1 |

GROUP 7:
ALBERT ARTURO
DAVID, JIM JOHN
DIAZ, BERNADETH
LORETO, SHARLENE PAULA
LOYOLA, WINCHELLE DAWN
SALBIBIA, WOWIE

RULE 116 ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA
SECTION1. HOW MADE

ARRAIGNMENT

I. Concept
Arraignment the proceeding in a criminal case, whose object is:
1. To fix the identity of the accused
2. To inform him of the charge (nature and cause)
3. To give him opportunity to plead
4. Or to obtain from the accused his plea to the information

*It is at this phase where issues are joined, although, technically, is not part of the trial.

Borja vs Mendoza
"Arraignment is an indispensable requirement in any criminal prosecution." Procedural due process
demands no less.

II. Arraignment, Where and How made:
The accused must be arraigned:
1. Before an open court where the complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial
a. Not in the Municipal Trial Court where the accusatory pleading was filed for preliminary
investigation
b. There can be a closed door trial in cases of:
i. Rape
ii. Child abuse
2. By the judge or clerk of court
3. By furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information
a. With the list of witnesses
b. The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or
information
i. Reason:
Presentation of witnesses against the accused is at the sound discretion of the
fiscal
Disclosure of witness might lead to threats or danger to the life of such witness
ii. But the accused will still know the identity of the witness against him when they take stand
People vs Marasigan
The appellant alleges that the trial court erred in making its findings without taking into account the fact that
to prove the allegations in the information, the prosecution presented the testimony of two relatives of the
deceased, and did not summon the following disinterested persons, who, according to the prosecution itself,
were eyewitnesses of the incident. But the court held that when an act has been witnessed by several
persons, the prosecution is not obliged to present all such witnesses, but only a sufficient to prove the
occurrence of the alleged act. that when proof is suppressed it shall be deemed to be unfavorable to the
party suppressing it, does The presumption prescribed by paragraph 5 of section 334 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to the effect not arise from the mere fact that the prosecution fails to present all the
eyewitnesses to an act.
4. Reading it in a language or dialect known to the accused
5. Asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty
2 |

6. Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record but failure to do shall not affect the validity of
proceedings (Presumption of valid arraignment)

III: When arraignment is held within a shorter period

General Rule: (sec.7 of RA 8493, Speedy Trial Act; Sec.1(g) of Rule 116)
The arraignment of an accused shall be held within thirty (30) days from the filing of the information, or from the
date the accused has appeared before the justice, judge or court in which the charge is pending, whichever date last
occurs.

Exceptions: Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or Supreme court circular
1. When an accused is under preventive detention ((e), sec.1 Rule 116)
a. within 3 days from filing of the information
i. His case shall be raffled
ii. And its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was raffled
b. within 10 days
i. period of arraignment from date of raffle
ii. period of pre-trial after arraignment
2. When the complainant is about to depart from the Philippines with no definite date of return (RA 4908)
a. The trial in these cases shall commence within three days from the date the accused is arraigned and
no postponement of the initial hearing shall be granted except on the ground of illness on the part of the
accused, or other grounds beyond the control of the accused.
3. Cases under RA 7610 (sec. 30 of Child Abuse act), the trial shall commence within 3 days from arraignment
4. Cases under Dangerous Drug Act (sec 90 of RA 9165)
When the preliminary investigation is conducted by a public prosecutor and a probable cause is
established, the corresponding information shall be filed in court within twenty-four (24) hours from the
termination of the investigation. If the preliminary investigation is conducted by a judge and a probable cause is
found to exist, the corresponding information shall be filed by the proper prosecutor within forty-eight (48) hours
from the date of receipt of the records of the case.
Trial of the case under this Section shall be finished by the court not later than sixty (60) days from the
date of the filing of the information. Decision on said cases shall be rendered within a period of fifteen (15) days
from the date of submission of the case for resolution.
5. Cases under ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 104-96:
a. Kidnapping,
b. Robbery,
c. Carnapping,
d. Dangerous drug cases
e. Heinous crimes,
f. Intellectual property rights violation
g. Libel
The cases referred to herein shall undergo mandatory continous trial and shall be terminated within
sixty [60] days from commencement of the trial. Judgment thereon shall be rendered within thirty [30] days from
submission for decision unless a shorter period is provided by law or otherwise directed by this Court.

IV. Rules on Arraignment
General Rule:
1. Arraignment must be made before the start of trial or before the prosecution presents its case.
2. No valid judgment can be rendered upon an invalid arraignment
Absence of arraignment is violative of procedural due process clause, and is therefore, a reversible error.
Cabangangan vs Concepcion
When the petitioner was arraigned, the information read to him was not the amended information, but the
original where he pleaded not guilty. However, the Court of First Instance of Samar found the petitioner
guilty of crime charged in the amended information. The Supreme Court finds that there is no question that
the petitioner was not actually arraigned under the amended information; that he had not waived his right
thereto, in view of the fact that his counsel twice called the attention of the trial court to the omission, and
this reminder amounted to an objection admissible even under the original information. As arraignment was
mandatory, the petitioner having the constitutional right to be informed of the charge against him, his
conviction which would be only under the second information suffers from a reversible defect.
3 |

Trial in absentia may be conducted only after a valid arraignment
Marcos vs Ruiz
Having failed to appear despite due notice, and considering that on said date the urgent motion for resetting
had not yet been received by the court, respondent Judge could not be faulted for believing that petitioners
non-appearance was unjustified. Hence, a hearing in absentia was proper.
Accused must personally appear during arraignment and enter his plea (counsel cannot enter plea for
accused)
Marcos vs Ruiz
It will, however, be noted that insofar as the second case, Criminal Case No. 3892, is concerned, the court
made no ruling on the manifestation and offer by petitioners counsel that the reading of the information be
waived and a plea of not guilty be entered. The petitioner was neither made to confirm the manifestation nor
directed to personally make the plea. There was, therefore, no valid arraignment.
Accused is presumed to have been validly arraigned in the absence of proof to the contrary
a. When presumption does not apply (People vs Lacson)
Only a certificate of arraignment, showing that when the case was called for arraignment the
accused assisted by two counsels pleaded guilty to the information while his two co-accused pleaded
not guilty and thereafter trial was set, was presented. No minutes or records to show how the
arraignment was carried out. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that nothing appears in the
record nor in the lower court's judgment that it duly informed the accused of the grave nature and
consequence of his plea. And in the absence of a record of the arraignment proceedings, it is not
possible to determine whether the accused really and truly comprehended the meaning, full significance
and consequences of his plea and that the same was voluntarily and intelligently entered or given by
the accused. Thus, it cannot give rise to a presumption of valid arraignment.
If the accused went into trial without being arraigned, subsequent arraignment will cure the error provided
during trial:
a. The accused was able to present evidence
b. And cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution
People vs Atienza
Counsel for the appellant attacks the procedure followed in the trial already referred where the two
accused were arraigned after the prosecution had rested its case, and he claimed that the trial court erred in
considering such evidence, especially since the trial court itself had declared all the proceedings had before
arraignment as null and void. The error, if any, is non-prejudicial. The interests of the appellant have not
suffered thereby. His counsel entered into trial without any objection on the ground that his client had not yet
been arraigned. Said counsel cross-examined the witnesses for the prosecution. When the fiscal offered to
reproduce all his evidence by presenting again his witnesses, instead of accepting said offer, he agreed or
rather did not object to having that same evidence for the government declared by the court as reproduced. We
hold that this error or irregularity has not prejudiced the right or interests of the appellant, and considering that
appellant's counsel had full opportunity of cross-examining all the witnesses who took the witness stand for the
government and that furthermore he agreed to the reproduction of the evidence for the prosecution, the error or
defect had been substantially or fully cured.
3. As earlier discussed, it cannot be made as a condition for the grant of bail.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------

PLEA

I. Concept
Plea pertains to the matter which the accused, on his arraignment, alleges in answer to all the charge against
him.

Presence of the offended party in the arraignment shall be required for purposes of:
1. Plea Bargaining
2. Determination of civil liability
3. Other matters requiring his presence

Question to be answered by the accused:
4 |

Did you commit the offense charge in the complaint or information?

II. Kinds:
1. Plea of guilty
2. Plea of not guilty

III. Period to plea
1. When the accused is under preventive detention ((e)sec.1 Rule 116)
2. When the accused is not under preventive detention ((g) sec.1 Rule 116)

IV. Effects of Plea
General Rule: An unqualified plea constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged in the information.
1. On a pre-arraignment irregularities
a. The right to preliminary investigation must be invoked before plea, otherwise it is deemed waived
People vs Marquez
A complaint for frustrated homicide was filed with the then Justice of the Peace Court of
Camalig, Albay, against appellee Vicente Marquez. Subsequently, a warrant of arrest was issued, but
this was not carried out because the accused had filed a bail bond. When the case was later called for
purposes of conducting the second stage of the preliminary investigation, the accused, thru counsel,
waived his right thereto; accordingly, the record of the case was remanded to the court a quo; and the
Provincial Fiscal of Albay filed the corresponding information with the said court.
Upon being arraigned, appellee entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. On the day of the
trial, without asking for leave to withdraw his previously-entered plea, appellee filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground that the second information was null and void for he was not present during that stage,
thus, the court had no jurisdiction to hear, try and decide the case.
Assuming that said information was defective because it did not contain the requisite
certification regarding the fiscal's having held a preliminary investigation where the accused was given
an opportunity to be present personally or thru counsel, such an omission is not necessarily fatal.
b. The moment the accused enters his plea, he is deemed to have abandoned his right to question any
irregularity that surrounds it.
Zacarias vs Cruz
Posting of a bail bond constitutes waiver of any irregularity attending the arrest of a person, estops him
from discussing the validity of his arrest.

Exception: The plea of guilty is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
1. Conclusions of facts
People vs Venus
An information charging the defendant, Bienvenido Venus, with the crime of robbery in an inhabited
house was filed. The information further alleges that the said accused is a habitual delinquent, having
previously been convicted by final judgment rendered by a competent court, once for the crime of attempted
robbery in an inhabited house and once for theft.
The accused pleaded guilty to the information whereupon the trial court rendered its judgment not
based on the information as it prefer recidivism instead of habitual delinquent as the aggravating circumstance.
From this decision, the defendant has appealed for want of an allegation in the information and assailing the
validity of imposition of penalty. The court found the appeal meritorious. Thus, the prosecution should not
content themselves with a general averment of habitual delinquency but should specify the date.

2. Mere conjectures
People vs Serrano
The appellants contended that in order that the testimony of a conspirator may be admissible in
evidence against his co-conspirator, it must appear and be shown by evidence other than the admission itself
that the conspiracy actually existed and that the person who is to be bound by the admission was a privy to the
conspiracy. And as there is nothing but the lone testimony of prosecution witness Anastacio Reyes, a co-
conspirator, the trial court erred in finding that conspiracy has been established and in convicting the appellants
based upon the lone testimony of their co-conspirator.
The contention does not merit serious consideration, because the rule that "The act or declaration of a
conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, may be given in evidence against the co-
conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration," applies only to extra-
judicial acts or declaration, but not to testimony given on the stand at the trial, where the defendant has the
5 |

opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. And while the testimony of accomplices or confederates in crime is
always subject to grave suspicion, "coming as it does from a polluted source," and should be received with
great caution and doubtingly examined, it is nevertheless admissible and competent.

V. When should a plea of not guilty be entered
1. When the accused so pleaded
a. it is his right as well as public duty to plea, thus it lies on his sound discretion
2. When he refuses to plead
a. Chooses to remain silent
Conde vs J udge
Aurelia Conde is charged in an information filed in the justice of the peace court of Lucena,
Tayabas, with the misdemeanor denominated lesiones leves. When the accused appears before the
justice of the peace of Lucena accompanied by her lawyer on the day set for the trial, the fiscal changes
the information so as to charge the accused with the crime of attempted murder. The new crime not
being within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, the case is set for preliminary hearing. But at the
date named, the fiscal does not appear, and the complaint is dismissed. In the meantime, however,
upon the recommendation of the fiscal, the municipal council of Lucena, Tayabas, suspends the
accused from her humble position. Two days after the complaint has been dismissed, the fiscal again
becomes active and charges the accused a new with the crime of attempted murder. A new arrest, the
filing of a new bond, and a preliminary hearing follow, and the case is transmitted to the Court of First
Instance, where the fiscal files an information for the same crime, attempted murder. Six months later,
the case is called for trial. The accused is present with her lawyer. and with her witnesses, some of
whom have come from the neighboring Province of Marinduque. But the fiscal claims that he is not yet
ready and obtains a postponement until then afternoon of the same day. The case is again called at the
time named, the defendant is again ready to proceed, but the fiscal again desires further postponement.
Three days later, on September 3, 1923, the accused once more appears with her attorney and
witnesses, only to be met with the renewed petition of the fiscal for a few minutes of postponement.
When the few minutes have grown into hours, he comes into court and informs the presiding judge that
he has no evidence to sustain the charge of attempted murder, and, therefore, under his power to
amend the information, charges the defendant with the new crimes of illegal detention and lesiones
graves.
When the revised charge is presented, the counsel for the accused asks for a preliminary
investigation, which is denied. Thereupon the accused is arraigned and ordered to plead to the
information. But she remains silent, and notwithstanding the directions of the trial judge, refuses either
to plead guilty or not guilty. The trial proceeds no further, because at this moment counsel gives notice
of his desire to elevate the proceedings to the Supreme Court.
3. Where in admitting the act charged, he sets up matters of defense or with lawful justification
a. An admission of certain fact does not amount to plea of guilty
Us vs Labadan
The appellant is charged with having falsely made oath on the 4th day of May, 1912, that he
was not delinquent in the payment of his taxes, when, as it is alleged, he was in fact delinquent in the
payment of his taxes against him for the year 1911.
It is admitted that on the 4th day of May, 1912, appellant took the oath prescribed by the
Election Law to the effect that he was not delinquent in the payment of any taxes imposed since the
13th day of August, 1898, in any part of the Philippine Islands; it is also admitted that on that day he
had not paid his taxes for 1911; the only question for determination is, therefore, whether or not the
evidence of record establishes the allegation that he was a delinquent on the 4th day of May, 1912,
when he subscribed to this oath.
b. Admits truth of some or all but sets up ne facts which if proven would exempt or relieve him in whole or
part
Us vs Betiong
The complaint charges the defendant with the offense of aiding and abetting a band of brigands
by supplying them with food. (Act No. 518, sec. 4.) Upon being arraigned in the Court of First Instance,
the defendant, who had no counsel, having elected to defend himself, stated that the facts charged in
the complaint were true, but that he supplied the brigands with food through fear that if he did not do so
they would kill him.
What the defendant stated when arraigned amounted to a denial of criminal responsibility,
based on facts which he conceived, constituted a lawful excuse for his conduct. It was virtually a plea of
6 |

not guilty. It is quite apparent that the court regarded it as a plea of guilty, and for this error the cause
must be sent back for a new trial.
4. When he enters a conditional plea of guilty
a. The accused admits provided a certain penalty be imposed upon him
People vs De Luna
Charged with Murder before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, defendant-appellant Patrick de
Luna, assisted by Counsel when arraigne,d entered a PLEA OF GUILTY with the qualification that
"hindi ko sinasadya."
5. When the plea is indefinite or ambiguous

SECTION2. PLEA OF GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE
WHEN TO ENTER PLEA
PLEA TO LESSER OFFENSE DURING ARRAIGNMENT

Requisites:
1. Consent of the Offended Party and Prosecutor
2. The lesser offense to which the accused pleads is necessarily included in the offense charged.

PEOPLE VS MAGAT
The order of the trial court convicting the accused-appellant on his own plea of guilt is void ab initio on the
ground that accused-appellant's plea is not the plea bargaining contemplated and allowed by law and the
rules of procedure. The only instance where a plea bargaining is allowed under the Rules is when an
accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense.
It must be emphasized that accused-appellant did not plead to a lesser offense but pleaded guilty to the
rape charges and only bargained for a lesser penalty. In short, as aptly observed by the Solicitor General,
he did not plea bargain but made conditions on the penalty to be imposed. This is erroneous because by
pleading guilty to the offense charged, accused-appellant should be sentenced to the penalty to which he
pleaded.
PLEA TO LESSER OFFENSE AFTER ARRAIGNMENT BUT BEFORE TRIAL

Requisites:
1. Withdrawal of previous plea of NOT GUILTY
Note: No amendment to the complaint or information is necessary.
PLEA TO LESSER OFFENSE AFTER TRIAL HAS BEGUN

Requisites:
1. Consent of the Offended Party and Prosecutor
2. Prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to establish guilt of the accused for the crime charge.

PEOPLE VS MAMARION
It is immaterial that said plea was not made during the pre-trial stage or that it was made only after the
prosecution already presented several witnesses. The private respondent (accused) moved to plead guilty
to a lesser offense after the prosecution had already rested its case. In such situation, jurisprudence has
provided the trial court and the Office of the Prosecutor with a yardstick within which their discretion may be
properly exercised.
7 |

PEOPLE VS VILLARAMA
It must be recalled that the other two grounds of objection were that the prosecution had already rested its
case and that the possibility of conviction of the private respondent of the crime originally charged was high
because of the strong evidence of the prosecution. Absent any finding on the weight of the evidence in
hand, the respondent judge's acceptance of the private respondent's change of plea is improper and
irregular.
SECTION3. PLEA OF GUILTY TO CAPITAL OFFENSE; RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE
RATIONALE: To avoid the improvident pleas of guilt on the part of the accused where the grave crimes are involved
since he might be admitting his guilt before the court and thus forfeit his life and liberty without fully understood the
meaning, significance and consequences of his plea.
DUTY OF THE COURT WHEN ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY TO A CAPITAL OFFENSE:
A. CONDUCT A SEARCHING INQUIRY INTO THE VOLUNTARINESS AND FULL COMPREHENSION OF THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA

PEOPLE VS IBANEZ
The trial court failed to take necessary steps to assure itself that the plea of guilty was not improvidently
entered, that is, with full knowledge of the meaning, significance and consequences of his act, especially
considering that he had twice before pleaded not guilty. All the court did was to remind the appellant that
"this is a case of robbery with homicide and rape" and to inform him that "(T)he least that you can get is the
electric chair."
PEOPLE VS ERNAS
The trial court erred in believing that the questions propounded to the appellant and the latters answers as
well as the documentary exhibits offered by the People would aid it in determining whether the accused
really and truly understood and comprehended the meaning, full significance and consequences of his plea.
PEOPLE VS PASTOR
Proper Conduct of Searching Inquiry
1. Ascertain from the accused the following:
a. How he was brought into the custody of the law.
b. Whether he had the assistance of a competent counsel during preliminary and custodial
investigation.
c. Under what conditions he was detained and interrogated during the investigations.
2. Consequences explained by Counsel.
3. Profile of the Accused.
4. Length of Imprisonment.
5. Precise nature of the offense charged.
6. All questions posed should be in language known to him.
7. Satisfaction of Judge Narration

B. REQUIRE PROSECUTION TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GUILT AND PRECISE DEGREE OF
CULPABILITY OF THE ACCUSED

PEOPLE VS ERNAS
8 |

The presentation of evidence should be required in order to preclude any room for reasonable doubt in the
mind of the trial court, or the Supreme Court on review, as to the possibility that there might have been
some misunderstanding on the part of the accused as to the nature of the charge to which he pleaded
guilty, and to ascertain the circumstances attendant to the commission of the crime which justify or require
the exercise of a greater or lesser degree of severity in the imposition of the prescribed penalties.
PEOPLE VS DE LUNA
The rule is mandatory. After the plea of guilty in capital offenses, it is imperative that the trial court requires
the presentation of evidence for the prosecution to enable itself to determine the precise participation and
the degree of culpability of the accused in the perpetration of the capital offense charged.
PEOPLE VS VILLACORES
The evidence of the prosecution should be presented after the arraignment. The judgment should be
promulgated after the fiscal has presented its evidence and after the trial court has ascertained that the
defense is not presenting any evidence.
C. ASK THE ACCUSED IF HE DESIRES TO PRESENT EVIDENCE IN HIS BEHALF AND ALLOW HIM TO DO
SO IF HE DESIRES
PEOPLE VS BALISACAN
However, the defendant, after pleading guilty, may present evidence as would exenorate him completely
from criminal liability such as proof of self defense.
SECTION4. PLEA OF GUILTY TO A NON-CAPITAL OFFENSE
The court may receive evidence from the parties to determine the penalty to be imposed. [Rule 116, Sec. 4]
For non-capital offenses, the reception of evidence is merely discretionary on the part of the court. If
the information or complaint is sufficient for the judge to render judgment on a non-capital offense, he may
do so. But if the case involves a capital offense, the reception of evidence to prove the guilt and degree of
culpability of the accused is mandatory.

It is sufficient to sustain a conviction when formally and knowingly and voluntarily entered into. [People v.
Acosta (1956)]

General rule: It is a judicial confession of guilt so there is no need for additional evidence. [People v. Flores
(2000)]
Exception:
1) If the information did not allege all the elements of the crime charged. [People v. Digero (1966)]
2) If the information charges a capital offense. [Rule 116, Sec. 5]
3) If the plea of guilt was conditional. [Rule 116, Sec. 1(c)]
Accused must be acquitted when evidence allowed to be presented to determine penalty shows that he is not
guilty.
SECTION5. IMPROVIDENT PLEA
Definition: Plea without proper information as to all the circumstances affecting it; based upon a mistaken
assumption or misleading information/advice. [Blacks Law Dictionary]
9 |

It should not be accepted. If accepted, it should not be held to be sufficient to sustain a conviction. [People v.
De Ocampo Gonzaga (1984)]
INSTANCES OF IMPROVIDENT PLEA:

1. Plea of guilty was compelled by violence or intimidation
2. Accused did not fully understand the meaning and consequences of his plea
3. Insufficient information to sustain conviction of the offense charged
4. Information does not charge an offense
5. Court has no jurisdiction

WHEN WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA IS ALLOWED [Rule 116, Sec. 2 and 5]
Substitution by plea of not guilty may be permitted anytime before the judgment of conviction becomes final.
When Improvident Plea may be Withdrawn
At any time before judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may permit and improvident plea of guilty to
be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty

The substitution is not a matter of a strict right. It is discretion justified by some compelling reason such has
error, fraud, illegality or manifest injustice. [People v. Mendoza (1982)]
REASONS TO GRANT CHANGE
The accused is ignorant of the law and has had no education and pleaded guilty without full knowledge of its
consequences.
The accused did not thoroughly understand the complaint.
The accused was not advised as to the meaning and effect of the technical language.
PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE GRANT OF A CHANGE OF PLEA [People v.
Mendoza (1982)]
Withdrawal need not be verified, but it should have a rational basis.
Motion for change of plea should be set for hearing.
Prosecution should be heard on the motion.
The court should state the reasons for setting aside (or not setting aside) the judgment of conviction and for
permitting (or not permitting) the accused to substitute a plea of not guilty for his plea of guilty.
SECTION6. DUTY OF COURT TO INFORM ACCUSED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL
Before arraignment, the court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and ask him if he desires to have
one. Unless the accused is allowed to defend himself in person or has employed counsel of his choice, the
court must assign a counsel de officio to defend him.

COURT FOUR IMPORTANT DUTY TO COMPLY:
1. MUST INFORM THE ACCUSED THAT IT IS HIS RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY BEFORE BEING
ARRAIGNED
2. AFTER GIVING HIM SUCH INFORMATION, THE COURT MUST ASK HI IF HE DESIREA THE AID OF AN
ATTORNEY
3. IF HE DESIRES AND IS UNABLE TO EMPLOY AN ATTORNEY, THE COURT MUST ASSIGN AN
ATTORNEY DE OFFICIO TO DEFEND HIM
10 |

4. IF THE ACCUSED DESIRES TO PROCURE AN ATTORNEY OF HIS OWN THE COURT MUST GRANT
HIM A REASONABLE TIME THEREOF

PEOPLE VS. HOLGADO
Facts: Appellant Frisco Holgado was charged in the court of First Instance of Romblon with slight illegal
detention because according to the information, being a private person, he did "feloniously and without
justifiable motive, kidnap and detain one Artemia Fabreag in the house of Antero Holgado for about eight
hours thereby depriving said Artemia Fabreag of her personal liberty. He pleaded guilty (without a counsel)
and said that he was just instructed by Mr. Ocampo, which no evidence was presented to indict the latter.
Issue: Whether or Not there was any irregularity in the proceedings in the trial court.

Held: Yes. Rules of Court states that : If the defendant appears without attorney, he must be informed by
the court that it is his right to have attorney being arraigned., and must be asked if he desires the aid of
attorney, the Court must assign attorney de officio to defend him. A reasonable time must be allowed for
procuring attorney. This was violated. More so the guarantees of our Constitution that "no person shall be
held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law", and that all accused "shall enjoy the right
to be heard by himself and counsel." In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused be
given the opportunity to be heard by counsel.
WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL
THE UNITED STATES VS GO-LENG
FACTS: An internal-revenue agent went to the defendant's house and found in various places therein two
little cans and a small horn jar, all containing opium; another small tin with about 50 grams of opium ashes;
scales for weighing opium; a pan for cooking the said drug, and two small lamps such as are used in
smoking opium. This fact effectively sustains the finding in the judgment appealed from as to the
defendant's guilt.
Counsel for the defense alleges that the trial court obliged the defendant to stand trial without the
assistance of an attorney, and refused to allow his request for time to procure such counsel for his defense;
this, he alleges, is an error that affects the essential rights of the defendant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court violated the right to counsel of the accused.
Held: No. Accused persons are undoubtedly entitled to appoint an attorney to defend them at trial, or to
have one appointed de oficio, should they ask for one and not possess the necessary means to employ an
attorney of their own. But it devolves exclusively upon them to avail themselves of this right. It is one which
they are perfectly entitled to waive and they may defend themselves in person. The law expressly
authorizes them, as it could not but do, to defend themselves in person, without the assistance of counsel.
SECTION7. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DE OFFICIO
The court, considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty of the questions that may arise, shall appoint
as counsel de officio such members of the bar in good standing who by reason of their experience and ability,
can competently defend the accused
*But in localities where such members of the bar are not available, the court may appoint any person, resident
of the province and of good repute for probity and ability, to defend the accused.
11 |

TEOFILO PAAR VS FORTUNATO V. BORROMEO, ET AL.
Teofilo Paar is charge in Manila with treason before the People's Court, and prayed that he be assisted in
his defense by Andres R. Camasura who is not a member of the bar. The People's Court denied the
petition, hence, he filed an action for mandamus.
Conversely, where there are duly authorized members of the Bar available in the place where the
proceedings are being conducted, like in the City of Manila, the court may not appoint a non-lawyer as
counsel for the accused
It is clear form these provisions that in Manila where there are many members of the bar, defendants in the
People's Court may be assisted only by members of the bar. Petition denied, without costs.

SECTION8. TIME FOR COUNSEL DE OFFICIO TO PREPARE FOR ARRAIGNMENT

Whenever a counsel de oficio is appointed by the court to defend the accused at the arraignment, he shall be given a
reasonable time to consult with the accused as to his plea before proceeding with the arraignment.

Time to prepare for arraignment
requires a reasonable time to consult with the accused as to his plea.


Reasonable time
Depends upon the circumstances surrounding the case like the gravity of the offense, complexity of the
allegations in the complaint or information, whether a motion to quash or a bill of particulars has to be
filed, and other similar considerations.



SECTION9. BILL OF PARTICULARS

The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and prepare for trial.
The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired.

What is a bill of particulars?
It is a more specific allegation. A defendant in a criminal case who believes or feels that he is not
sufficiently informed of the crime with which he is charged and not in a position to defend himself
properly and adequately could move for a bill or particulars or specifications.


What is the purpose of a bill of particulars?
It is to allow the accused to prepare for his defense.


When can the accused move for a bill of particulars?
The accused must move for a bill of particulars before arraignment. Otherwise, the right is deemed
waived.

What should be contained in the motion for a bill or particulars?
It should specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired.

SECTION10. PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN POSSESSION OF PROSECUTION

Upon motion of the accused showing good cause and with notice to the parties.

- In order to prevent surprise, suppression or alteration of any written statements given by the complainant or
other witnesses in any investigation conducted by the prosecution or other investigating officers.
- Any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things not
otherwise privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter in the case, which are in
the possession or under the control of the prosecution, police, or other law investigating agencies.
12 |


Limitation:
1. Must be anchored on justifiable grounds.
2. Cannot be resorted to as procedural device in order to fish for evidence or to compel disclosure of
privileged matters.

CRUZ VS PEOPLE
It is true that the granting of permission lies within the discretion of the court. However, respondent court in
this case has failed to sufficiently justify its refusal to have the records of the preliminary investigation
produced before it so that petitioner may use them for his defense.

PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN

It is the duty of each contending party to lay before the court the facts in issue-fully and fairly; i.e., to present
to the court all the material and relevant facts known to him, suppressing or concealing nothing, nor
preventing another party, by clever and adroit manipulation of the technical rules of pleading and evidence,
from also presenting all the facts within his knowledge.


SECTION11. SUSPENSION OF ARRAIGNMENT

When arraignment may be suspended

1. When the defendant is of unsound mind at the time of the arraignment.
2. When a prejudicial question exists.
3. When a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice
or the Office of the President.

SAMSON VS DAWAY

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.