Chief Justice Arthur Ngiraklsong, Associate Justice Alexandra F. Foster and Associate Justice Pro Tem Rose Mary Skebong in an opinion order yesterday said that the trial court’s decision that Ting Feng Chiang established an actual conflict of interest which violated his right to effective assistance of counsel was factually wrong.
The justices in their 9-pages opinion order said that although Chiang might have demonstrated his entitlement to habeas corpus on different grounds, the Supreme Court’s role is limited to a review of the trial court’s decision.The defendant who was sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of $50,000 after he was convicted on April 23, 2007 of ten counts of people trafficking, ten counts of exploiting a trafficked person, one count of advancing prostitution, two counts of violation of the Foreign Investment Act, nine counts of violation of the tax code, and ten counts of violation of the labor laws, filed a petition for habeas corpus.The trial court granted the petition and ordered him released from custody.The court issued the writ of habeas corpus and ruled that Chiang did not get adequate representation during the trial.Specifically, the trial court ruled that Chiang’s attorney had an actual conflict of interest which adversely affected his performance.Chiang was charged along with Baiyue Wang and Lolita Pamintuan. President Johnson Toribiong, then a practicing lawyer, represented Chiang and Pamintuan.Chiang also appealed his conviction. He raised the translation issue and the ineffective assistance of counsel in his appeal.The Appellate Division reversed his conviction. The Appellate Division remanded the matter for a new trial.The Appellate Division said the trial court found that the ineffective assistance grounds were sufficient to justify the writ but did not discuss the translation issue in the habeas corpus decision.The Appellate Division reversed Chiang’s conviction based on the interpreter issue and the trial court’s failure to conduct a conflict of interest analysis.The government who is representing the Bureau of Public Safety, Ministry of Justice and the Division of Corrections sought to overturn the grant of habeas corpus and argued that there was no actual conflict and Chiang’s attorney provided effective assistance.The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court said although it has been determined that Chiang is entitled to a new trial because of the constitutional defects of his first trial, the issue of whether there was an actual conflict has not yet been decided.The Supreme Court’s Appellate Division in ruling the habeas corpus issue, said that Chiang failed to show that the joint representation had a discernible impact on the quality of counsel’s representation or the loyalty provided to Chiang.The Supreme Court said Chiang is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus on the ground of actual conflict.
