This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-07-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The searching inquiry referred to here means more than just informing cursorily the accused that he faces jail term.[19] The inquiry must expound on the events that actually took place during the arraignment, the words spoken and the warnings given, with special attention to the age of the accused, his educational attainment and socio-economic status as well as the manner of his arrest and detention, the provision of counsel in his behalf during the custodial and preliminary investigations, and the opportunity of his defense counsel to confer with him. The trial court must also explain to the accused the essential elements of the crime he is charged with as well as its respective penalties and civil liabilities.[20] The exact length of imprisonment under the law and the certainty that he will serve time at the national penitentiary or a penal colony must be fully explained to the accused. The court must also explain to the accused that once convicted, he could be meted the death penalty and that it is a single and indivisible penalty that will be imposed regardless of any mitigating circumstance that may have attended the commission of the felony.[21] The court must also direct a series of questions to the defense counsel to determine whether he has conferred with the accused and has completely explained to the latter the meaning of a plea of guilt. This formula is mandatory and absent any showing that it has been followed, a searching inquiry cannot be said to have been undertaken.[22] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2003-03-05 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| As in the case of an improvident plea of guilty, an invalid waiver of the right to present evidence and be heard per se does not work to vacate a finding of guilt in the criminal case and enforce an automatic remand thereof to the trial court. In People v. Molina,[22] to warrant the remand of the case it must also be proved that as a result of such irregularity there was inadequate representation of facts by either the prosecution or the defense during the trial - | |||||