart:

Table 2 – Inventory of Cases of PAO General Santos from 2016 to 2018.

(Courtesy of PAO General Santos)

The said chart shows the number of cases the PAO General Santos

represented from 2016 to 2018. Records show that prior to 2016, the PAO in the

district of General Santos has two thousand four hundred sixty nine (2,469)

criminal cases. By the end of the year 2018, the criminal cases rose to three

thousand four hundred sixty-six (3,466). (Public Attorney's Office General Santos

City, 2020)

During the years of 2016, 2017, and 2018, PAO had six (6) to eight (8)

public attorneys serving all trial courts in General Santos City. During this period,,

the number of courts in General Santos increased from five (5) Regional Trial
 48

Courts (RTC), and three (3) Municipal Trial Courts in Cities to nine (9) RTCs and

3 MTCCs. (Public Attorney's Office General Santos City, 2020)

7000
6425
Total Cases
Received by
6000 PAO GenSan
since the End
of 2015
5000 4667
Cases
Handled by
PAO GenSan
4000
3343

3000 3476 3466

2469 New Cases
2929
2000 2469 1758
1324 1768
874
1000 Terminated/
777 Acquitted
414 Cases
0
End of 2015 2016 2017 2018

Figure 2 – Line Graph Showing the Growth of Numbers of

PAO GenSan’s Criminal Cases

In the above line graph, data show that since 2015, the cases of PAO

General Santos District are growing drastically in a fast rate. Receiving 864

cases in 2016, then 1,324 cases in 2017, and 1,758 cases in 2018, the

researcher found that in just two years, PAO received twice the amount of cases

that it had previously handled. (Public Attorney's Office General Santos City,

2020)

The graph also shows the new and terminated cases that the PAO

General Santos District received and closed. As shown, the new cases grew

steadily every year. The terminated cases line also shows that the PAO General
 49

Santos District caused for the dismissed/ acquittal a lot of cases especially in the

year 2018. In fact, the PAO General Santos District have already terminated

cases more than the number of new cases it had received.

When compared to the numbers of cases the PAO General Santos District

received in the years 2016, 2017, and 2018, from the years 2015, 2016, and

2017, the rise of number of cases is not as drastic as shown in the line graph. In

2016, the PAO General Santos District received 26% additional criminal cases.

In the year 2017, the docket criminal cases increased to 31% more compared to

2016, and in the year

2018, it grew to 33% more

than the previous year. It

2929, 30%
3476, 35% is because the Public
2016
2017
Attorney’s Office has also
2018

increased the numbers of

3466, 35%
the cases they have

caused to be resolved or

terminated during that

Figure 3 – Pie Graph Showing the Numbers of specific year.
PAO GenSan’s Cases by Year

Nevertheless, data still shows that the Public Attorney’s Office has a

noticeable growth from the years 2016, 2017, and 2018. Informants discussed

that there are a lot of reasons behind the growth of number of cases.
 50

C. Thematic Analysis on the Increased of Cases Handled by PAO

General Santos and How PAO Close Cases from 2016 to 2018

To further understand the reasons why the cases handled of PAO doubled

in just two years, and how they have handled their cases, four PAO Lawyer-

Informants have interviewed informally by the researcher.

Themes Sub-theme Description

The War on Drugs and

War on Drugs the War on Gambling –
Reasons behind the two major operations by
Huge Growth of Number the law enforcement are
of Cases from 2016 to the major variables of
2018 why the cases handled
Gambling Cases by PAO increased within
2016, 2017 and 2018

PAO Lawyers helped the

Methods of PAO GenSan Plea Bargaining litigants by coordinating
in helping the litigants
with the court a speed
and the court in
trial and applying plea
terminating or closing
GCTA Law bargaining and GTCA
cases
law, if it applicable.

Table 3 Thematic Analysis - Thematic Analysis on the Increased of Cases

Handled by PAO General Santos and How PAO Close Cases from 2016 to 2018

The four PAO Lawyer-Informants have suggested in an informal interview

that the two major reasons of the sudden increased of number of cases, not just

in the General Santos District of PAO, werethe War on Drugs and the War on

Gambling initiated by the Duterte Administration and enforced by the Philippine

National Police.
 51

During the start of Duterte’s tenure, thousands were arrested, and tried

before the courts. Public Attorneys in the General Santos District affirmed that a

lot of the cases that they have handled involve drug cases. According to the

informants, it is apparent that in the span of three years, majority of the

suspected dealers and users caught by the law enforcement are indigent.

On September 2016 alone, 709,527 alleged “drug users” and “pushers”

have surrendered throughout the country under the Project Tokhang (Francisco,

2016). Though the PAO General Santos District cannot offer the exact number of

drug cases filed in General Santos, informants have confirmed that during the

years 2016 to 2018, and even until today, they have handled a lot of drug-related

criminal cases.

In 2017, an interview was made to the Chief of Public Attorney’s Office,

Atty. Percida Acosta. She said that since Duterte came into power, PAO holds

303,000 drug-related cases over the Philippines. Prior to Duterte’s tenure, PAO

was only handling 82,000 drug related cases. Therefore, PAO related cases

increased dramatically by 270% in just months. (South China Morning Post,

2017).

Additionally, Persida said that among the cases handled by PAO

throughout the country, more than fifty percent of those are drug-related cases. If

three hundred three thousand (303,000) cases is more than fifty percent of the

cases handled by PAO, it can be said that the caseload of PAO throughout the

country is more than 606,000 cases. With only around 1,655 Public attorneys all
 52

over the country, the average caseload of a public attorney is three hundred

sixty-six (366). (South China Morning Post, 2017)

With that being said, the role of the PAO in the War on Drugs was

emphasized by the president himself. In a September 2017 program involving

Public Attorneys, President Rodrigo Duterte said that “by protecting the rights of

arrested suspects, [public attorneys] complement [the] government’s drive

against criminality by ensuring that our police operations are above-board and

individual rights are not violated” (Presidential Communications Operations

Office, 2017).

Public Attorney’s Office had a major role in defending and protecting the

rights and the due processes of those who were accused as drug dealers and

users. Even though there are a lot of Pro Bono offices and institutions existed to

help the indigent and other clienteles who cannot afford to have a lawyer, PAO

served and still serving as the main institution that provides legal assistance to

the indigent, especially in the times were the War on Drugs is happening.

Another reason of the drastic growth of numbers of criminal cases handled

by PAO is illegal gambling and related cases. This is due to the “War on

Gambling” that the Philippines National Police have initiated around the country.

(CNN Philippines, 2020). This is also happening in General Santos City, as

public attorney – informants have confirmed this to the researcher.

Notwithstanding the sudden increased of number of cases handled by

PAO that led to an increase of more than 100% from year 2016 to year 2018, the
 53

Public Attorney’s Office have also terminated or resolved cases 101% more than

the cases the office received. Informants discussed that the reason behind the

speedy disposal of cases correlates with the Supreme Courts enhanced policies

regarding Plea Barganing, and Application of the Good Conduct Time Allowance

(GCTA) Law.

Plea Bargaining is defined as “the process whereby the accused and the

prosecutor in a criminal case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the

case subject to court approval. It usually involves the defendant's pleading guilty

to a lesser offense or to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count

indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for the graver charge (ibid).

Ordinarily, plea-bargaining is made during the pre-trial stage of the criminal

proceedings. However, the law still permits the accused sufficient opportunity to

change his plea thereafter” (People of the Philippines vs Martin S. Villarama, Et.

Al., 1992).

Plea bargaining is an effective way to help many litigants to bargain their

plea to lesser offenses. These are they who possessed below five grams (5g) of

shabu and less than three hundred grams (300g) in the case of marijuana. The

Supreme Court in a resolution reminded lower courts and lawyers to help litigants

achieved the proper due process of the law and also a speedy trial to be held for

them. (Supreme Court of the Philippines, 2019).

Informants also said that The Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) is

one of the ways of help for their litigants to received justice. The GCTA law
 54

“allows for a reduction of sentences of PDLs, depending on how well they abide

by rules and regulations inside “any penal institution, rehabilitation, or detention

center or any other local jail.” (Gavilan, 2019)

D. Comparison Between the Number of Cases Handled by PAO and

other Lawyers

To fully understand the said overwhelming task imposed on the Public

Attorney’s Office, one should see the full picture of what is happening in the

courts of General Santos City. The researcher has requested the numbers of

cases filed in the courts in General Santos City. Below are the following data

received from the Office of the Executive Clerk of Courts of Regional Trial Court

and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities in General Santos City.

Table 4 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Cases per Year According to

Courts in General Santos City

2016 2017 2018 TOTAL

INDICATORS
P % P % P % P %
RTC 1,564 25% 1,192 19% 1,469 24% 4,225 68%

MTCC 616 10% 558 9% 820 13% 1,994 32%

Total 2,180 35% 1,750 28% 2,289 37% 6,219 100%

In the Regional Trial Court, the Office of the Clerk of Court have received

1,564 cases in the year 2016; 1,192 cases in 2017; and 1,469 cases in 2018. In

total, the Regional Trial Court have received 4,225 cases from 2016 to 2018.

The Office of the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities on the

other hand, has received 616 cases in 2016, 558 cases in 2017, and 820 cases
 55

in 2018. There are 1,994 cases that the MTCC have recorded within the span of

three years, from 2016 to 2018.

In entirety, both courts have recorded the following data: 2,180 cases

received in 2016; 1,750 cases in 2017; and 2,289 cases in 2018. Within three

years, the courts in General Santos City have received 6,219 cases.

Table 5 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Cases per Year According to

Lawyers in General Santos City

2016 2017 2018 TOTAL

INDICATORS
P % P % P % P %
PAO GenSan
874 40% 1,324 76% 1,758 77% 3,956 64%
District
Other
1306 60% 426 24% 531 23% 2,263 36%
Lawyers
Total 2,180 100% 1,750 100% 2,289 100% 6,219 100%

Comparing the data received

Figure 4 Criminal Cases Filed in the
from PAO General Santos District to Courts - General Santos in 2016

the data received from the Offices of

the Clerks of Court of RTC and Handled

by PAO
Handled 874
MTCC, it can be noticed that the by Other 40%
Counsel
PAO have handled the majority of 1306
60%
cases. It was in the year 2016 that

the majority of cases was

represented by private lawyers instead of being handled by the PAO. The reason

of this correlated with the War on Drugs initiative of the Duterte Administration

that only started in the second half of the year.

 56

In the year 2017, the cases Figure 5 Criminal Cases Filed in the
Courts - General Santos in 2017
handled by Public Attorney’s Office

rose even though the case received

Handled
by Other
by the two Offices of the Clerks of Counsel
426
Court have lowered to 20% 24%
Handled
compared to the past year. These by PAO
1324
76%
cases handled by PAO are

accounted to the 76% of cases

received by the courts.

The War on Gambling had also started in the year 2017. The Philippine

National Police has started to dismantle even the smallest gambling

organizations in the community. This caused the increased in the number of

criminal cases.
Figure 6 Criminal Cases Filed in the
Courts - General Santos in 2018
The number of cases handled

by PAO has increased to 1,758 cases Handled

by Other
or 77% of the total cases in the year Counsel
531
2018. Other private or pro bono 23%

Handled
counsels or lawyers were accounted by PAO
1758
for the other 531 or 23% of the total 77%

cases in 2018.

Hence, observing from the data, one should see that the Public Attorney’s

Office plays a gigantic role in defending the rights of their qualified clienteles –
 57

the indigents and the poor – and even achieving the justice these clients and

litigants deserve.

Part III. The Effectiveness of Public Attorney’s Office in General Santos City

in Providing Legal Assistance for the Litigants

The researcher conducted two (2) surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of

PAO in the District of General Santos. The first survey was conducted to the

clients of the Public Attorney’s Office. The second survey, on the other hand, has

middle-level officials as its respondents.

A. The Survey for the Clienteles of Public Attorney’s Office

Twenty-five (25) informants were asked to participate in the survey. In

this particular survey, seven (7) questions were asked to the informants.

Questions ranging from PAO as a client-friendly office to how Public

Attorneys help their clientele to how the Public Attorneys help their clienteles

in providing speedy trial in court were asked. A Likert scale was used to help

the respondents determine how effective the Public Attorney’s Office in the

district of General Santos City is on giving legal aid.

 58

1. Profiling of the Respondents

a) Table 6 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

According to Sex

Male Female Total

INDICATORS F % F % F %
7 47% 8 53% 15 100%

Table 6 showed eight (8) or 53% of the total fifteen (15) respondents are

female. Seven (7) male respondents make the 47% of the total respondents.

Hence, the majority of the respondents are females.

b) Table 7 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents

According to the Purpose of Transaction

PAO General Santos

INDICATORS F %

Case-related Inquiry 4 27%

Other Inquiry 1 7%
Request of Documents 3 20%
Does Not Specify 7 47%
TOTAL 15 100%

Table 7 showed seven (7) or 47% of the respondents wished not to

specify the purpose of their transaction, four (4) or 27% had case-related

inquiries; three (3) or 20% requested certain documents such as affidavits; and

one (1) or 7% of the total respondents had other inquiry for the PAO General

Santos District. Hence, majority or seven (7) or 47% of the respondents wished

not to specify the purpose of their transaction in the Public Attorney’s Office.
 59

2. Effectiveness of PAO General Santos District in Providing Legal

Assistance

The Table 8 shows the perception of the 15 respondents to the

effectiveness of PAO General Santos District in providing legal assistance. The

table has seven (7) questions or indicators.

a) Table 8 Level of Effectiveness on the Performance of PAO

General Santos District

NO. OF RESPONSES
INDICATORS (8 Strongly Strongly
Agree Undecided Disagree
clients as of May 6th) Agree Disagree
F % F % F % F % F %

PAO is a client- 80 20
8.1
friendly office.
12 %
3 %
0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

You feel welcome

when you inquired
80 20
8.2 and asked for 12 3 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
% %
assistance in
PAO GenSan.
The PAO
Attorney/ Staff
clearly explained 73 20
8.3
the nature and
11 %
3 %
1 7% 0 0% 0 0%
dynamics of the
case.
The PAO Attorney
explains your role/
participation in the 80 13
8.4
favorable
12 %
2 %
1 7% 0 0% 0 0%
resolution of the
case.
The PAO Attorney
gives her/his best 73 20
8.5 11 3 1 0% 0 0% 0 0%
effort in your % %
defense.
The PAO Attorney
will help the court
60 20 20
8.6 in the timely 9 3 3 0 0% 0 0%
% % %
resolution of the
case.
 60

You are satisfied

with the services 87 13
8.7 13 2 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
rendered by the % %
PAO GenSan.

Indicator 8.1 demonstrated that twelve (12) or 80% of the respondents

strongly agreed that PAO General Santos District is a client-friendly office. Three

(3) or 20%, on the other hand, agreed to the same statement. While there are

zilch (0) or 0% respondents who were undecided, and also zero (0) or 0%

respondents have disagreed or strongly disagreed to the statement.

Indicator 8.2 exhibited that twelve (12) or 80% of the respondents strongly

agreed that they have felt welcome when they inquired and asked for assistance

in PAO General Santos District. Three (3) or 20%, on the other hand, agreed to

the same statement. While there were zero (0) or 0% respondents who were

undecided, and also zero (0) or 0% respondents have disagreed or strongly

disagreed to the statement.

Indicator 8.3 displayed that eleven (11) or 73% of the respondents

strongly agreed that the PAO Attorney/ Staff clearly explained to them the nature and

dynamics of their cases. Three (3) or 20%, on the other hand, agreed to the same

statement one (1) or 7% respondent was undecided to the statement while zero

(0) or 0% respondents have disagreed or strongly disagreed to the statement.

Indicator 8.4 presented that twelve (12) or 80% of the respondents

strongly agreed that the PAO Attorney explained to them the role/ participation in the

favorable resolution of their cases. Two (2) or 13%, on the other hand, agreed to the

same statement one (1) or 7% respondent was undecided to the statement while
 61

zero (0) or 0% respondents have disagreed or strongly disagreed to the

statement.

Indicator 8.5 showed that eleven (11) or 73% of the respondents strongly

agreed that the PAO Attorney gives her/his best effort in their defense. Three (3) or

20%, on the other hand, agreed to the same statement. One (1) or 7%

respondent was undecided to the statement while zero (0) or 0% respondents

have disagreed or strongly disagreed to the statement.

Indicator 8.6 revealed that nine (9) or 60% of the respondents strongly

agreed that the PAO Attorney will help the court in the timely resolution of the

case. Three (3) or 20%, on the other hand, agreed to the same statement three

(3) or 20% respondent was undecided to the statement while zero (0) or 0%

respondents have disagreed or strongly disagreed to the statement.

Indicator 8.7 showed that thirteen (13) or 87% of the respondents strongly

agreed that they were satisfied with the services rendered by the PAO GenSan.

Two (2) or 13%, on the other hand, agreed to the same statement zero (0) or 0%

respondent was undecided to the statement while zero (0) or 0% respondents

have disagreed or strongly disagreed to the statement.

B. The Survey for the Court Middle-Level Officials

Nineteen (19) informants were asked and participated to take the survey.

Eight (8) of the said informants are Clerk of Courts and Eleven (11) are court

interpreters. The offices of the Court of Clerk and of the Court Interpreter are the
 62

most suitable employees in the court to participate in the surveys for they closely

interact with the Public Attorneys during trial of the criminal cases.

In this particular survey, two (2) questions and six (6) sub questions were

asked the informants. The survey is a checkbox questionnaire, where informants

are asked to answer two yes and no questions. In each question, the “yes” option

has a four sub statements that reflect possible reasons why they agree on the

question.

1. Profiling of the Respondents

a) Table 9 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents by

Court Position According to Sex

Clerks of Court Interpreters Total

INDICATORS
F % F % F %
Male 4 50% 2 18% 6 32%
Female 4 50% 9 82% 13 68%
Total 8 100% 11 100% 19 100%

Table 9 showed that the majority of the respondents are females. Four (4)

or 50% of the clerks of court were female and also, four (4) or 50% of the court of

clerks were male. Nine (9) or 82% are female interpreters, two (2) or 18% are

male interpreters. In total, thirteen (13) or 68% of the total nineteen (19)

respondents were female and six (6) or 32% were male respondents.
 63

b) Table 10 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents by

Court Position According to Age

Clerks of Court Interpreters Total

INDICATORS
F % F % F %
21-30 0 0% 1 9% 1 5%
31-40 3 37.5% 3 27% 6 32%
41-50 4 50% 3 27% 7 37%
51-60 1 12.5% 4 36% 5 26%
Total 8 100% 11 100% 19 100%

Table 10 showed that the respondents age bracket. Four (4) or 50% of the

clerks of court are in the age in the 40-50 age bracket. Three (3) or 37.5% of the

court of clerks were aged between 31-40. 12.5% or one (1) clerk of court

respondent is in the 51-60 age bracket.

Four (4) or 36% of the interpreter respondents were in the 51-60 age

bracket. Three (3) or 27% of the said respondents are in the ages between 41-

50. The said numbers are also the same to the age bracket 31-40. The age

bracket 21-30 has the least number of interpreter respondents, tallying with only

one (1) or 9% of the total interpreter respondents. Hence, informants with ages

41-50 is the majority of the informants.

Table 11 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Court

Position According to Educational Attainment
Clerks of Court Interpreters Total
INDICATORS
F % F % F %
College 0 0% 0 % 0 0%
College Graduate/
1 12% 9 81% 10 52.3%
Bachelor’s Degree
Post Graduate 0 0% 1 9% 1 5.3%
 64

Bachelor of Laws/
7 88% 1 9% 9 42.3%
Juris Doctor
Total 8 100% 11 100% 19 100%

Table 11 showed that the majority of the respondents received bachelor’s

degree. Seven (7) or 88% of the clerks of court graduated and finished their

Bachelor of Laws (LLB) and/or received the Jurist Doctorate Degree, while one

(1) or 12% have finished a bachelor’s degree. On the other hand, nine (9) or 81%

of the interpreters received bachelor’s degree, while one (1) or 9% of the total

interpreter respondents has received a bachelor’s degree, and also one (1) or

9% interpreter respondents have received a post-graduate education. In total, ten

(10) or 52% of the total nineteen (19) respondents were college graduate or

bachelor’s degree holder, nine (9) or 42.3% of are Bachelor of Laws and/or Jurist

Doctorate Degree Holders, and one (1) or 5.3% have post graduate studies.

Hence, majority of them holds bachelor’s degrees or bachelor of laws.

2. Effectiveness of PAO General Santos District in Providing Legal

Assistance

a) Table 12 Level of Effectiveness on the Performance of PAO General

Santos District

No. of Responses
INDICATIORS
F %
In your assessment/ The lawyers are
observation, is PAO
GenSan effective in hardworking,
handling criminal I. competent, faithful, 19 100%
cases of its and true to the
A.
12.1 clientele?
Yes mission of PAO.
In your The PAO helped the
assessment/ court in providing 16 84%
II.
observation, is speedy trial to the
 65

PAO GenSan cases.

effective in
handling The PAO lawyers
criminal cases are easily trusted by
III. 16 84%
of its clientele? poor/ indigent
(cont.) litigants
IV. Others 2 -
B. No* 0 0%
The Incumbent PAO
lawyers are being
I. promoted to the 14 74%
prosecution and the
In your judiciary frequently
assessment/ There are more
observation, A.
II. courts than there 18 95%
12.2 does PAO need Yes are PAO Lawyers
more lawyers in The PAO caseload
GenSan III. is just so 18 95%
district? overwhelming.
IV. Others 1 -
B. No** 0 0%

Figure 12.1 shows the perception of the court employees in the

effectiveness of the Public Attorney’s Office. If the respondent, affirmed to a

certain question, he or she has to check the box or boxes of the reason/s why.

The two questions have four sub-statements to be checked, with while one sub-

statement if they denied the questions.

The first question stated in the survey was – “in your assessment/

observation, is PAO GenSan effective in handling criminal cases of its clientele?”

Nineteen (19) or 100% of the respondents agree to the statement found in

the Indicator 12.1.A.I. The statement said “The lawyers are hardworking,

competent, faithful, and true to the mission of PAO.”

 66

In the Indicator 12.1.A.II, sixteen (16) of the respondents agreed to the

statement “The PAO helped the court in providing speedy trial to the cases.” 84%

of the total respondents have affirmed to the aforementioned statement.

Sixteen (16) or 84% of the respondents agree to the statement found in

the Indicator 12.1.A.III. The statement said “The PAO lawyers are easily trusted

by poor/ indigent litigants.”

The fourth sub-statement is an “others” option, where respondents can opt

to write-in the statements he or she or they did not find or want to add another

reason. Two (2) or 11% of the respondents have included other reasons of PAO

GenSan’s effectiveness in handling criminal cases.

First of the statements was from a Clerk of Court of a Regional Trial Court.

He has written “PAO lawyers are experienced.” The second statement was from

a Court Interpreter from a Regional Trial Court. She said that PAO Lawyers are

“working with compassion.”

The last sub section, found in the Indicator 12.1.1 is the Indicator 12.1.1.B.

The indicator stated that they did not affirm the statement that the PAO is

effective in handling criminal cases. None (0) or 0% of the respondents have

checked the said statement.

The second question stated in the survey was – “In your assessment/

observation, does PAO need more lawyers in GenSan district?”

 67

Fourteen (14) or 74% of the respondents agree to the statement found in

the Indicator 12.2.B.I. The statement said “The lawyers are hardworking,

competent, faithful, and true to the mission of PAO.”

In the Indicator 12.2.B.II, eighteen (18) of the respondents agreed to the

statement “There are more courts than there are PAO Lawyers.” 95% of the total

respondents have affirmed to the aforementioned statement.

Eighteen (18) or 95% of the respondents agree to the statement found in

the Indicator 12.2.B.III. The statement said “The PAO caseload is just so

overwhelming.”

The fourth sub-statement is an “others” option, where respondents can opt

to write-in the statements he or she or they did not find on the list. One (1) or 5%

of the respondents included other reasons pertaining to the number of PAO

lawyers needed in General Santos district, based on her assessment/

observation.

The statement was from a Court Interpreter of a Regional Trial Court. She

has written that the number of PAO Lawyers needs to have this ratio: to “one

court - one prosecutor – one PAO.”

The last sub section, found in the Indicator 12.2.1 is the Indicator 11.2.1.B.

The indicator asked if they did not affirm to the statement that the PAO is

effective in handling criminal cases. None (0) or 0% of the respondents have

checked the said statement.