This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-06-21 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We again emphasize that the requirement that the information should be read in a language or dialect known to the accused is mandatory. It must be strictly complied with as it is intended to protect the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The constitutional protection is part of due process. Failure to observe the rules necessarily nullifies the arraignment.[11] | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The process is mandatory and absent any showing that it has been duly observed, a searching inquiry cannot be said to have been aptly undertaken.[6] The trial court must be extra solicitous to see to it that the accused fully understands the meaning and importance of his plea. In capital offenses[7] particularly, life being at stake, one cannot just lean on the presumption that the accused has understood his plea.[8] | |||||