Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

G.R. Nos.

117485-86 April 22, 1996 demonstrate appellants full comprehension of the


consequences of the plea. The records do not reveal any
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, information about the personality profile of the appellant
vs. which can serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to
give a free and informed plea of guilt. The age, socio-
MELCHOR ESTOMACA y GARQUE, accused- economic status, and educational background of the
appellant. appellant were not plumbed by the trial court.
The Supreme Court remanded the two criminal cases
FACTS: where the accused pleaded guilty back to the lower court
for further and appropriate proceedings.
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 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
against him. Eventually however, he informed the court
that he was only guilty of two counts of rape, that the other VS
three might have been done by the victim’s boyfriend and
ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD
he was merely blamed for it.
G.R. NO. 171020, MARCH 14, 2007
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.
FACTS:
Pangilinan is the husband of BBB and the father of AAA.
ISSUE: On September 9, 1995, AAA felt that appellant approach
their bed where she and her two siblings are sleeping.
Whether or not the arraignment was valid.
Appellant removed her shorts and lay on top of her. Her
hands were pinned down above her head by the appellant.
Appellant tried to insert her penis on the vagina of AAA
HELD: but was not successful. On the following night, again
No. Section 1(a) of Rule 116 requires that the arraignment appellant did the same but this time he had forcibly
should be made in open court by the judge himself or by inserted his penis unto the vagina of AAA. During the
the clerk of court furnishing the accused a copy of the month of September 1995, appellant repeatedly raped
complaint or information with the list of witnesses stated AAA. On the month of January 1995, appellant did the
therein, then reading the same in the language or dialect same act towards AAA. On March 1997, BBB the mother
that is known to him, and asking him what his plea is to of AAA went home from Singapore. AAA kept her
the charge. The requirement that the reading be made in a silence until the time when BBB is about to leave for
language or dialect that the accused understands and Singapore. BBB was confronted by the grandmother of
known is a mandatory requirement, just as the whole of AAA saying that appellant is molesting AAA. BBB
said Section 1 should be strictly followed by trial courts. confronted AAA and she tearfully confessed. BBB filed
This the law affords the accused by way of the complaint. Prosecution finally offered the evidences
implementation of the all-important constitutional in which the trial court finds that those evidences against
mandate regarding the right of an accused to be informed the accused are strong. Trial court having discovered that
of the precise nature of the accusation leveled at him and the accused has not be arraigned, scheduled his
is, therefore, really an avenue for him to be able to hoist arraignment.
the necessary defense in rebuttal thereof. It is an integral
aspect of the due process clause under the Constitution.
ISSUE:
In the case at hand, the arraignment appears to have
consisted merely of the bare reading of the five Whether or not, the case would be dismissed for the
complaints, synthetically and cryptically reported in the ground that the appellant was not properly arraigned.
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 HELD:
kinaray-a and the lower court conducted the arraignment
No. Because appellant’s elated arraignment did not
in Ilonggo.
prejudice him. This procedural defect was cured when his
The bottom line of the rule is that a plea of guilt must be counsel participated in the trial without raising any
based on a free and informed judgment. Thus, the objection that his client had yet to be arraigned. His
searching inquiry of the trial court must be focused on: (1) counsel even cross-examined the prosecution witnesses.
the voluntariness of the plea; and (2) the full His counsel’s active participation in the hearings is a clear
comprehension of the consequences of the plea. The indication that he was fully aware of the charges against
questions of the trial court failed to show the voluntariness him; otherwise, his counsel would have objected and
of the plea of guilt of the appellant nor did the questions informed the court of this blunder. Moreover, no protest
was made when appellant was subsequently arraigned. accountable officer to render accounts because he has
The parties did not question the procedure undertaken by already restituted the amount involved.
the trial court. It is only now, after being convicted and
sentenced to two death sentences, that appellant cries that
his constitutional right has been violated. It is already too However, the Sandiganbayan denied Daan’s Motion to
late to raise this procedural defect. SC did not allow it. Plea Bargain, despite favorable recommendation by the
prosecution, on the main ground that no cogent reason
was presented to justify its approval. Likewise, it denied
G.R. Nos. 163972-77. March 28, 2008 Daan’s Motion for Reconsideration.
JOSELITO RANIERO J. DAAN vs. THE HON.
SANDIGANBAYAN (Fourth Division)
ISSUE: Whether or not the plea of guilty to a lesser
offense is proper in this case
Doctrine: Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court
presents the basic requisites upon which plea bargaining
HELD: YES. In the present case, the Sandiganbayan
may be made, i.e., that it should be with the consent of the
rejected petitioner's plea offer on the ground that
offended party and the prosecutor, and that the plea of
petitioner and the prosecution failed to demonstrate that
guilt should be to a lesser offense which is necessarily
the proposal would redound to the benefit of the public.
included in the offense charged. As regards plea
bargaining during the pre-trial stage, as in the present Apparently, the Sandiganbayan has proffered valid
case, the trial court's exercise of its discretion should reasons in rejecting petitioner's plea offer. However,
neither be arbitrary nor should it amount to a capricious subsequent events and higher interests of justice and fair
and whimsical exercise of discretion. play dictate that petitioner's plea offer should be accepted.
The present case calls for the judicious exercise of this
Court's equity jurisdiction and of its power of control and
FACTS: supervision over the proceedings of lower courts, in order
to afford equal justice to petitioner.
Joselito Daan and Benedicto Kuizon were charged before
Sandiganbayan for three counts of malversation of public Moreover, the lesser offenses of Falsification by Private
funds which they purportedly tried to conceal by Individuals and Failure to Render Account by an
falsifying the time book and payrolls for given period Accountable Officer are necessarily included in the
making it appear that some laborers worked on the crimes of Falsification of Public Documents and
construction of the new municipal hall and collected their Malversation of Public Funds, respectively, with which
respective salaries when they did not. In addition, they petitioner was originally charged. Given, therefore, that
were also charged for three counts of falsification of some of the essential elements of offenses charged in this
public document by a public officer or employee. case likewise constitute the lesser offenses, then petitioner
may plead guilty to such lesser offenses.
In the falsification cases, the accused offered to withdraw
their plea of not guilty and substitute the same with a plea
of guilty, provided, the mitigating circumstances of
confession or plea of guilt and voluntary surrender will be PEOPLE v. KHADDAFY JANJALANI,
appreciated in their favor. In the alternative, if such GR No. 188314
proposal is not acceptable, said accused proposed instead
to substitute their plea of not guilty to the crime of
falsification of public document by a public officer or FACTS:
employee with a plea of guilty, but to the lesser crime of
falsification of a public document by a private individual.
On the other hand, in the malversation cases, the accused
Accused-appellants Baharan and Trinidad argue that the
offered to substitute their plea of not guilty thereto with a
trial court did not conduct a searching inquiry after they
plea of guilty, but to the lesser crime of failure of an
had changed their plea from "not guilty" to "guilty."
accountable officer to render accounts.
In their second assignment of error, accused-appellants
assert that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Insofar as the falsification cases are concerned, the They pointed out that the testimony of the conductor was
prosecution found as acceptable the proposal of the merely circumstantial, while that of Asali as to the
accused to plead guilty to the lesser crime of falsification conspiracy was insufficient.
of public document by a private individual for it will
strengthen the cases against the principal accused,
Municipal Mayor Kuizon who appears to be the ISSUES:
mastermind of these criminal acts. As to the malversation
cases, the prosecution was likewise amenable to the offer Accused-appellants raise the following assignment of
of Daan to plead guilty to the lesser crime of failure of an errors:
by both accused during pretrial), and the other via judicial
admission (pretrial stipulation). Considering the
The trial court gravely erred in accepting accused-
foregoing circumstances, we deem it unnecessary to rule
appellants' plea of guilt despite insufficiency of searching
on the sufficiency of the "searching inquiry" in this...
inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of
instance. Remanding the case for re-arraignment is not
the consequences of the said plea.
warranted, as the accused's plea of guilt was not the sole
The trial court gravely erred in finding that the guilt of basis of the condemnatory judgment under consideration.
accused-appellants for the crimes charged had been
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In People v. Oden, the Court declared that even if the
requirement of conducting a searching inquiry was not
RULING: complied with, "[t]he manner by which the plea of guilt is
made ... loses much of great significance where the
As early as in People v. Apduhan, the Supreme Court has conviction can be based on independent evidence...
ruled that "all trial judges ... must refrain from accepting proving the commission by the person accused of the
with alacrity an accused's plea of guilty, for while justice offense charged."[13] Thus, in People v. Nadera, the
demands a speedy administration, judges are duty bound Court stated:
to be extra solicitous in seeing to it... that when an accused
pleads guilty, he understands fully the meaning of his plea Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set
and the import of an inevitable conviction."[6] Thus, trial aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If
court judges are required to observe the following the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to
procedure under Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of convict the accused, the conviction must be sustained
Court:
Insofar as accused-appellants Baharan and Trinidad are
concerned, the evidence for the prosecution, in addition to
that which can be drawn from the stipulation of facts,
SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of primarily consisted of the testimonies of the bus
evidence. -- When the accused pleads guilty to a capital conductor, Elmer Andales, and of the... accused-turned-
offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into state-witness, Asali. Andales positively identified accused
the voluntariness and full comprehension of the Baharan and Trinidad as the two men who had acted
consequences of his... plea and shall require the suspiciously while inside the bus... and who had
prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of scampered away from the bus... moments before the bomb
culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his exploded. On the other hand, Asali testified that he had
behalf. given accused Baharan and Trinidad the TNT used in the
bombing incident in Makati City. The guilt of the accused
Baharan and Trinidad was sufficiently established by
The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry applies these corroborating testimonies,... coupled with their
more so in cases of re-arraignment. respective judicial admissions (pretrial stipulations) and
extrajudicial confessions (exclusive television interviews,
as they both stipulated during pretrial) that they were
Likewise, the requirement to conduct a searching inquiry indeed the perpetrators of the Valentine's Day
should not be deemed satisfied in cases in which it was bombing.[15]
the defense counsel who explained the consequences of a
Accordingly, the Court upholds the findings of guilt made
"guilty" plea to the accused, as it appears in this case.
by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
the conduct of a searching inquiry remains the duty of
judges, as they are mandated by the rules to satisfy
themselves that the accused had not been under coercion
or duress; mistaken impressions; or a misunderstanding of
the... significance, effects, and consequences of their ABS-CBN CORPORATION V. FELIPE GOZON ET
guilty plea.[10] This requirement is stringent and AL. (G.R. NO. 195956, MARCH 11, 2015)
mandatory.
Nevertheless, we are not unmindful of the context under FACTS:
which the re-arraignment was conducted or of the factual
milieu surrounding the finding of guilt against the On August 13, 2004, petitioner ABS-CBN filed a criminal
accused. The Court observes that accused Baharan and complaint against respondent GMA for (alleged) act of
Trinidad previously pled guilty to another charge -... copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property
multiple murder - based on the same act relied upon in the Code because the GMA aired footage of the arrival and
multiple frustrated murder charge. The Court further homecoming of OFW Angelo dela Cruz at NAIA from
notes that prior to the change of plea to one of guilt, Iraq without the petitioner's consent. ABS-CBN stated
accused Baharan and Trinidad made two other that it has an agreement with Reuter's that the petition will
confessions of guilt - one through an extrajudicial... contribute news and content that it owns and makes to
confession (exclusive television interviews, as stipulated Reuters in exchange of the latter's news and video
material, and Reuters will ensure that ABS-CBN's mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for
materials cannot be aired in the country. The respondent such purpose;
was a subscriber of Reuter's and CNN live feeds. After it
(b) There exists a prejudicial question; and
received the live feed of Angelo Dela Cruz's arrival and
homecoming from Reuter's, it immediately aired the (c) A petition for review of the resolution of the
video from that news feed. The respondent alleged that its prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice,
news staff was not aware that there was (a news embargo) or the Office of the President; provided, that the period of
agreement between ABSCBN and Reuters. Respondent suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from
alleged that it was not also aware that it aired petitioner's the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. The
footage. On December 3, 2004, Prosecutor Venturanza trial court should have proceeded with respondents Dela
issued resolution which found probable cause to indict Peña-Reyes and Manalastas' arraignment after the 60-day
Dela Pena-Reyes and Manalastas. The respondents period from the filing of the Petition for Review before
appealed the Prosecutor’s resolution before the DOJ. DOJ the Department of Justice on March 8, 2005. It was only
Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez ruled in favor of GMAin his on September 13, 2010 that the temporary restraining
resolution dated 1 August 2005 and held that good faith order was issued by the Court of Appeals. The trial court
may be raised as a defense in the case. Dela Peña-Reyes erred when it did not act on the criminal case during the
and Manalastas motioned to suspend proceedings. The interim period. It had full control and direction of the case.
trial court granted the Motion to Suspend Proceedings As Judge Mogul reasoned in denying the motion to
filed by Dela Peña-Reyes and Manalastas on January 19, dismiss in Crespo, failure to proceed with the arraignment
2005 saying that Under Section 11 (c), Rule 116 of the "disregards the requirements of due process [and] erodes
Rules of Criminal Procedure, once a petition for review is the Court's independence and integrity.
filed with the Department of Justice, a suspension of the
criminal proceedings may be allowed by the court.
Meanwhile, DOJ Acting Secretary Alberto C. Agraissued JUAN PONCE ENRILE V. PEOPLE OF THE
a resolution on which reversed Sec. Gonzalez's resolution PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 213455, 11 AUGUST 2015.
and found probable cause to charge Dela Pena-Reyes,
Manalast, as well as to indict Gozon, Duavit, Jr., Flores,
and Soho for violation of the Intellectual Property Code
The Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information for
(due to copyright infringement). The Court of Appeals
plunder against Enrile, Jessica Lucila Reyes, Janet Lim
rendered a decisionreversing and setting aside DOJ Sec.
Napoles, Ronald John Lim, and John Raymund de Asis
Agra's resolution. The appellate court stated that the
before the Sandiganbayan.
ABSCBN has copyright of its news coverage, but GMA’s
act of airing five (5) seconds of the homecoming footage
without notice of the “No Access Philippines” restriction
of the live Reuter's video feed, was undeniably attended The Information reads:
by good faith and thus, serves to exculpate from criminal xxxx
liability under the Intellectual Property Code.
In 2004 to 2010 or thereabout, in the Philippines, and
within this Honorable Court’s jurisdiction, above-named
ISSUE ON MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDING: accused JUAN PONCE ENRILE, then a Philippine
Senator, JESSICA LUCILA G. REYES, then Chief of
W/N the granting of the trial court on the motion to Staff of Senator Enrile’s Office, both public officers,
suspend proceedings was proper. committing the offense in relation to their respective
offices, conspiring with one another and with JANET
LIM NAPOLES, RONALD JOHN LIM, and JOHN
HELD: RAYMUND DE ASIS, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and criminally amass, accumulate, and/or
The trial court granted respondents' Motion to Suspend acquire ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least ONE
Proceedings and deferred respondents Dela Peña-Reyes HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO MILLION EIGHT
and Manalastas' arraignment for 60 days in view of the HUNDRED THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE
Petition for Review filed before the Department of HUNDRED PESOS (Php172,834,500.00) through a
Justice. Rule 116, Section 11 (c) of the Rules of Criminal combination or series of overt criminal acts, as follows:
Procedure allows the suspension of the accused's
arraignment in certain circumstances only:
SEC. 11. Suspension of arraignment. -Upon motion by the by repeatedly receiving from NAPOLES and/or her
proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the representatives LIM, DE ASIS, and others, kickbacks or
following cases: commissions under the following circumstances: before,
during and/or after the project identification, NAPOLES
(a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound gave, and ENRILE and/or REYES received, a percentage
mental condition which effectively renders him unable to of the cost of a project to be funded from ENRILE’S
fully understand the charge against him and to plead Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), in
intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his consideration of ENRILE’S endorsement, directly or
through REYES, to the appropriate government agencies,
of NAPOLES’ non-government organizations which becomes more relevant in the present case where the
became the recipients and/or target implementors of crime charged carries with it the severe penalty of capital
ENRILE’S PDAF projects, which duly-funded projects punishment and entails the commission of several
turned out to be ghosts or fictitious, thus enabling predicate criminal acts involving a great number of
NAPOLES to misappropriate the PDAF proceeds for her transactions spread over a considerable period of time.
personal gain; Notably, conviction for plunder carries with it the penalty
of capital punishment; for this reason, more process is
by taking undue advantage, on several occasions, of their
due, not less. When a person’s life interest – protected by
official positions, authority, relationships, connections,
the life, liberty, and property language recognized in the
and influence to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense
due process clause – is at stake in the proceeding, all
and to the damage and prejudice, of the Filipino people
measures must be taken to ensure the protection of those
and the Republic of the Philippines.
fundamental rights.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

While both the motion to dismiss the Information and the


Enrile filed a motion for bill of particulars before the motion for bill of particulars involved the right of an
Sandiganbayan. On the same date, he filed a motion for accused to due process, the enumeration of the details
deferment of arraignment since he was to undergo desired in Enrile’s supplemental opposition to issuance of
medical examination at the Philippine General Hospital a warrant of arrest and for dismissal of information and in
(PGH). his motion for bill of particulars are different viewed
particularly from the prism of their respective objectives.
In the former, Enrile took the position that the Information
The Court denied Enrile’s motion for bill of particulars. did not state a crime for which he can be convicted; thus,
the Information is void; he alleged a defect of substance.
In the latter, he already impliedly admits that the
Information sufficiently alleged a crime but is unclear and
ISSUE:
lacking in details that would allow him to properly plead
Is a Motion to Quash the proper remedy if the information and prepare his defense; he essentially alleged here a
is vague or indefinite resulting in the serious violation of defect of form. Note that in the former, the purpose is to
Enrile’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature dismiss the Information for its failure to state the nature
and cause of the accusation against him? and cause of the accusation against Enrile; while the
details desired in the latter (the motion for bill of
particulars) are required to be specified in sufficient detail
HELD: because the allegations in the Information are vague,
indefinite, or in the form of conclusions and will not allow
NO. When allegations in an Information are vague or Enrile to adequately prepare his defense unless
indefinite, the remedy of the accused is not a motion to specifications are made.That every element constituting
quash, but a motion for a bill of particulars. the offense had been alleged in the Information does not
preclude the accused from requesting for more specific
details of the various acts or omissions he is alleged to
The purpose of a bill of particulars is to supply vague facts have committed. The request for details is precisely the
or allegations in the complaint or information to enable function of a bill of particulars. Hence, while the
the accused to properly plead and prepare for trial. It information may be sufficient for purposes of stating the
presupposes a valid Information, one that presents all the cause and the crime an accused is charged, the allegations
elements of the crime charged, albeit under vague terms. may still be inadequate for purposes of enabling him to
Notably, the specifications that a bill of particulars may properly plead and prepare for trial.
supply are only formal amendments to the complaint or
Information. Thus, if the Information is lacking, a court
should take a liberal attitude towards its granting and We DIRECT the People of the Philippines to SUBMIT,
order the government to file a bill of particulars within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days from
elaborating on the charges. Doubts should be resolved in finality of this Decision, with copy furnished to Enrile, a
favor of granting the bill to give full meaning to the bill of particulars containing the facts sought that we
accused’s Constitutionally guaranteed rights. herein rule to be material and necessary. The bill of
particulars shall specifically contain the following:

Notably, the government cannot put the accused in the


position of disclosing certain overt acts through the The particular overt act/s alleged to constitute the
Information and withholding others subsequently “combination or series of overt criminal acts” charged in
discovered, all of which it intends to prove at the trial. the Information.
This is the type of surprise a bill of particulars is designed
to avoid. The accused is entitled to the observance of all A breakdown of the amounts of the “kickbacks or
the rules designated to bring about a fair verdict. This commissions” allegedly received, stating how the amount
of P172,834,500.00 was arrived at.
A brief description of the ‘identified’ projects where
kickbacks or commissions were received.
The approximate dates of receipt, “in 2004 to 2010 or
thereabout,” of the alleged kickbacks and commissions
from the identified projects. At the very least, the
prosecution should state the year when the kickbacks and
transactions from the identified projects were received.
The name of Napoles’ non-government organizations
(NGOs) which were the alleged “recipients and/or target
implementors of Enrile’s PDAF projects.”
The government agencies to whom Enrile allegedly
endorsed Napoles’ NGOs. The particular person/s in each
government agency who facilitated the transactions need
not be named as a particular.
All particulars prayed for that are not included in the
above are hereby denied.

Вам также может понравиться