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
reason.
> 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.