1. People vs.

Pillado, 75 OG 5735

Facts:
Francisco Pillado and Arnulfo Dalogdog were charged with Grave Coercion and
Grave Threats before the Municipal Court of Gigaquit, Surigao del Norte. That in the
afternon of December 7, 1974, in Surigao del Norte while Virgilio Nardo was gathering
“tuba” from the nipa grove of his father Francisco Nardo, Pillado and Dalogdog arrived at
the place and warned Virgilio to stop gathering “tuba” and when Virgilio continued to
gather “tuba”, Pillado (a fishpond guard) aimed his shotgun at Virgilio, who ran away.
Virgilio regularly gathered about 2 ½ galons of “tuba” a day worth P9.50 but from then up
to the hearing, he was not able to gather anymore. Dalogdog died before judgement could be
rendered. Notwithstanding the fact that there was no arraignment, the prosecution
presented its evidence in the absence of appellant pursuant to Letter of Instruction No. 40.
Without Pillado presenting his evidence, the Municipal Court found him guilty of Grave
Coercion and sentenced him to suffer penalty of imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of
P200.00. However, Pillado was acquitted of the crime of Grave Threats and the charge
agains Dalogdog was dismissed because of his death.

Pillado appealed to the CFI of Surigao del Norte. The Office of the Provincial Fiscal
filed a “Manifestation” that: 1.) No valid trial conducted by Municipal Court in this case. 2.)
Trial was conducted before arraingment, without notice to bondsmen and also without a
showing that the absence of the accused was unjustified. 3.) As dictated by the Constitution,
trial in “absentia” can be made only after arraignment. 4.) Judgment in this case by
Municipal Court is void therefore nothing could be taken on appeal. The CFI of Surigao del
Norte issued an Order stating that the appeal of the accused has been misdirected and that
since the Court has no appellate jurisdiction it has likewise no jurisdiction to act on the
Manifestation of the Fiscal questioning the validity of the porceedings before the Municipal
Court. Hence, certifying the case to the Honorable Court of Apppeals for proper disposition.

Issue:
WON the decision of Municipal Court is null and void as the accused was convicted
without first being arraigned.

WON the Municipal Court erred in:

1.) proceeding with the presentation of prosecution’s evidence before Pillado was
arraigned.
2.) not giving due course to Pillado’s urgent motion for postponement, thus denied
the latter due process.
3.) in convicting Pillado of the crime charged.

Ruling:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside and this case is hereby
remanded to the court of origin for arraignment, trial, and judgment in accordance with,
and in proper observance of, due process of law.

Ratio:
Yes. A trial without arraignment suffers from legal infimity and cannot in a strict
sense of the term be considered a judicial act. The requirement of arraignment is mandatory
and non-observance is ground for reversal of the judgment and the remanding of the case
for new trial. The trial court in proceeding with the presentation of evidence of the
prosecution before arraignment of the accused denied the latter his constitutional right to
be informed of the nature and cuase of the accusation against him and consequently to
confront his witnesses face to face. The most that the trial could have done is to order the
bondsmen to produce before the Court the body of the accused and in default to confiscate
said bond.

Arraingment is necessary to fix the identity of an accused, to inform him of the

charge and to give him an opportunity to plead. It is the duty of the trial courts, charged
with administration of justice to conduct proceedings in strict accord with prescribed rules
and regulations. Convictions cannot be maintained when all the safeguards, which the law
establishes to secure the rights of the accused are flagrantly disregarded.

The right to be present during tiral is different from the right to arraignment. The
Code of Criminal procedure makes a sharp distinction between the duties of a court when
an accused person is arraigned and when he appears for trial.

Duties of a court
When an accused person is arraigned When an accused appears for trial
- to inform the accused of certain rights and
to extend to him, on his demand, certain
others.
- certain duties are laid on the court which - duty to act in the first instance is not laid
he must perform affirmatively, unless on the court but on the accused himself.
waived
While with regard to the rights of the accusd With regard to the rights of the accused
on arraignment, silence of the Court may be during tiral, mere silence of the court is not
error unless the right with regard to twhich an error.
silence is maintained is waived by the
accused.

While Pillado had his lawyer, he was neither furnished a copy of the informatin nor
a list of witnesses. His identity has not been ascertained. While the trial court may have
been impatient because of the postpnements, the date when the prosecution presented its
evidence, appellant was sick which is supported by verified medical certificate and a motion
for postponement was filed in view thereof. Appellant Pillado has not been accorded his day
in court, and the requisites of procedural and substantive due process of law have not been
properly observed, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The right to be present during tiral is different from the right to arraignment.
right to be present during tiral right to arraignment
at trial – defendant is entitled to appear and
defend in person and by counsel at every
stage of the proceeding; to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to
testify as a witness in his own behalf or
torefuse to be a witness in the case; to be
exempt from testifyng against himself; to
be confronted at the trial by and to cross-
examine the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process issue for obtaining
witness in his own behalf; to have a speedy
and public trial.