RULE 116 Den
RULE 116 Den
RULE 116 Den
ARRAIGNMEN
T AND PLEA
Arellano, Aloha
Barradas, Renier
Eguia, Ezra Eve
Opada, Eden Marie
SECTION 1. ARRAIGNMENT AND PLEA; HOW MADE.-
General Rule:
Accused should be arraigned within 30
days from the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused
unless a shorter period is provided for by
law. 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.
WHEN SHOULD AN ACCUSED BE ARRAIGNED WITHIN A SHORTER PERIOD?
PLEAS
the offended party and of the prosecutor to the plea of guilty to a lesser
offense that is necessarily included in the offense charged.
o Plea to lesser offense after arraignment but before trial the accused
may still be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense after withdrawing his
previous plea of not guilty. No amendment to the complaint or information is
necessary.
EFFECT:
Conviction will be set aside if the plea of guilty
Facts:
Accused admitted to the raping and killing of a 9-year-old
HELD / Reason:
Hence, the judge committed grave abuse of discretion when he did not
Facts:
Appellant was charged with the crime of rape with homicide of
Khazie Mae Penecilla, a minor, four years of age, choking her with
his right hand. The incident happened after appellant drank liquor.
A neighbor, Leopoldo Santiago found the victims body and the
parents and police were informed. Appellant was living in his
uncle's house some five arm's length from Penecilla's house.
Appellant was arrested and interrogated by PO3 Danilo Tan.
Issue:
Whether or Not the death penalty was
proper.
Held:
No. The records do not reveal that the Information against the
appellant was read in the language or dialect known to him.
The RTC violated section 1(a) of Rule 116, the rule implementing the
constitutional right of the appellant to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him. It also denied appellant his
constitutional right to due process of law. It is urged that we must
presume that the arraignment of the appellant was regularly
conducted. When life is at stake, we cannot lean on this rebuttable
presumption. There could be no presumption. The court must be sure.
The trial court violated section 3 of Rule 116 when it
accepted the plea of guilt of the appellant. Said
section requires that the court shall conduct a
searching inquiry 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 also
present evidence in his behalf.
Facts:
Storeroom of the Bukidnon National School of Home
Held:
Yes.
Facts:
Accused Gonzaga was indicted for the
crime of murder
Not adequately informed of the nature
Held:
Yes.
On May 8, 2002, the Chief Public Attorney filed an Urgent and Ex-Parte Motion to be
Relieved as Court-Appointed Counsel with the Special Division of the
Sandiganbayan, praying that she be relieved of her duties and responsibilities as
counsel de oficio for the said accused on the ground that she had a swelling
workload consisting of administrative matters and that the accused are not indigent
persons; hence, they are not qualified to avail themselves of the services of PAO.
On May 14, 2002, the remaining eight PAO lawyers filed an Ex-Parte Motion To Be
Relieved As Court-Appointed Counsels with respondent Court on the ground that the
accused, former President Joseph Estrada and Jose Estrada, are not indigents;
therefore, they are not qualified to avail themselves of the services of PAO.
Issue:
The issue is whether or not respondent
committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in issuing the subject
Resolutions retaining two PAO lawyers
to act as counsels de oficio for the
accused who are not indigent persons.
Held:
The Court holds that respondent did not gravely abuse
its discretion in issuing the subject Resolutions as the
issuance is not characterized by caprice or
arbitrariness.
(CAPTION)
Defendant, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully avers:
From August 3 to December 2003, defendant never paid anything to herein plaintiff. The check that he issued as partial
payment for the first month also bounced. x x x(underscoring supplied)
2.The said allegation is not averred with sufficient definiteness and particularity, specifically it does not mention the amount of
the check therein mentioned, its check number, date, and the drawee bank;
3.That a more definite statement on the matters as above-indicated is necessary in order to enable the defendant to prepare
its responsive pleading because from the very onset of this controversy, the main dispute was on what was actually and
exactly agreed upon by the parties as the amount of monthly rentals on the lease of plaintiff's property;
4.However, due to the fact that defendant corporation had to transfer its liaison offices depending on its project sites, the
check stub where the above-mentioned check came from was probably misplaced and could no longer be found;
5.That a bill of particulars or a more definite statement as to particulars of the said check which was allegedly issued by the
defendants as partial payment for the first month would definitely simplify the issues in this case, and hopefully uncomplicate
the negotiations between the parties for an amicable settlement.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, defendant most respectfully prays that an order be issued by this Honorable Court requiring the plaintiff to make
more definite statement as to the particulars of the check mentioned in paragraph 5 of his complaint, particularly stating its
amount, check number, date, and the name of the drawee bank.
(COUNSEL)
(NOTICE OF HEARING)
(EXPLANATION)
COPY FURNISHED:
SEC. 10. PRODUCTION OR INSPECTION OF MATERIAL
EVIDENCE IN POSSESSION OF PROSECUTION.
Counsel for the defense asked the Court to order the prosecution to
furnish the defendants with at least all of the names of the witnesses
for the prosecution.
Held:
The defendant must be arraigned before the court in