0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
74 visualizzazioni3 pagine
RULE 116
Arraignment and Plea
Section 1. Arraignment and plea; how made. —
(a) The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial. The arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information, reading the same in the language or dialect known to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may 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 failure to do so shall not affect the validity of the proceedings.
(c) When the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. (1a)
(d) When the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. (n)
(e) When the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was raffled within three (3) days from the filing of the information or complaint. The accused shall be arraigned within ten (10) days from the date of the raffle. The pre-trial conference of his case shall be held within ten (10) days after arraignment. (n)
(f) The private offended party shall be required to appear at the arraignment for purposes of plea bargaining, determination of civil liability, and other matters requiring his presence. In case of failure of the offended party to appear despite due notice, the court may allow the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged with the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone. (cir. 1-89)
(g) Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or Supreme Court circular, the arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The time of the pendency of a motion to quash or for a bill of particulars or other causes justifying suspension of the arraignment shall be excluded in computing the period. (sec. 2, cir. 38-98)
Section 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. — At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. (sec. 4, circ. 38-98)
Section 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. — When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his behalf. (3a)
Section 4. Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception of evidence, discretionary. — 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. (4)
Section 5. Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty. — At any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty. (5)
Section 6. 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 a counsel of his choice, the court must assign a couns
RULE 116
Arraignment and Plea
Section 1. Arraignment and plea; how made. —
(a) The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial. The arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information, reading the same in the language or dialect known to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may 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 failure to do so shall not affect the validity of the proceedings.
(c) When the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. (1a)
(d) When the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. (n)
(e) When the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was raffled within three (3) days from the filing of the information or complaint. The accused shall be arraigned within ten (10) days from the date of the raffle. The pre-trial conference of his case shall be held within ten (10) days after arraignment. (n)
(f) The private offended party shall be required to appear at the arraignment for purposes of plea bargaining, determination of civil liability, and other matters requiring his presence. In case of failure of the offended party to appear despite due notice, the court may allow the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged with the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone. (cir. 1-89)
(g) Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or Supreme Court circular, the arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The time of the pendency of a motion to quash or for a bill of particulars or other causes justifying suspension of the arraignment shall be excluded in computing the period. (sec. 2, cir. 38-98)
Section 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. — At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. (sec. 4, circ. 38-98)
Section 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. — When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his behalf. (3a)
Section 4. Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception of evidence, discretionary. — 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. (4)
Section 5. Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty. — At any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty. (5)
Section 6. 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 a counsel of his choice, the court must assign a couns
RULE 116
Arraignment and Plea
Section 1. Arraignment and plea; how made. —
(a) The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial. The arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information, reading the same in the language or dialect known to him, and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may 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 failure to do so shall not affect the validity of the proceedings.
(c) When the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. (1a)
(d) When the accused pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence, his plea shall be deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. (n)
(e) When the accused is under preventive detention, his case shall be raffled and its records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was raffled within three (3) days from the filing of the information or complaint. The accused shall be arraigned within ten (10) days from the date of the raffle. The pre-trial conference of his case shall be held within ten (10) days after arraignment. (n)
(f) The private offended party shall be required to appear at the arraignment for purposes of plea bargaining, determination of civil liability, and other matters requiring his presence. In case of failure of the offended party to appear despite due notice, the court may allow the accused to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged with the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone. (cir. 1-89)
(g) Unless a shorter period is provided by special law or Supreme Court circular, the arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. The time of the pendency of a motion to quash or for a bill of particulars or other causes justifying suspension of the arraignment shall be excluded in computing the period. (sec. 2, cir. 38-98)
Section 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense. — At arraignment, the accused, with the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint or information is necessary. (sec. 4, circ. 38-98)
Section 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. — When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may present evidence in his behalf. (3a)
Section 4. Plea of guilty to non-capital offense; reception of evidence, discretionary. — 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. (4)
Section 5. Withdrawal of improvident plea of guilty. — At any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final, the court may permit an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn and be substituted by a plea of not guilty. (5)
Section 6. 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 a counsel of his choice, the court must assign a couns
Peralta: For this violation of his constitutional right, the
Violation of the Right to Speedy Trial Court ruled that he could compel the dismissal of the Information against him through a The Facts petition for mandamus. Petitioner Lumanlaw was charged with illegal possession of a dangerous drug in First Issue: Violation of the Right to Speedy November 2002. He was detained in the Manila Trial City Jail by virtue of a Commitment The 30-day period for an arraignment provided Order. From the time of his arrest in 2002 up to the in the Speedy Trial Act is not filing of the instant Petition in absolute. Judicial proceedings do not exist in a 2004, his arraignment was postponed a total of 14 vacuum, but have to contend with the times for various reasons, such as realities of everyday life. Rather than merely the absence of petitioners counsel, the trial judges making mathematical calculations of unavailability, and the jail wardens periods that have elapsed between stages, one failure to bring him to court. should consider if the delays were vexatious, capricious, oppressive, or unjustified. These postponements resulted in his detention for almost two years, without This Court reviewed the reasons for the the benefit of an arraignment. Thus, he postponements in the case and found filed two Motions to Dismiss the that the violation of petitioners right to speedy Information against him, on the ground that his trial was manifest, given the length right to speedy trial had been and the unreasonableness of a majority of the violated. Both Motions were denied by respondent delays. It saw in the fourteen judge. postponements a lack of earnest effort on the part of respondent to conduct the Petitioner filed a Petition for Mandamus arraignment as soon as the court calendar allowed. under Rule 65, arguing that respondents failure to act expeditiously on his An arraignment takes, at most, ten minutes of the arraignment violated his right to speedy courts business and does not trial and justified the dismissal of the charge normally entail legal gymnastics. It consists simply against him. of reading to accused persons the charges leveled against them, ensuring their The Issues understanding of those charges, and The issues were as follows: obtaining their plea to the charges. A prudent 1. Whether there was a violation of the right to and resolute judge can conduct an speedy trial arraignment as soon as the accused is presented 2. Whether mandamus was the proper remedy before the court. For this reason alone, the high tribunal was astonished that the The Courts Ruling lower court could not complete this The Petition was granted in a unanimous ruling simple but fundamental stage in the proceedings. penned by the Chief Justice. The right of the accused to speedy trial was The absence of petitioners counsel deemed violated because, for almost two de parte years, the trial court had unreasonably failed to during arraignment was not a valid conduct the arraignment of petitioner. reason to postpone it. It would have been disrepute. more prudent for the judge to have appointed a counsel Second Issue: Mandamus as the Proper Remedy de oficio Well-established is the principle that for purposes of arraignment only. This course of a writ of mandamus may be issued to action control the exercise of discretion. The issuance of became more compelling in the instant case when the writ is warranted when, in the the accused himself requested the performance of a duty, there is undue delay that appointment. Thus, the decision of respondent to can be characterized as a grave abuse deny the request was unreasonable, of discretion resulting in manifest injustice. without legal basis, and generally attributable The numerous and unreasonable to his inflexibility as regards postponements in the present case displayed an contingencies. abusive exercise of discretion, in total disregard of the constitutional rights of The foremost cause for the lengthy delay was petitioner. In fact, respondents Orders the repeated failure of the jail denying his Motions to Dismiss did not even bother wardens to bring petitioner to court. Although to explain the reasonableness of the deferment of the arraignment the bases for the postponements. until the accused was presented was justified, the problem could have easily been Also, established in this jurisdiction is the averted by efficient court management. As an general rule that a writ of mandamus administrator, respondent judge should is available to the accused to compel a dismissal of have supervised the case. his clerk of court to ensure a timely service of the produce orders Respondent judge argued for the dismissal of the on the wardens of the Manila City Jail. Judges who instant Petition on the ground set the pace for greater efficiency, that petitioner had not moved for a diligence and dedication can prompt their personnel reconsideration of the trial courts Order dated to be more diligent and efficient May 3, 2004. The former insisted that a in the performance of official duties. prerequisite to a mandamus petition was a The Court held that, under the given circumstances, motion for reconsideration -- a remedy that was respondent failed to assert plain, speedy, and adequate in the his authority actively, so as to expedite the ordinary course of law. proceedings. He allowed the listlessness of the parties, his staff, and the jail wardens to dictate This general rule cited by respondent was not the pace of the proceedings. As impervious to exceptions. In the further aggravation, he did not exert any effort to face of extraordinary and compelling reasons, expedite the arraignment even after the availability of another remedy did petitioner had filed two urgent Motions to Dismiss. not preclude a resort to a special civil action Judges should be more deliberate in their under Rule 65. Since the delays in the actions and make full use of their case at bar had been ordered in total disregard authority to expedite proceedings. of the constitutional rights of Delays in the disposition of cases erode the faith petitioner, the instant case easily fell under those and confidence of our people in the judiciary, exceptions. lower its standards, and bring it into This Court will not deny a writ of mandamus applicable is the balancing test used to determine on purely technical matters, like whether a defendant has been denied his right to a the failure of a party to seek reconsideration and to speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which the conduct of both the follow the hierarchy of courts, if prosecution and the defendant are weighed, and that party would be deprived of substantive rights. such factors as length of the delay, reason for the Procedural rules will not be strictly delay, the defendants assertion or non-assertion of enforced if their enforcement would result in a his right, and prejudice to the defendant resulting miscarriage of justice. This principle from the delay, are considered. holds, especially when a petition is meritorious and the trial judge has clearly violated the petitioners constitutional rights. The protection of our peoples civil liberties overwhelms all rules of procedure. This Court has the duty to safeguard liberty; hence, it will always uphold the basic constitutional rights of our people, especially the weak and the marginalized.
Held:
Yes. Arraignment is a vital stage in criminal
proceedings in which the accused are formally informed of the charges against them. A perusal of the provision shows that arraignment is not a mere formality, but an integral part of due process. Particularly, it implements the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them and their right to speedy trial.
Certain delays were allowed by law and excluded
from the computation of the time within which trial must commence. The Court ruled that those exclusions should reflect the fundamentally recognized principle that the concept of speedy trial is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept.
Jurisprudence has set forth the following guidelines:
x x x. [T]he right to a speedy disposition of a case,
like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. Equally