When an accused enters such a plea of "guilty," the trial court is mandated to see to it that

the exacting standards laid down by the rules therefor are strictly observed. Rule 116 of the
Rules of Court, in part, provides:

Sec.1. Arraignment and plea; how made. (a) The accused must be arraigned before the court
where the complaint or information has been filed or assigned for trial. The arraignment must
be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused a copy of the complaint or
information with the list of witnesses, reading the same in the language or dialect known to him
and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may, however, call at the
trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information. (b) The accused must be
present at the arraignment and must personally enter his plea. Both arraignment and plea shall
be made of record, but a failure to enter of record shall not affect the validity of the
proceedings.
(c) If the accused refuses to plead, or makes a conditional plea of guilty, a plea of not guilty shall
be entered for him.

ARRAIGNMENT CASES

1. PEOPLE vs. HON. ERNESTO M. MENDOZA, Presiding Judge, RTC and JUAN MAGALOP y
SALVACION, G.R. No. L-80845 March 14, 1994

The essence of a plea of guilty is that the accused admits his guilt freely, voluntarily and with
full knowledge and understanding of the precise nature of the crime charged in the
information as well as the consequences of his plea. It is an unconditional admission of guilt
with respect to the offense charged. It forecloses the right to defend oneself from said charge
and leaves the court with no alternative but to impose the penalty fixed by law under the
circumstances. Thus, under the 1985 New Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, when the
accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense, the court may receive evidence from the parties
to determine the penalty to be imposed.

This rule is at most directory. It will certainly be a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the
judge 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 acquittal. There is no rule which
provides that simply because the accused pleaded guilty to the charge that his conviction
automatically follows. Additional evidence independent of the plea may be considered to
convince the judge that it was intelligently made.
 2. PEOPLE vs. BONIFACIO DURANGO y CARCEDO G.R. No. 135438-39 April 5, 2000

It is essential that a searching inquiry is conducted after the accused pleads guilty to a capital
offense, and it must focus on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea and (2) a complete comprehension
of the legal effects of the plea so that the plea of guilt can be truly said as being based on a free
and informed judgment. So indispensable is this requirement that a plea of guilt to a capital offense
can be held null and void where the trial court has inadequately discharged the duty of conducting
the prescribed "searching inquiry."

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 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. Likewise, 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.