CRIMPRO DIGEST -rule 116-117.docx - Crimpro Casedigest 05...

Crimpro Casedigest 05
RULE 116- ARRAIGNMENT
G.R. Nos. 117485-86 April 22, 1996
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MELCHOR ESTOMACA y GARQUE , accused-appellant.
Facts:
The accused, an illiterate laborer, was charged guilty of five instances of rape of her
daughter. When he was arraigned, he pleaded guilty to all of the complaints against
him. Eventually however, he informed the court that he was only guilty of two
counts of rape, that the other three might have been done by the victim’s boyfriend
and he was merely blamed for it.
Since he was charged for a heinous crime, the case was elevated to Supreme Court,
which found the arraignment process of the accused to be questionable.
Issue:
Whether or not the arraignment was valid.
Held:
No. Section 1(a) of Rule 116 requires that the arraignment should be made in open
court by the judge himself or by the clerk of court furnishing the accused a copy of
the complaint or information with the list of witnesses stated therein, then reading
the same in the language or dialect that is known to him, and asking him what his
plea is to the charge. The requirement that the reading be made in a language or
dialect that the accused understands and known is a mandatory requirement, just as
the whole of said Section 1 should be strictly followed by trial courts. This the law
affords the accused by way of implementation of the all-important constitutional
mandate regarding the right of an accused to be informed of the precise nature of the
accusation leveled at him and is, therefore, really an avenue for him to be able to
hoist the necessary defense in rebuttal thereof. It is an integral aspect of the due
process clause under the Constitution.
In the case at hand, the arraignment appears to have consisted merely of the bare
reading of the five complaints, synthetically and cryptically reported in the transcript.
Moreover, the court found out that the complaint or information was not read to the
accused in the language known to him, as his local dialect was kinaray-a and the
lower court conducted the arraignment in Ilonggo.
The bottom line of the rule is that a plea of guilt must be based on a free and
informed judgment. Thus, the searching inquiry of the trial court must be focused on:
(1) the voluntariness of the plea; and (2) the full comprehension of the consequences
of the plea. The questions of the trial court failed to show the voluntariness of the
plea of guilt of the appellant nor did the questions demonstrate appellants full
comprehension of the consequences of the plea. The records do not reveal any
information about the personality profile of the appellant which can serve as a
trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilt. The age,
socio-economic status, and educational background of the appellant were not
plumbed by the trial court.