You are on page 1of 9

CABS

RULE 116: ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA


PEOPLE v. PANGILINAN ARRAIGNMENT, DEFINED: Arraignment is the formal mode and
manner of implementing the constitutional right of an accused to
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him.20

PURPOSE OF ARRAIGNMENT: The purpose of arraignment is,


thus, to apprise the accused of the possible loss of freedom, even
of his life, depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him,
or at the very least to inform him of why the prosecuting arm of
the State is mobilized against him.21

ARRAIGNMENT AFTER CASE IS SUBMITTED FOR DECISION IS


CURED BY DEFENDANT’S PARTICIPATION IN THE TRIAL:
Appellant’s belated arraignment did not prejudice him. This
procedural defect was cured when his counsel participated in the
trial without raising any objection that his client had yet to be
arraigned. In fact, his counsel even cross-examined the
prosecution witnesses. His counsel’s active participation in the
hearings is a clear indication that he was fully aware of the
charges against him; otherwise, his counsel would have objected
and informed the court of this blunder. Moreover, no protest was
made when appellant was subsequently arraigned. The parties
did not question the procedure undertaken by the trial court. It is
only now, after being convicted and sentenced to two death
sentences, that appellant cries that his constitutional right has
been violated. It is already too late to raise this procedural defect.
This Court will not allow it.

In People v. Cabale22 and People v. Atienza23 where the same


issue was raised under similar circumstances, we held that while
the arraignment of appellant was conducted after the cases had
been submitted for decision, the error is non-prejudicial and has
been fully cured. Since appellant’s rights and interests were not
prejudiced by this lapse in procedure, it only follows that his
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him was not violated.

BRAZA v. SANDIGANBAYAN CONDITIONAL / PROVISIONAL ARRAIGNMENT: The Court had


tangentially recognized such practice in People v.
25
Espinosa, provided that the alleged conditions attached to the
arraignment should be "unmistakable, express, informed and

1
CABS

enlightened." The Court further required that the conditions must


be expressly stated in the order disposing of arraignment,
otherwise, it should be deemed simple and unconditional.

CONDITIONAL PLEA MAY BAR DOUBLE JEOPARDY: Having given


his conformity and accepted the conditional arraignment and its
legal consequences, Braza is now estopped from assailing its
conditional nature just to conveniently avoid being arraigned and
prosecuted of the new charge under the second information.
PEOPLE v. ESPINOSA SIMPLE AND UNCONDITIONAL ARRAIGNMENT DO NOT BAR
DOUBLE JEOPARDY: Conditions attached to an arraignment must
be unmistakable, express, informed and enlightened. They must
be expressly stated in the Order disposing of the arraignment.
Otherwise, the plea should be deemed to be simple and
unconditional.

ALBERT v. SANDIGANBAYAN AMENDMENTS MADE AFTER A SIMPLE ARRAIGNMENT MAY


ONLY BE FORMAL: In People v. Espinosa,14 this Court tangentially
recognized such practice, provided that the alleged conditions
attached thereto should be "unmistakable, express, informed and
enlightened." Moreover, the conditions must be expressly stated
in the Order disposing of the arraignment; otherwise, the
arraignment should be deemed simple and unconditional. 15

Nothing on record is indicative of the provisional or conditional


nature of the arraignment. Hence, following the doctrine laid
down in Espinosa, the arraignment of petitioner should be
deemed simple and unconditional.
BANDOY v. JACINTO ARRAIGNMENT MUST BE DONE IN OPEN COURT, NOT
CHAMBERS: The arraignment shall be made in open court by the
judge or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the
complaint or information, reading the same in the language or
dialect known to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or
not guilty.

HAO v. PEOPLE SUSPENSION OF ARRAIGNMENT; PENDING REVIEW; LIMITED TO


60 DAYS: We emphasize that the right of an accused to have his
arraignment suspended is not an unqualified right.1âwphi1 In
Spouses Trinidad v. Ang,47 we explained that while the pendency
of a petition for review is a ground for suspension of the
arraignment, the Rules limit the deferment of the arraignment to
a period of 60 days reckoned from the filing of the petition with
the reviewing office. It follows, therefore, that after the
expiration of the 60-day period, the trial court is bound to arraign

2
CABS

the accused or to deny the motion to defer arraignment.48

As the trial court found in its February 26, 2004 order, the DOJ’s
delay in resolving the petitioners’ petition for review had already
exceeded 60 days. Since the suspension of the petitioners’
arraignment was already beyond the period allowed by the Rules,
the petitioners’ motion to suspend completely lacks any legal
basis.

ABSCBN v. GOZON SIXTY DAYS SUSPENSION OF ARRAIGNMENT IS MANDATORY:


While the pendency of a petition for review is a ground for
suspension of the arraignment, the . . . provision limits the
deferment of the arraignment to a period of 60 days reckoned
from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. It follows,
therefore, that after the expiration of said period, the trial court
is bound to arraign the accused or to deny the motion to defer
arraignment.

AGUINALDO v. VENTUS 60 DAYS REGLEMENTARY PERIOD, NOT DIRECTORY: While the


pendency of a petition for review is a ground for suspension of
the arraignment, the aforecited provision limits the deferment of
the arraignment to a period of 60 days reckoned from the filing of
the petition with the reviewing office. It follows, therefore, that
after the expiration of said period, the trial court is bound to
arraign the accused or to deny the motion to defer arraignment.

PEOPLE v. AGBAYANI PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY AND RIGHT TO COUNSEL


DURING ARRAIGNMENT: The trial court is presumed to have
complied with its four-fold duties under Section 6 32 of Rule 116 of
the Rules of Court, namely, (1) to inform the accused that he has
the right to have his own counsel before being arraigned; (2) after
giving such information, to ask accused whether he desires the
aid of counsel; (3) if he so desires to procure the services of
counsel, the court must grant him reasonable time to do so; and
(4) if he so desires to have counsel but is unable to employ one,
the court must assign counsel de oficio to defend him.

DEFECT IN RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING ARRAIGNMENT CURED


BY PARTICIPATION: Besides, it is only in this appeal that appellant
raised the issue of the failure of the trial court to inform him of
the right to counsel. At no time did he previously raise it in the
trial court despite ample opportunity to do so. His consent to be

3
CABS

assisted by counselde oficio, coupled with said counsel's


extensive cross-examination of Dr. Baltazar, may even be
considered a waiver of his right to question the alleged failure of
the trial court to inform him of his right to counsel.
DAAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN PLEA BARGAIN, DEFINED: Plea bargaining in criminal cases is a
process whereby the accused and the prosecution 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.

PLEA BARGAIN, WHEN MADE: Ordinarily, plea bargaining is made


during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. But it may also be
made during the trial proper and even after the prosecution has
finished presenting its evidence and rested its case. Thus, the
Court has held that it is immaterial that plea bargaining was not
made during the pre-trial stage or that it was made only after the
prosecution already presented several witnesses.

REQUISITES OF PLEA BARGAIN: Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules


of Court presents the basic requisites upon which plea bargaining
may be made,i.e., that it should be with the consent of the
offended party and the prosecutor,10 and that the plea of guilt
should be to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the
offense charged. The rules however use word may in the second
sentence of Section 2, denoting an exercise of discretion upon the
trial court on whether to allow the accused to make such
plea.11 Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of
guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is not
supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or compromise
for the convenience of the accused.

NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT, PLEA BARGAIN: Court ruled that the


acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense is not
demandable by the accused as a matter of right but is a matter
that is addressed entirely to the sound discretion of the trial court

DISCRETION, PLEA BARGAIN AFTER PROSECUTION RESTS: After


the prosecution had already rested, the only basis on which the
fiscal and the court could rightfully act in allowing the appellant
to change his former plea of not guilty to murder to guilty to the
lesser crime of homicide could be nothing more nothing less than
the evidence already in the record. The reason for this being that

4
CABS

Section 4 of Rule 118 (now Section 2, Rule 116) under which a


plea for a lesser offense is allowed was not and could not have
been intended as a procedure for compromise, much less
bargaining.

DISCRETION, PLEA BARGAIN DURING PRE TRIAL: The trial court's


exercise of its discretion should neither be arbitrary nor should it
amount to a capricious and whimsical exercise of discretion.
Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction or, in
other words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner
by reason of passion, prejudice, or personal hostility; and it must
be so patent or gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive
duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law,
or to act at all in contemplation of law.

WHEN OFFENSE IS NECESSARILY INCLUDED: An offense may be


said to necessarily include another when some of the essential
elements or ingredients of the former as alleged in the
complaint or information constitute the latter. And vice versa,
an offense may be said to be necessarily included in another
when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form
part of those constituting the latter.
BUGATAN v. PEOPLE PLEA BARGAINING AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS MADE AT THE
SAME DAY, VALID: At the outset, it is easily discernable that
petitioners failed to point out any rule of procedure or provision
of law that was transgressed by the trial court. On the contrary,
the plea bargain was validly acted upon despite the fact that all
the proceedings, i.e. arraignment, plea bargaining and conviction,
occurred on a single day. Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of
Court, which authorizes plea bargain for a lesser offense in a
criminal case, is explicit on how and when a plea bargain may be
allowed.

CHANGE OF PLEA AFTER A PREVIOUS PLEA OF NOT GUILTY,


VALID: As clearly worded, there is nothing in the law which
expressly or impliedly prohibits the trial court from allowing an
accused to change his plea, on a plea bargain, immediately after a
previous plea of not guilty. In approving the plea bargaining
agreement, the trial court undoubtedly took into consideration
the timeliness of the plea bargaining and its compliance with the
requirements of the law.

PEOPLE v. VILLARAMA JUDGE MUST DISCLOSE THE WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION’S

5
CABS

EVIDENCE TO WARRANT A VALID GRANT OF PLEA BARGAIN:


After the prosecution had already rested its case. In such
situation, jurisprudence has provided the trial court and the
Office of the Prosecutor with yardstick within which their
discretion may be properly exercised. Thus, in People v., We held
that the rules allow such a plea only when the prosecution does
not have sufficient evidence to establish guilt of the crime
charged. In his concurring opinion in People v. Parohinog , then
Justice Antonio Barredo explained clearly and tersely the
rationale of the law:

. . . (A)fter the prosecution had already rested, the


only basis on which the fiscal and the court could
rightfully act in allowing the appellant to charge
his former plea of not guilty to murder to guilty to
the lesser crime of homicide could be nothing more
nothing less than the evidence already in the
record. The reason for this being that Section 4 of
Rule 118 (now Section 2, Rule 116) under which a
plea for a lesser offense is allowed was not and
could not have been intended as a procedure for
compromise, much less bargaining.

CONSENT OF BOTH PROSECUTIOR AND OFFENDED PARTY IS


NEEDED TO GRANT PLEA BARGAIN: The consent of both the
Fiscal and the offended party is a condition precedent to a valid
plea of guilty to a lesser offense (see Manuel v. Velasco, et
al., supra, p. 6). The reason for this is obvious. The Fiscal has full
control of the prosecution of criminal actions. Consequently, it is
his duty to always prosecute the proper offense, not any lesser
or graver one, when the evidence in his hands can only sustain
the former.

PEOPLE v. FRANCISCO SEARCHING INQUIRY, STANDARD: the accused has not been
coerced or placed under a state of duress either by actual threats
or physical harm coming from malevolent or avenging quarters,
and this it can do either by eliciting from the accused himself the
manner in which he has been brought into the custody of the law
and whether he had the assistance of competent counsel during
the custodial and preliminary investigations or by ascertaining
from him the conditions of his detention and interrogation during
the investigation.16

6
CABS

It is also imperative that "a series of questions directed at defense


counsel on whether or not counsel has conferred with the
accused and has completely explained to him the meaning of a
plea of guilt are well-taken steps along those lines."17

In People v. Bello, the Court explained that: "A ‘searching inquiry,’


under the Rules, means more than informing cursorily the
accused that he faces a jail term but so also, the exact length of
imprisonment under the law and the certainty that he will serve
time at the national penitentiary or a penal colony." 18

Lastly, it has been mandated that the accused or his or her


counsel be furnished with a copy of the complaint and the list of
witnesses against the accused.

PROSECUTION REQUIRED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE EVEN IF THERE


IS A PLEA GUILT FOR A CAPITAL OFFENSE: The rule now stands,
"even in cases in which the accused pleads guilty to a capital
offense, the prosecution is still required to present evidence to
prove his guilt and the precise degree of his culpability." 25 In
other words, notwithstanding the plea of guilt, evidence must be
adduced to determine the precise participation of the accused in
the perpetuation of the capital offense—whether as principal,
accomplice, or accessory—as well as the presence or absence of
modifying circumstances. And "the accused may also present
evidence in his behalf"26either to rebut the prosecution’s
evidence or to show the presence of mitigating
circumstances.1avvphi1

PEOPLE v. BAHARAN SEARCHING INQUIRY NOT SATISFIED BY EXPLANATION OF


DEFENSE COUNSEL OF CONSEQUENCES: the requirement to
conduct a searching inquiry should not be deemed satisfied in
cases in which it was the defense counsel who explained the
consequences of a "guilty" plea to the accused, as it appears in
this case. In People v. Alborida, this Court found that there was
still an improvident plea of guilty, even if the accused had already
signified in open court that his counsel had explained the
consequences of the guilty plea; that he understood the
explanation of his counsel; that the accused understood that the
penalty of death would still be meted out to him; and that he had
not been intimidated, bribed, or threatened.

7
CABS

PEOPLE v. MENDOZA GRANT OF WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA OF GUILT TO BE VALID: The


exercise of that power should be justified by some compelling
reason such as error, fraud, illegality or manifest injustice. The
trial court is not invested with unbridled discretion to set aside a
judgment of conviction based on a plea of guilty just because it
has not yet become final.

It is not the ministerial or routinary duty of the trial court, on a


mere request or petition of the accused, to allow him to
substitute a plea of not guilty for his prior plea of guilty and to set
aside the judgment of conviction already rendered in the case.

In such a situation, the setting aside of the judgment is


tantamount to reopening the case and granting a new trial (Fiscal
of Manila vs. Del Rosario, 52 Phil. 20, 24). While the motion of the
accused for the withdrawal of his plea of guilty need not be
verified (Paredes vs. Borja and Catalan, 113 Phil. 482, 489), it
should at least have some rational basis. The accused should
state that he has meritorious defenses to the charge. The
motion should be set for hearing.

The prosecution should be heard on that motion. The trial court


should state the reasons for setting aside the judgment of
conviction and for permitting the accused to substitute a plea of
not guilty for his plea of guilty.

The trial court should not act in a perfunctory manner in setting


aside the judgment of conviction and in allowing the substitution
of pleas because the accused should not trifle with the court by
gambling on the result of his change of pleas.

PEOPLE v. DOCUMENTO REMAND NOT NECESSARY WHEN IMPROVIDENT PLEA IS NOT


THE SOLE BASIS OF CONVICTION: With the trial court’s failure to
comply with the guidelines, appellant’s guilty plea is deemed
improvidently made and thus rendered inefficacious.

This does not mean, however, that the case should be remanded
to the trial court. This course of action is appropriate only when
the appellant’s guilty plea was the sole basis for his conviction. As
held in People v. Mira, -

Notwithstanding the incautiousness that attended appellant’s


guilty plea, we are not inclined to remand the case to the trial

8
CABS

court as suggested by appellant. Convictions based on an


improvident plea of guilt are set aside only if such plea is the sole
basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient and
credible evidence in finding the accused guilty, the judgment must
be sustained, because then it is predicated not merely on the
guilty plea of the accused but also on evidence proving his
commission of the offense charged.

PEOPLE v. DESUYO BILL OF PARTICULARS, MOTION FOR: The remedy against an


indictment that fails to allege the time of commission of the
offense with sufficient definiteness is a motion for bill of
particulars.

FAILURE TO INVOKE REMEDIES WILL NOT BAR ADMISSION OF


EVIDENCE; CURED:The failure of the accused to move for the
specification of the date when the alleged crime was committed
or for the quashal of the Information on the ground that it does
not conform substantially to the prescribed form10deprives him of
the right to object to evidence which could lawfully be introduced
and admitted under an information of more or less general terms
but which sufficiently charges the accused with a definite crime.

WEBB v. DE LEON RIGHT TO DISCOVERY PROCEEDINGS IN PRELIMINARY


INVESTIGATION: We uphold the legal basis of the right of
petitioners to demand from their prosecutor, the NBI, the original
copy of the April 28, 1995 sworn statement of Alfaro and the FBI
Report during their preliminary investigation considering their
exculpatory character, and hence, unquestionable materiality to
the issue of their probable guilt. The right is rooted on the
constitutional protection of due process which we rule to be
operational even during the preliminary investigation of a
potential accused. It is also implicit in section (3) (a) of Rule 112
which requires during the preliminary investigation the filing of a
sworn complaint, which shall ". . . state the known address of the
respondent and be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant
and his witnesses as well as other supporting documents . . ."

You might also like