Law Student's Journal: Rule 116 Arraignment and Plea

The following were taken from my notes in Criminal Procedure under Judge Pacifico Garcia (retired RTC judge)

Q1: Is arraignment part of the trial?A1: No, it is not. In the case of Malupang v. Reyes it was decided that arraignment is not part of the trial although it is at this phase of the criminal proceeding where the issues are joined.

Q2: How is it made and where?A1: Rule 116, Sec 1 of the Rules of Court states that the accused must be arraigned
in the court where the complaint or information has been filed or assigned for trial, not in the Municipal Trial Court where the accusatory pleading was filed for preliminary investigation. It must be made in an open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused a copy of the complaint or information and 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.

Q3: Is the accused entitled to be furnished by the prosecution with a list of witnesses?
A3: YES. It is a matter of right on the part of the accused to be provided with a list of witnesses to avoid the presentation of surprise witnesses and to enable the defense to examine their record, morality and character.

Q4: What is the time for the accused to know all the witnesses against him?
A4: Only when the witnesses take witness stand to avoid the possibility of them being pressured or coerced not to testify.

Q5: What is the effect of the plea of guilty?
A5: An unqualified plea of guilty constitutes an admission of all the material facts alleged in the information including the aggravating circumstances therein stated. Thus, it is sufficient to sustain a conviction of any offense charged in the information without the introduction of further evidence where the defendant himself supplied the necessary proof


Q6: Is the accused entitled to plead guilty to a lesser offense as a matter of right?
A6: No. Before the accused can plead guilty to a lesser offense, he has to have the consent of both the offended party and the prosecutor and said lower offense must be necessarily included in the offense charged.
The plea of guilty to a lighter offense than that charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of compromise for the convenience of the accused. The rules allow such plea only when the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Q7: May the accused change his plea after the prosecution rested its case?
A7: Yes, he may as long as the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused of the crime charged as in the case of People v. Villarama, Jr.

Q8: What constitutes a plea of guilty to an offense?
A8: Generally, a plea of guilty constitutes an admission of the crime charged and all the attendant circumstances alleged in the information and 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

Q9: Will the rule be the same where the offense charged was a capital offense?
A9: No, the rule assumes a different character. Under the new procedure developed, when the offense admitted was 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 precise degree of culpability.

Q10. What are the three things that the trial court are enjoined whenever a plea of guilty to a capital offense has been entered by the accused?
A10. The following shall be complied:
a. to conduct a searching inquiry;
b. to require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused;
c. to ask the accused whether he desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires
Failure to comply with the foregoing amount to GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION

Q11. What is the reason for this?
A11. To preclude any room for reasonable doubt in the mind of the trial court or of the Supreme Court as to the possibility that there might have been some misunderstanding on the part of the accused as to the nature of the charges to which he pleaded guilty and to ascertain the circumstances attendant to the commission of the crime.