This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-11-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The procedural steps laid down in Section 1(a) of Rule 116 are not empty rituals that a judge can take nonchalantly. Each step constitutes an integral part of that crucial stage in criminal litigation "where the issues are joined x x x and without which the proceedings cannot advance further."[39] | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| 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.[16] | |||||
|
2004-03-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| language or dialect that is known to him, and [3] 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 knows 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.[20] We subscribe to Executive Judge Roxas' finding that respondent judge similarly failed to comply with the requirements of Section 1(a) of Rule 116. Complainants deny respondent judge's claim that he arraigned complainants by "read[ing] to them [the information] in the dialect | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Even the certificate of re-arraignment[15] contradicts the statement therein that accused-appellant was separately re-arraigned in the five (5) criminal cases. This certificate states "complaint" (singular) rather than "complaints" (plural) since there were five (5) criminal cases to which he was allegedly pleading guilty[16] and thus irregularly attests to his guilty plea to only one (1) of the five (5) Informations.[17] In People v. Estomaca[18] we held - | |||||
|
2000-02-02 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The warnings given by the trial court in this case fall short of the requirement that it must make a searching inquiry to determine whether accused-appellant understood fully the import of his guilty plea. As has been said, a mere warning that the accused faces the supreme penalty of death is insufficient.[24] For more often than not, an accused pleads guilty upon bad advice or because he hopes for a lenient treatment or a lighter penalty. The trial judge must erase such mistaken impressions.[25] He must be completely convinced that the guilty plea made by the accused was not made under duress or promise of reward. The judge must ask the accused the manner the latter was arrested or detained, and whether he was assisted by counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations. In addition, the defense counsel should also be asked whether he conferred with the accused and completely explained to him the meaning and the consequences of a plea of guilt. Furthermore, since the age, educational attainment and socio-economic status of the accused may reveal insights for a proper verdict in the case, the trial court must ask questions concerning them.[26] In this case, absent any showing that these questions were put to accused-appellant, a searching inquiry cannot be said to have been undertaken by the trial court. | |||||