Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 2002 Edition <draft copy; pls.

check for errors>

RULE 116 ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA

Rule 116 Arraignment and Plea

The accused must be arraigned before the court. That is the manifestation of the right of the accused to be informed as to the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The procedure is there in [a]. SECTION 1. Arraignment and plea; how made . (a) The accused must be a a!"#ed be$% e the c%u t &he e the c%m'(a!#t % !#$% mat!%# &as $!(ed % ass!"#ed $% t !a(. The a a!"#me#t sha(( be made !# %'e# c%u t b) the *ud"e % c(e + b) $u #!sh!#" the accused &!th a c%') %$ the c%m'(a!#t % !#$% mat!%#, ead!#" the same !# the (a#"ua"e % d!a(ect +#%&# t% h!m, a#d as+!#" h!m &hethe he '(eads "u!(t) % #%t "u!(t). The ' %secut!%# ma) ca(( at the t !a( &!t#esses %the tha# th%se #amed !# the c%m'(a!#t % !#$% mat!%#. ----You can even ask for a copy of the complaint and information there, although normally the lawyers ask for it in advance, they do not merely ask during the arraignment, before the arraignment may kopya na sila. Take note of the last sentence: .The ' %secut!%# ma) ca(( %# the t !a( &!t#esses %the tha# th%se #amed !# the c%m'(a!#t % !#$% mat!%#./ Have you seen a criminal information !ormally, at the last potion " Witnesses for the prosecution: Aquiatan, Tormon, Salesa, Balite and others. #ayroon man usually iyan and others. The prosecution will sometimes not name all. $o mayroong reservation. %: !ow, can you &uestion that reservation of the fiscal 'f you are the accused, can you &uestion that procedure (: Y)$, puwede. *hether it is possible for the prosecution not to name everybody was the issue in the case of PEOPLE s. DE ASIS Decembe 0, 1112 H)+,: -There is nothing that could prevent the prosecution from presenting witnesses in court not listed in the information, as it is well settled that the court has the undisputed right to call on a witness whose name does not appear in the list of the fiscal, unless the omission of said witness is intentional and tainted with bad faith. The established rule is that the prosecution may call unlisted witnesses to testify.. -#oreover, the purpose of the listing of the names of the witnesses in the complaint or information is merely to avoid the presentation of surprise witnesses and to enable the defense to e/amine their record, morality and character, but once placed on the witness stand, it can no longer be disputed that the defense has already the opportunity to e/amine the character and credibility of the unlisted witness.. -0inally, it is beyond &uestion, that it is the prosecution1s privilege to present such number of witnesses it deems sufficient. Their non2inclusion in the list of witnesses is of no moment. 'n fact the omission of their names in the list of prosecution witnesses in the information is commonly practiced for their own protection at least until the termination of the case.. (b) The accused must be ' ese#t at the a a!"#me#t a#d must 'e s%#a(() e#te h!s '(ea. 3%th a a!"#me#t a#d '(ea sha(( be made %$ ec% d, but $a!(u e t% d% s% sha(( #%t a$$ect the 4a(!d!t) %$ the ' %ceed!#"s. %: !ow, what happens if a case is tried without arraignment (: The 3)!)4(+ 45+), that is irregular " the proceedings are tainted with irregularity because arraignment is #(!,(T64Y. 75.$. vs. 8alisoc, 9 8hil. :;<=. H6*)>)4, there was an instance where the $? considered the

proceedings as valid where the lawyer of the accused also did not ob@ect the absence of the arraignment. This the case of PEOPLE s. CA3ALE Ma) 5, 1116 7ACTS: !ag pre2trial, walang arraignment. Aut the parties presented evidence. (nd when the case was about to end they noticed, Te!a muna, wala pang arraignment ito, ah" # sige, i$arraign% $o, in other words, the accused was arraigned when the trial was about to end, or ' think already ended. ISSUE: 's the trial valid 8ELD: *hat is the purpose of arraignment " to inform the accused of the nature of the charge against him. !ow, if he does not know, how come he was able to participate in the trial He was able to cross2e/amine the witnesses against him, he was able to present witnesses. $o, the defect became a formal defect. -*e find that while the arraignment of the appellant was conducted after the cases had been submitted for decision, the error is non2pre@udicial and has been fully cured when counsel for the appellant entered into trial without ob@ecting that his client had not yet been arraigned. $aid counsel had also the full opportunity of cross2e/amining the witnesses for the prosecution. There was, therefore, no violation of the appellant1s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.. !ow, accused are arraigned sa trial when the case is filed in court and about to be tried. !ow, how about preliminary investigation conducted by the #T? outside chartered cities, should the accused be arraigned by the #T? @udge (lam mo, ' met that kind of situation years ago, in one of the #T?s in the !orth. There was a preliminary investigation and then ' noticed an arraignment. (ctually the case was triable by the 4T?. The purpose there 7#T?= was only to determine probable cause. $o ' asked, &a'roon (ang arraignment ang preliminar' in estigation" $abi nung abogado doon, )es, ma'roon. ,)(!: Wala man sa *ules of +ourt" +(*Y)4: ,'an man ang ginagawa ng mga -udges dito. 'n other words, #T? @udges conduct arraignment in preliminary investigation " matter of practice daw " you do not find a provision in the 4ules saying yes or no. However, in BCCD, ' came across a case where the $? commented on that " the case of ALISANGCO s. TA3ILIRAN, 9R. ::; SCRA 1 8ELD: There is !6 such thing as arraignment in a 8reliminary 'nvestigation. -There is no law or rule re&uiring an arraignment during the preliminary investigation. 5nder $ection B, 4ule BBE of the 4evised 4ules of ?ourt, the arraignment must be conducted by the court having @urisdiction to try the case on its merits.. %: !ow, is there such a thing as arraignment (' pro.' (: *ala. The accused must be personally present. He must enter his plea. (c) <he# the accused e$uses t% '(ead % ma+es a c%#d!t!%#a( '(ea, a '(ea %$ #%t "u!(t) sha(( be e#te ed $% h!m. (1a) %: Halimbawa ayaw mag2enter ng plea ?654T: What do 'ou sa'/0uilt' or 1ot guilt'" (??5$),: 1o comment. , do not want to sa' an'thing. (: 5nder paragraph [c], a plea of F!ot guiltyF will be entered, or conditional plea, because a plea must be absolute and unconditional. ' saw such situations before " Homicide, where the accused was arraigned. $iyempre, -on or about something with the use of a knife stabbed so and so which caused his death..: ?654T: -Gasabot ka . (??5$),: -Yes.. ?654T: -*hat do you say 3uilty or !ot guilty . (??5$),: -3uilty " inunahan man niya ako ba..

124

(ccording to him, he is guilty. Aut actually, it is the deceased who tried to kill him first. 't is self2defenseH so, within the -not guilty. plea din yan. 8ag2guilty, guiltyH Hindi puwede iyung guilty pero may condition " so not guilty. ?onditional pleas are not allowed. 'f you do that, we will enter a plea of not guilty for you. !ow, paragraph [d] of $ection B is new: (d) <he# the accused '(eads "u!(t) but ' ese#ts e-cu('at% ) e4!de#ce, h!s '(ea sha(( be deemed &!thd a&# a#d a '(ea %$ #%t "u!(t) sha(( be e#te ed $% h!m. (#) *e will understand this more when we read the case of 8)68+) vs. #)!,6I( 7:DB $?4( :E9=. 0or e/ample: You enter a plea of guilty. Aut sabi mo, 7sometimes this happens eh= -may we be allowed to present evidence to show mitigating circumstances . (nd then the court will allow you. You will present evidence to prove you are entitled to this or that mitigating circumstance para magbaba ang penalty. %: Halimbawa pag2present ng evidence, na prove na wala pala siyang kasalanan (: Then, under the rules, the plea of -guilty. is automatically withdrawn, and the court will order the substitution of -not guilty. because, when you plead guilty, you are not supposed to present evidence to prove your innocence, that is being inconsistent. Aut if you do it, then the court will change it immediately from guilty to not guilty. 8aragraphs [e], [f], and [g] are new: (e) <he# the accused !s u#de ' e4e#t!4e dete#t!%#, h!s case sha(( be a$$(ed a#d !ts ec% ds t a#sm!tted t% the *ud"e t% &h%m the case &as a$$(ed &!th!# th ee (2) da)s $ %m the $!(!#" %$ the !#$% mat!%# % c%m'(a!#t. The accused sha(( be a a!"#ed &!th!# te# (16) da)s $ %m the date %$ the a$$(e. The ' e=t !a( c%#$e e#ce %$ h!s case sha(( be he(d &!th!# te# (16) da)s a$te a a!"#me#t. (#) ($) The ' !4ate %$$e#ded 'a t) sha(( be e>u! ed t% a''ea at the a a!"#me#t $% 'u '%ses %$ '(ea ba "a!#!#", dete m!#at!%# %$ c!4!( (!ab!(!t), a#d %the matte s e>u! !#" h!s ' ese#ce. I# case %$ $a!(u e %$ the %$$e#ded 'a t) t% a''ea des'!te due #%t!ce, the c%u t ma) a((%& the accused t% e#te a '(ea %$ "u!(t) t% a (esse %$$e#se &h!ch !s #ecessa !() !#c(uded !# the %$$e#se cha "ed &!th the c%#$% m!t) %$ the t !a( ' %secut% a(%#e. (c! . 1=51) (") U#(ess a sh% te 'e !%d !s ' %4!ded b) s'ec!a( (a& % Su' eme C%u t c! cu(a , the a a!"#me#t sha(( be he(d &!th!# th! t) (26) da)s $ %m the date the c%u t ac>u! es *u !sd!ct!%# %4e the 'e s%# %$ the accused. The t!me %$ the 'e#de#c) %$ a m%t!%# t% >uash % $% a b!(( % 'a t!cu(a s % %the causes *ust!$)!#" sus'e#s!%# %$ the a a!"#me#t sha(( be e-c(uded !# c%m'ut!#" the 'e !%d. (sec. :, c! . 25=15) +etJs go to paragraph [f], this is one of the important amendments here. The private offended party is supposed to appear at the arraignment for purposes of plea (argaining. 8lea bargaining is e/plained in 4ule BBK and also here in $ection :. !ow, what do you mean by this " 2lea Bargaining *e will connect this right away to $ection :: SEC. :. 2lea of guilt' to a lesser offense ? At a a!"#me#t, the accused, &!th the c%#se#t %$ the %$$e#ded 'a t) a#d ' %secut% , ma) be a((%&ed b) the t !a( c%u t t% '(ead "u!(t) t% a (esse %$$e#se &h!ch !s #ecessa !() !#c(uded !# the %$$e#se cha "ed. A$te a a!"#me#t but be$% e t !a(, the accused ma) st!(( be a((%&ed t% '(ead "u!(t) t% sa!d (esse %$$e#se a$te &!thd a&!#" h!s '(ea %$ #%t "u!(t). N% ame#dme#t %$ the c%m'(a!#t % !#$% mat!%# !s #ecessa ). (sec. ;, c! c. 25=15)

125

8lea bargaining " mag2tawaran baH You are charged with murder, -homicide na lang [pliiiiiss].. Gung homicide, plead ako -guilty. para at least mababa ang sentensiya. (ccording to the law if the prosecutor agrees and the offended party or the family of the deceased agrees, puwede. Aoth of them must give their consent. $o from 4obbery, mahulog sa theft. %ualified theft, maging simple theft. (t least mababa di ba 6r, from attempted homicide to physical in@uries na lang. #eaning, tawaran baH That is allowed under the law provided the condition is, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor. That is why during the arraignment, according to the previous section paragraph [f], the private offended party shall be re&uired to appear for purpose of plea2bargaining. %: !ow suppose the offended party will not appear during the arraignment (: (ccording to paragraph [f], -in case of failure of the pri ate offended part' to appear despite due notice, the court ma' allow the accused to enter a plea of guilt' to a lesser offense which is necessaril' included in the offense charged with the conformit' of the trial prosecutor alone. $o, the consent of the prosecutor would be enough. $abi ngayon ng private offended party, But , did not gi e m' consent. (ba, kasalanan mo yanH You should have appeared during the arraignment. *ala ka man, so there is a valid plea2bargaining. !ow, ' noticed that the :;;; 4ules went back to the original provision of the BCE9 4ules. 5nder the BCE9 rules, you are allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense provided the lesser offense is necessarily included in the offenses charged. #urder to homicideL Theft is part of 4obberyL %ualified theft, simple theftL from serious to less serious physical in@uriesL that is the condition " the lesser offense will be included in the offense charged. Aut when the 4ules were amended in BCKM, naiba " it became a very controversial provision because the BCKM 4ules said that, -You are allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense, even if not included in the offense charged.. ThatJs why it created a lot of problems. Halimbawa, ' am accusing you of serious physical in@uries, you will plead guilty to slander, there is no connection. Aut the language of the BCKM 4ules as written, puwede. !ow, the $? went back to the original provision -which is necessarily included in the offense charged.. (fter arraignment but before trial, the accused may still allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. (fter you are arraigned you can still change your mind for as along as the prosecution has not yet commenced the presentation of evidence. (nd there is no need of amending the complaint or information, automatic na yan, less paperworks for the prosecutor. !ow, letJs look at some interesting cases decided by the $upreme ?ourt. These cases were decided before the amendment but we can see the philosophy is still there. AMATAN s. 9UDGE AU9ERO [(dm. #atter !o. 4TN2CD2CME] $eptember :<, BCCM 7ACTS: The accused was charged with homicide. $o obviously, he killed somebody. ,uring the plea bargaining, sabi ng accused, -*e would like to plead guilty to the lesser offense of attempted homicide 7: degrees lower=.. The prosecutor and the widow agreed. $o the court rendered a decision on attempted. !agalit ang pamilya ng namatay " ang brother, -anong klase ito H. The brother of the deceased brought a letter to ?hief Nustice !arvasa at that time, &uestioning the @udge, -8wede ba yan . 6f course, according to Nudge (u@ero, -Teka muna, under the new 4ules 7citing the BCKM 4ules= you can plead guilty to a lesser offense whether or not included in the offense charged, and even you, you have to consider that attempted homicide is related to homicide kaya lang two degrees lower. The law is very clear.. (no sabi ng $upreme ?ourt The $upreme ?ourt gave a lecture.

126

8ELD: The fact of death of the victim cannot by simple logic and plain common sense be reconciled with the plea of guilty to the lower offense of attempted homicide. 7imagine, namatay, ngayon buhay na how can you reconcile these two = The crime of homicide as defined in (rticle :9C of the 4evised 8enal ?ode necessarily produces deathL attempted homicide does not. However, the law is not entirely bereft of solutions in such cases. 'n instances where a literal application of a provision of law would lead to in@ustice or to a result so directly in opposition with the dictates of logic and everyday common sense as to be unconscionable, the ?ivil ?ode, particularly (rticle B;, admonishes @udges to take principles of right and @ustice at heart. 7#eaning, when a @udge decides, do not look only at the letter of the law, you look at the logic of your decision, the sense of right and @ustice.= 'n case of doubt the intent is to promote right and @ustice. 3iat -usticia ruat coelum. $tated differently, when a provision of law is silent or ambiguous, @udges ought to invoke a solution responsive to the vehement urge of conscience. These are fundamental tenets of law. 'n the case at bench, the fact of the victim1s death, a clear negation of frustrated or attempted homicide, ought to have alerted the @udge not only to a possibly inconsistent result but to an in@ustice. 7'n other words, the charge is he died, ' will convict him for attempted homicide which assumes he did not die, how can you reconcile ,apat pag2isipan mo yan, look at the effects of your decision.= The failure to recogniOe such principles so cardinal to our body of laws amounts to ignorance of the law and reflects respondent @udge1s lack of prudence, if not competence, in the performance of his duties. *hile it is true, as respondent @udge contends, that he merely applied the rule to the letter, the palpably incongruous result ought to have been a -red flag. alerting him of the possibility of in@ustice. The death of an identified individual, the gravamen of the charge against the defendant in the criminal case, cannot and should not be ignored in favor of a more e/pedient plea of either attempted or frustrated homicide. *e have held before that if the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it, constitutes gross ignorance of the law. 7*here the law is so basic and you do not know it or pretend not to know it, that is gross ignorance of the law.= *hat happens now to Nudge (u@ero $inabon siya ng $?, -0inally, every @udge must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. ( @udge should not only be aware of the bare outlines of the law but also its nuances and ramifications, otherwise, he would not be able to come up with decisions which are intrinsically fair.. 7*ala namang malice. ,i naman sinadya or bad faith that he was paid to do it, so the $? said,= -!onetheless, the case at bench stands uni&ue because of the potently absurd result of respondent1s application of the law.. ' think he was @ust censured or fined a minimal amount. ,i naman sinadya, kaya lang pangit ba. 'yan ang sinasabi ko, how do you get &uality @udges That is the big problem " yung malawak ang pag2iisip. YaanH PEOPLE s. @ILLARAMA, 9R. :16 SCRA ::6 7ACTS: The accused is charged with, letJs say, murder. Then the case was tried and the prosecution rested. (fterwards, the accused argued, -You have not proved any &ualifying circumstance, so ' will not present any evidence anymore. ' will @ust plead to a lesser offense of Homicide.. ISSUE: ?an plea bargaining still be entertained at that stage before the trial. 's that allowed Aecause normally plea2bargaining is done

8ELD: Y)$. There is nothing wrong with that, provided the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused for the crime charged. The only basis for allowing a plea of guilty to a lesser offense is nothing more and nothing less than the evidence already in the record. There is nothing wrong with that procedure. Take note also that under $ection B [f], the private offended party should be re&uired to appear in the arraignment precisely because of a possible plea of guilty to a lesser offense which re&uires his consent. That is why under the new rule in $ection B [f], if he does not appear, the plea2bargaining can proceed and only the consent of the

127

prosecutor is necessary. The consent of the offended party is no longer re&uired according to the present rules on criminal procedure, i.e. if he does not appear. %: *hat happens if an accused enters a plea of guilty (: The 3)!)4(+ 45+) is that there would be no trial anymore. !o more presentation of evidence because the accused has already admitted the crime. %: *hat is the implication of a plea of guilty (: That the accused is admitting the essential elements of the crime as charged in the information, and according to the $?, including the aggravating circumstances. )specially now, under the new 4ules where the prosecution is mandated to allege also the aggravating circumstances. $o, as a general rule, @udgment of conviction can proceed immediately. H6*)>)4, according to the $?, even if there is a plea guilty, certain facts alleged in the information are not deemed admitted. *hat are those facts that are deemed not admitted These are: B.= 0acts not alleged in the complaint or informationL :.= #ere conclusions of factsL D.= The @urisdiction of the court. $o even if ' plead guilty, ' can still &uestion later the @urisdiction of the courtL 9.= The sufficiency of the complaint or information is not considered even if there has been a plea of guilty. 4: $o what happens if ' plead guilty and it turns out there is no crime A: There can be no conviction because the sufficiency of the complaint or information is not admitted by a plea of guilty. 6n the other hand, when the accused pleads not guilty, then the issues are @oined and the case is ready for trial. That is the counterpart of an answer in civil procedure because there is no (nswer in criminal cases. Your plea is your answer. (s already emphasiOed in some cases, when you enter a plea of not guilty, you are considered to have waived any previous defect, like lack of preliminary investigation or validity of arrest. Those things are deemed cured by entering a plea of not guilty. !ow, going back to the 3)!)4(+ 45+), when a person pleads guilty, no more trial, he can be convicted, )P?)8T when he is charged with a capital offense. +etJs read $ection D: SEC. 2. 2lea of guilt' to capital offense; reception of e idence . ? <he# the accused '(eads "u!(t) t% a ca'!ta( %$$e#se, the c%u t sha(( c%#duct a sea ch!#" !#>u! ) !#t% the 4%(u#ta !#ess a#d $u(( c%m' ehe#s!%# %$ the c%#se>ue#ces %$ h!s '(ea a#d sha(( e>u! e the ' %secut!%# t% ' %4e h!s "u!(t a#d the ' ec!se de" ee %$ cu('ab!(!t). The accused ma) ' ese#t e4!de#ce !# h!s beha($. (2a) %: $o when a person pleads guilty to a capital offense, can the court sentence him to death based on his plea of guilty (: !6. The correct procedure is: B.= The court shall conduct a searching in&uiry into the voluntariness and full conse&uences of his plea. The court must determine whether he really understood it and its effectsL :.= )ven if the accused pleads guilty, the court will still re&uire the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Thus, the plea of guilty is not accepted anymore in capital offense. That is only corroborative because the prosecution is still re&uired to present evidenceL D.= The accused may still present evidence in his behalf. T56 +#7*T S5A88 +#197+T A S6A*+5,10 ,147,*) ,1T# T56 :#871TA*,16SS A19 3788 +#&2*6561S,#1 #3 T56 +#1S64761+6 #3 5,S 286A

128

*hat do you mean by the court shall conduct a searching inquir' into the oluntariness and full comprehension of the consequence of his plea $ection D is actually taken from decided cases, even before the BCK< ?onstitution. 8rior to the BCK< ?onstitution, there were so many people sentenced to death based only on a plea of guilty. The $? said, di pwede ito. Thus, all these @urisprudence are culled and embodied in $ection D. 6f course it became dormant for a while when the death penalty could not be imposed. Aut na naman eh. 'tJs now back to life [alleluiaH] because of the restoration of death penalty. ' remember before, there was even a time before the BCK< ?onstitution, where: N5,3): -3uilty or !ot guilty (??5$),: -3uilty.. N5,3): -,o you understand what you are doing by pleading guilty . (??5$),: -Yes.. N5,3): -,o you understand by pleading guilty, you are admitting all the elements of the crime as alleged in the complaint . (??5$),: -Yes.. N5,3): -(nd still you are pleading guilty . (??5$),: -Yes.. $abi ng $?: Gulang ang mga tanong moH *hy are you asking those &uestions *hat does the layman know about those elements of the crime 5se simple language para maintindihan niyaH !ow, if we follow the @urisprudence after the BCK< ?onstituition, lalung mahirapH 'to yung mahirap " shall conduct a searching inquir' into the oluntariness and full comprehension of the consequence of his plea. That is a very general term and we do not really know what is really the effect of that or its scope. 'f we will follow all the guidelines of the $?, it would seem that all @udges will not pass the test of conducting a searching in&uiry. There are some tests like the case of PEOPLE s. AL3ERT :A1 SCRA 126 8ELD: -The controversy over improvident pleas of guilty dates back to the early years of the (merican administration, developed into a furor over the succeeding years, subsided during the martial law regime, and was sidelined but occasionally invoked when the BCK< ?onstitution proscribed the imposition of capital punishment. *ith the return of the death penalty for heinous crimes, it is high time for the trial courts to review and reflect upon the @urisprudential and statutory rules which evolved over time in response to the in@ustice created by improvident pleas acknowledging guilt, at times belatedly discovered under the @udicial rug, if at all.. -The rationale behind the rule is that courts must proceed with more care where the possible punishment is in its severest form Q death Q for the reason that the e/ecution of such a sentence is irrevocable and e/perience has shown that innocent persons have at times pleaded guilty. The primordial purpose then is to avoid improvident pleas of guilt on the part of an accused where grave crimes are involved since he might be admitting his guilt before the court and thus forfeit his life and liberty without having fully understood the meaning, significance, and conse&uences of his plea. #oreover, the re&uirement of taking further evidence would aid the $upreme ?ourt on appellate review in determining the propriety or impropriety of the plea.. PEOPLE s. ALICANDO :A1 SCRA :12 8ELD: -To show the voluntariness of the plea of guilt of the accused and that the courtJs &uestions demonstrate the accused full comprehension of the conse&uences of his plea, the records must reveal information about the personality profile of the accused which can serve as a trustworthy inde/ of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilt. The age, socio2economic status and educational background of the accused must be plumbed by the trial court..

129

$o, you must get the personality profile of the accused " the age, socio2economic status as well as his educational background. !ow, are the @udges doing that ' donJt think so. PEOPLE s. ESTOMACA :A6 SCRA ;:1 (1116) 8ELD: -(lthough there is no definite and concrete rule as to how a trial @udge may go about the matter of a proper Fsearching in&uiry,F it would be well for the court, for instance, to re&uire the accused to fully narrate the incident that spawned the charges against him, or by making him reenact the manner in which he perpetrated the crime, or by causing him to furnish and e/plain to the court missing details of significance.. -The trial court should also be convinced that the accused has not been coerced or placed under a state of duress either by actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent or avenging &uarters and this it can do, such as by ascertaining from the accused himself the manner in which he was subse&uently brought into the custody of the lawL or whether he had the assistance of competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigationsL and, ascertaining from him the conditions under which he was detained and interrogated during the aforestated investigations. +ikewise, a series of &uestions directed at defense counsel as to whether or not said counsel had conferred with, and completely e/plained to the accused the meaning of a plea and its conse&uences, would be a well2taken step along those lines.. $o, the @udge must be very, very patient in conducting a searching in&uiry. Gung sundin mo ito, it may take one or two days. Nust take note that we are talking about capital offense. (ccording to one commentator: Aefore, the plea of guilty constituted the main evidence of guilt and the evidence taken during the further in&uiry was merely to aid the trial court in e/ercising its discretion as to whether the lighter or graver penalty is to be imposed. That is the original principle. Aut under the new procedure, a plea of guilt is only a secondary basis, the main proof being that which the court re&uires the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. The plea of guilty by the accused can only be used as supporting evidence for a finding of culpability. 7$o, baliktad Rno = 'n short, once an accused, in a charge of capital offense enters a plea of guilty, a regular trial shall have to be conducted. Nust the same as if no such plea of guilty was not entered. The only effect of a plea of guilty, if ever, is to serve as an additional mitigating circumstance in case the penalty imposable is less that an indispensable penalty and if the guilty plea is entered before the prosecution starts to present evidence. $o if we follow that guideline: #54,)4, or other heinous crimeL -3uiltyH. ,isregard itH TrialH $o, bale wala yung plead of guilty because you still have to conduct a trial @ust the same. SEC. ;. 2lea of guilt' to non$capital offense; reception of e idence, discretionar'. ? <he# the accused '(eads "u!(t) t% a #%#=ca'!ta( %$$e#se, the c%u t ma) ece!4e e4!de#ce $ %m the 'a t!es t% dete m!#e the 'e#a(t) t% be !m'%sed. (;) %: ?an there be reception of evidence if the accused enters a plea of guilty to a non2capital offense (: Y)$. There is no need for the presentation of evidence but if the court wants it, pwede rin, the court can till re&uire it. That is why reception of evidence is discretionary to determine the penalty to be imposed. PEOPLE s. MENDOBA :21 SCRA :6; 7ACTSC The accused was charged with 4obbery before the 4T? of #alaybalay, Aukidnon. ,uring the arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty. 'nstead of pronouncing @udgment, the court conducted trial. The prosecution failed to present evidence that the accused is guilty of the crime, so Nudge #endoOa ac&uitted the accused. The prosecution argued that the @udge should not have ac&uitted him because he already pleaded guilty. ISSUEC *as the ac&uittal of the accused proper

130

8ELDC Y)$. 5nder the 4ules, when the accused pleads guilty to a non2capital offense the court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalty to be imposed. This rule is at most directory. *as the @udge correct -'t will certainly be a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the @udge to persist in holding the accused bound to his admission of guilt and sentencing him accordingly when the totality of the evidence points to his ac&uittal. There is no rule which provides that simply because the accused pleaded guilty to the charge that his conviction automatically follows.. However, there is something wrong here because the records will show that he pleaded guilty and yet he was ac&uitted, so let us harmoniOe the record. The correct procedure, according to the $?, is for the @udge to order the withdrawal of the plea of guilty and substitute it with a plea of not guilty. This principle has been embodied in $ection B[d] " When the accused pleads guilt' (ut presents e.culpator' e idence, his plea shall (e deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilt' shall (e entered for him. ;n< SEC. A. Withdrawal of impro ident plea of guilt'. ? At a#) t!me be$% e the *ud"me#t %$ c%#4!ct!%# bec%mes $!#a(, the c%u t ma) 'e m!t a# !m' %4!de#t '(ea %$ "u!(t) t% be &!thd a&# a#d be subst!tuted b) a '(ea %$ #%t "u!(t). (A) %: ?an a plea of guilty be withdrawn (: Y)$. %: $uppose there is already a @udgment of conviction, can he still withdraw (: Y)$, as long as the @udgment of conviction is not yet final. SEC. 6. 9ut' of court to inform accused of his right to counsel . ? 3e$% e a a!"#me#t, the c%u t sha(( !#$% m the accused %$ h!s !"ht t% c%u#se( a#d as+ h!m !$ he des! es t% ha4e %#e. U#(ess the accused !s a((%&ed t% de$e#d h!mse($ !# 'e s%# % has em'(%)ed c%u#se( %$ h!s ch%!ce, the c%u t must ass!"# a c%u#se( de %$$!c!% t% de$e#d h!m. (6a) $ection E should be read with the ruling of the $? in the leading case of 8)68+) >$ H6+3(,6 7KM 8hil. <M:=. 'n the said case, $? enumerated the duties of the court when the accused appears before it without a lawyer. The following are the duties of the court: B.= The court must inform the accused that it is his right to have an attorney before being arraignedL :.= (fter giving him such information, the court must ask him if he desires the aid of an attorneyL D.= 'f he desires but is unable to employ an attorney, the court must assign an attorney de oficio to defend himL and 9.= 'f the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own, the court must grant him a reasonable time therefor. SEC. 0. Appointment of counsel de oficio . ? The c%u t, c%#s!de !#" the " a4!t) %$ the %$$e#se a#d the d!$$!cu(t) %$ the >uest!%#s that ma) a !se, sha(( a''%!#t as c%u#se( de %$$!c!% such membe s %$ the ba !# "%%d sta#d!#" &h%, b) eas%# %$ the! e-'e !e#ce a#d ab!(!t), ca# c%m'ete#t() de$e#d the accused. 3ut !# (%ca(!t!es &he e such membe s %$ the ba a e #%t a4a!(ab(e, the c%u t ma) a''%!#t a#) 'e s%#, es!de#t %$ the ' %4!#ce a#d %$ "%%d e'ute $% ' %b!t) a#d ab!(!t), t% de$e#d the accused. (0a) SEC. 5. Time for counsel de oficio to prepare for arraignment . ? <he#e4e a c%u#se( de %$!c!% !s a''%!#ted b) the c%u t t% de$e#d the accused at the a a!"#me#t, he sha(( be "!4e# a eas%#ab(e t!me t% c%#su(t &!th the accused as t% h!s '(ea be$% e ' %ceed!#" &!th the a a!"#me#t. (5) SEC. 1. Bill of particulars. ? The accused ma), be$% e a a!"#me#t, m%4e $% a b!(( %$ 'a t!cu(a s t% e#ab(e h!m ' %'e () t% '(ead a#d ' e'a e $% t !a(. The m%t!%# sha(( s'ec!$) the a((e"ed de$ects %$ the c%m'(a!#t % !#$% mat!%# a#d the deta!(s des! ed. (16a)

131

$ection C is similar to 4ule B: on bill of particulars. 'f the complaint is vague and ambiguous, the defendant in a civil case can more for a bill of particulars. ?ounterpart, if the allegations in the information are also vague and ambiguous, -' cannot understand it, so ' cannot intelligently enter my plea.. The accused, before arraignment, can move for a bill of particulars to enable him to prepare properly for the trial. Then he must specify the defects. ?ivil case, pareho. CINCO s. SANDIGAN3ADAN :6: SCRA 0:6 7ACTS: ( motion for bill of particulars was filed by the lawyer of the respondent in the fiscalJs office when the case was under preliminary investigation. 7'n preliminary investigation, you are given the affidavit of the complainant and his witnesses. (nd then you are given B; days to submit your counter2affidavits.= Here, the affidavit is vague according to the accused, so he is filing a bill of particulars. He wanted to compel the complainant to make his affidavit clearer. ISSUE: 's $ection C applicable when the case is still in the fiscalJs office for preliminary investigation 8ELD: !6. 't is only applicable when the case is already in court for trial or arraignment. Aut suppose during the preliminary investigation, -' cannot understand what the complainant is saying in his affidavit . The $? said, that is simpleH 'f you cannot understand what the complainant is saying in his affidavit, chances are, the fiscal also will not understand it. (nd conse&uently, he will dismiss the case. )h di mas magandaH *ag ka nalang mag2reklamoH [gagoH] SEC. 16. 2roduction or inspection of material e idence in possession of prosecution. " U'%# m%t!%# %$ the accused sh%&!#" "%%d cause a#d &!th #%t!ce t% the 'a t!es, the c%u t, !# % de t% ' e4e#t su ' !se, su'' ess!%#, % a(te at!%#, ma) % de the ' %secut!%# t% ' %duce a#d 'e m!t the !#s'ect!%# a#d c%')!#" % 'h%t%" a'h!#" %$ a#) & !tte# stateme#t "!4e# b) the c%m'(a!#a#t a#d %the &!t#esses !# a#) !#4est!"at!%# %$ the %$$e#se c%#ducted b) the ' %secut!%# % %the !#4est!"at!#" %$$!ce s, as &e(( as a#) des!"#ated d%cume#ts, 'a'e s, b%%+s, acc%u#ts, (ette s, 'h%t%" a'hs, %b*ect, % ta#"!b(e th!#"s #%t %the &!se ' !4!(e"ed, &h!ch c%#st!tute % c%#ta!# e4!de#ce mate !a( t% a#) matte !#4%(4ed !# the case a#d &h!ch a e !# the '%ssess!%# % u#de the c%#t %( %$ the ' %secut!%#, '%(!ce, % %the (a& !#4est!"at!#" a"e#c!es. (11a) $ection B; deals also with a mode of discovery " production and inspection of material e idence in the possession of the prosecution. !ot only that, the accused can have access to all evidence in the possession not only of the prosecution but including those in the possession and control of the police and other law investigating agencies. Take note, if we follow the case of +'# >$ 0)+'P, N4, when the case is filed by the fiscal, meron namang kaunting ebidensya na dun, so that, the @udge can review and find out if there is probable cause, but it is not really all. %: $o if the accused wants to see other evidence and the fiscal refuses, can the accused file a motion to compel the fiscal to reveal (: Y)$, because take note of 4ule BB:, $ection K [b], the records of the preliminary investigation do not form part of the records of the case when it reaches the court. That is why your remedy is to have them inspected. +et us good back to 4ule BB:, $ection K: 4ule BB:, $ection K[b] *ecord of preliminar' in estigation. ? The ec% d %$ the ' e(!m!#a ) !#4est!"at!%#, &hethe c%#ducted b) a *ud"e % a ' %secut% , sha(( #%t $% m 'a t %$ the ec% d %$ the case. 8%&e4e , the c%u t, %# !ts %&# !#!t!at!4e % %# m%t!%# %$ a#) 'a t), ma) % de the ' %duct!%# %$ the ec% d % a#) %$ !ts 'a t &he# #ecessa ) !# the es%(ut!%# %$ the case % a#) !#c!de#t the e!#, % &he# !t !s t% be !#t %duced as a# e4!de#ce !# the case b) the e>uest!#" 'a t). (nother interesting case here on $ection B; is the ruling in

132

<E33 s. DE LEON :;0 SCRA 7ACTS: You know the story of Hubert *ebb, the convict in that >iOconde rape2homicide case. $omehow the defense discovered that there were two 7:= affidavits of Nessica (lfaro 7the $tate witness= which were e/ecuted before the !A'. 6f course what was presented by the !A' to the ,6N was only one. $o, the defense filed a motion to compel the !A' to produce the other affidavit. This happened when the case was under preliminary investigation. ISSUE: ?an you apply $ection B; when the case is still in the fiscalJs office Aecause if you read $ection B;, it applies when the case is already in court. The same with $ection C. ?an the mode of discovery under the 4ules of ?ourt in criminal cases apply during the preliminary investigation 8ELD: -The issue is novel in this @urisdiction as it urges an e/pansive reading of the right of persons under preliminary investigation. 't deserves serious consideration. $o, the $? was intrigued: can you invoke the rights of an accused during the trial when he is still under preliminary investigation . -To start with, our rules in criminal procedure does not e/pressly provide for discovery proceedings during a preliminary investigation stage of the criminal proceeding. Aut the $? noted, -This failure to provide discovery procedure during preliminary investigation does not, however, negate its use by a person under investigation when indispensable to protect his constitutional fight to life, liberty and property. 8reliminary investigation is not too early a stage to guard against any significant erosion of the constitutional right to due process of a potential accused. That the finding of a probable cause by itself sub@ects the suspects life, liberty and property to real risk of loss or diminution. The fact that the law is silent does not mean that it does not apply. 7#eaning, even if it is under preliminary investigation, your liberty is already in danger.= The right to discovery is rooted on the constitutional protection of due process which we rule to be operational even during the preliminary investigation of potential accused.. -'n laying down this rule, the ?ourt is not without enlightened precedents from other @urisdictions. The rationale is well put by Nustice Arennan in Arady " -society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair.. 'ndeed, prosecutors should not treat litigation like a game of poker where surprises can be sprung and where gain by guile is not punished.. $o, the prosecutor should not hide anything because his @ob is not to convict but to see to it that @ustice is done. 'Jve been reading lately $? recent decisions along that line na naman, where the $? said that your @ob #r. 0iscal is not to convict, but seek that @ustice is done. *hen you have no evidence, do not file. *hen there is no evidence in court, you move to dismiss the case " ikaw mismoH ,o no insist in trying the case. (nd there was one decision where the $? said, What is the greatest achie ement or moment of a prosecutor" $ome may say when pagna2convict niya ang accused. That is an achievement but is it not the greatest on your part. The greatest achievement on you part is when you ask the court to dismiss the case because there is no evidence to convict the accused. That is the greatest achievement because that is your @ob " to see to it that @ustice is done. SEC. 11. Suspension of arraignment. ? U'%# m%t!%# b) the ' %'e 'a t), the a a!"#me#t sha(( be sus'e#ded !# the $%((%&!#" casesC (a) The accused a''ea s t% be su$$e !#" $ %m a# u#s%u#d me#ta( c%#d!t!%# &h!ch e$$ect!4e() e#de s h!m u#ab(e t% $u(() u#de sta#d the cha "e a"a!#st h!m a#d t% '(ead !#te((!"e#t() the et%. I# such case, the c%u t sha(( % de h!s me#ta( e-am!#at!%# a#d, !$ #ecessa ), h!s c%#$!#eme#t $% such 'u '%seE (b) The e e-!sts a ' e*ud!c!a( >uest!%#E a#d

133

(c) A 'et!t!%# $% e4!e& %$ the es%(ut!%# %$ the ' %secut% !s 'e#d!#" at e!the the De'a tme#t %$ 9ust!ce, % the O$$!ce %$ the P es!de#tE ' %4!ded, that the 'e !%d %$ sus'e#s!%# sha(( #%t e-ceed s!-t) (66) da)s c%u#ted $ %m the $!(!#" %$ the 'et!t!%# &!th the e4!e&!#" %$$!ce. (1:a) *hat are the grounds for suspending an arraignment There are three and letJs go over them one by one. (a) The accused a''ea s t% be su$$e !#" $ %m a# u#s%u#d me#ta( c%#d!t!%# &h!ch e$$ect!4e() e#de s h!m u#ab(e t% $u(() u#de sta#d the cha "e a"a!#st h!m a#d t% '(ead !#te((!"e#t() the et%. I# such case, the c%u t sha(( % de h!s me#ta( e-am!#at!%# a#d, !$ #ecessa ), h!s c%#$!#eme#t $% such 'u '%seE *hen the accused is in an unstable condition, you cannot properly, intelligently inform him of the nature of the charge. $o e/ample: Auang, unstable condition, +et us suspend the arraignment. +et us wait for his recovery and as long as he is not yet recovered, the arraignment is suspended indefinitely. 0or as long as he has not recovered, the arraignment remains suspended. BA* 476ST,#1 : *hat are the legal effects of insanity or unsound mental condition of the accused (: 't ,)8)!,$ as to when was he insane " B. $uppose he was insane at the time he committed the crime but now he is 6G, then that is not a ground for the suspension of the arraignment, not even a ground for a motion to &uash unless the information admits that he is insane when he committed the crime in which case you can move to &uash under 4ule BB<, $ection D [h] " that the information contains averments which in truth would constitute a legal e/cuse or @ustification. Aut there is no prosecutor craOy enough to file an information admitting that the accused was insane when he committed the crime. That is tantamount to admitting that he is e/empt from liability. 't is the defense who will prove insanity. $o what is the effect You enter your plea of not guilty and letJs go to trial and ' will prove insanity as my defense. :. $uppose he became insane when the case is set for arraignment but he was normal when he committed the crime Then we apply 4ule BBE, $ection BB " you move for the suspension of the arraignment. D. $uppose he became insane after the arraignment You move to postpone the trial because he cannot ade&uately defend himself if he is craOy. The trial should be suspended. 9. $uppose he became insane when he is already convicted and serving sentence +et us go back to the 8enal ?ode, (rticle KE " it is a ground for a motion for the suspension of the e/ecution of the sentence. $econd ground: (b) The e e-!sts a ' e*ud!c!a( >uest!%#E *hen there is a pre@udicial &uestion. Nust connect this with 4ule BBB, $ection E " what do you mean by a pre@udicial &uestion, the elements, when do you raise them. *hen the case is in court, suspend the trial, suspend the arraignment, lets wait for the civil case to be decided. The third ground is new: (c) A 'et!t!%# $% e4!e& %$ the es%(ut!%# %$ the ' %secut% !s 'e#d!#" at e!the the De'a tme#t %$ 9ust!ce, % the O$$!ce %$ the P es!de#tE ' %4!ded, that the 'e !%d %$ sus'e#s!%# sha(( #%t e-ceed s!-t) (66) da)s c%u#ted $ %m the $!(!#" %$ the 'et!t!%# &!th the e4!e&!#" %$$!ce. Aased on e/isting @urisprudence, when the prosecutor says 3ile the case, technically, the accused can appeal that although generally that is not appealable because of the &#078 doctrine. (s a general rule, the ,6N should no longer entertain an appeal from the resolution of the fiscal stating that the case should be filed because the

134

court may not follow the ,6N. That is what happened in the case of #ogul. $abi ng ,6N , no pro(a(le cause, 3iscal, 'ou dismiss $abi ng court, 1o, 3iscal, 'ou continue% The problem is when the case reaches the court, in most cases, the lawyer of the accused will move for the suspension of the arraignment because he will say, , ha e a pending petition for re iew of the resolution in the 9#=. (ccording to the circular of the ,6N, the petition for review can only be entertained if the accuse has not been arraigned, kung na2arraign na, wala na. Aut normally courts will honor that. That court will say, alright, let us suspend and wait for the resolution of the 9#=. That is why it is a ground for suspension. The trouble is this: how long does it take for the ,6N to resolve it 'f they can resolve it within : or D years, you are lucky, the case cannot go on because the ,6N is not done yet. This has been the cause of delays. ThatJs why the new rules says, -provided, the suspension will not e/ceed E; days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.. This is tantamount to the $? indirectly telling the ,6N or the reviewing office 78rovincial $tate 8rosecutor= na -bilisan ninyo.. 'f the petition is not acted within that period, letJs proceed with the arraignment, -bahala na kayo dyanH. (t least there is now a deadline. (nd that is good. ' really like this amendment. 't is the accused who filed the petition for review who is under pressure " to pressure the ,6N to resolve because the suspension is only good for E; days. 5nlike before where the pressure is in the offended party because the case cannot run while the petition for review is pending. !ow, ' do not know whether the ,6N right now, can do in E; days what they have been failed to do for years. S SPACE=7ILLER FAC +ate one night, Nack took a short cut through a graveyard. Hearing a tapping sound, he felt a little scared, but kept going. (s the tapping grew louder, he became more frightened. 0inally, he found a man chiseling at a gravestone. -Thank goodness,. Nack said to the man with relief. -You gave me &uite a fright. *hat are you doing . -They spelt my name wrong,. replied the man. Source: *eader>s 9igest, =anuar' ?@@A S -#an has not invented a reliable compass by which to steer a marriage in its @ourney over troubled waters. +aws are seemingly inade&uate. 6ver time, much reliance has been placed in the works of the unseen hand of Him who created all things. -*ho is to blame when a marriage fails -+ove is useless unless it is shared with another. 'ndeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say -' could not have cared less.. This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself. 'n the natural order, it is se/ual intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. $e/ual intimacy is a gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. 't is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations.. " =ustice Torres, Nr. on the issue of psychological incapacity C8I MING TSOI s. COURT O7 APPEALS 3.4. !o. BBCBC;, Nanuary BE, BCC<

135