ARRAIGNMENT

 Is the formal mode and manner of implementing the constitutional right of an

accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
 It is an indispensable requirement of due process and this, cannot be regarded lightly
or brushed aside peremptorily
 Procedural due process requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be
informed of the reason for his indictment, the specific charges he is bound to face,
and the corresponding penalty that could be possible meted against him

The absence of arraignment results in the nullity of the proceedings before the trial court. =
tantamount to a denial of the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the accusation
against him

If the accused has not been arraigned, he cannot be tried in absentia.

Duty of the court before arraignment:

= MANDATORY (constitutional right of the accused to counsel)
1) Inform the accused of his right to counsel;
2) Ask him if he desires to have one; and
3) Must assign a counsel de oficio to defend him,
UNLESS the accused:
a. Is allowed to defend himself in person; or
b. Has employed a counsel of his choice

The only instance when the court can ARRAIGN WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF COUNSEL is if the
accused waives such right and the court, finding the accused capable, allows him to
represent himself in person.

Counsel de oficio
- Members of the bar in good standing who,
- By reason of their experience and ability,
- Can competently defend the accused
- Shall be given a reasonable time to consult with the accused as to his plea before
proceeding with the arraignment

OPTIONS OF THE ACCUSED before arraignment and plea

1) BILL OF PARTICULARS (Section 9, Rule 116)
 - To enable him to properly plead and prepare for trial
a. Specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information
b. Specify the details desired
- Failure to file a MBP amounts to a WAIVER of the defect or detail desired in the
information

2) SUSPENSION OF ARRAIGNMENT (Section 11)

a. The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition;
- Trial court is mandated to order the confinement of an accused who is
mentally unsound in one of the hospitals or asylums
b. There exists a prejudicial question; and
- A petition to suspend the criminal action on the ground of prejudicial
question shall be prohibited when no civil case has yet been filed
c. There is a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor which
is pending at either the DOJ or the OP.
- The period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the
filing of the petition with the reviewing office.
- With the arraignment of the accused, the DOJ Secretary can no longer
entertain the appeal or petition for review because petitioner had already
waived or abandoned the same

3) MOTION TO QUASH
- At any time before entering his plea (grounds under Sec 3, Rule 117)
4) CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE ARREST OR LEGALITY OF THE WARRANT ISSUED
OR ASSAIL THE REGULARITY OR QUESTION THE ABSENCE OF A PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION OF THE CHARGE
- An objection should be made at or before the arraignment; otherwise, the
objection is deemed waived.
The arraignment of the accused constitutes a waiver of the right to preliminary investigation
or reinvestigation.

AMENDED INFORMATION
Substantial amendment: an arraignment on the amended information is mandatory
because the accused has the constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against
him
Amendment as to form: no need for another preliminary investigation and the retaking of
the plea
- Does not change the nature of the crime
- Does not affect the essence of the offense
- Does not deprive the accused of an opportunity to meet the new averment
- Is not prejudicial to the accused

WHERE arraignment is to be made:

Before the court where the complaint or information was:
1) Filed
2) Assigned for trial

HOW arraignment is made:

1) In open court by the judge or clerk
2) By furnishing the accused with a copy of the complaint or information
3) Reading the same in the language or dialect known to him, and
4) Asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty

WHEN arraignment is to be made:

a) Schedule
Upon acquiring jurisdiction over the person of the accused:
a. For a detained accused – within 10 calendar days
b. Non-detained accused – within 30 calendar days
b) Notice
Rule requires the setting of the arraignment and pre-trial on the same date, holding the pre-
trial after the arraignment
Rule on Summary Procedure: arraignment and preliminary conference shall be held
simultaneously

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary
appearance, not on his arraignment.

Appellant was arraigned after the case was submitted for decision:
- This procedural defect was cured when his counsel participated in the trial without
raising any objection that his client had yet to be arraigned.
The accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally enter his
plea. (Sec 1(b), Rule 116)

Presence of the offended party shall be required during arraignment for the following
purposes:
a) Plea bargaining
b) Determination of civil liability
c) Other mattes requiring his presence

Offended party fails to appear despite due notice: the court may allow the accused to enter
a plea of guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged with
the conformity of the trial prosecutor alone.

Aside from an actual plea of not guilty, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for the
accused if he:
1) Refuses to plead;
2) Makes a conditional plea;
3) Pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence in which case the guilty plea shall be
deemed withdrawn and a plea of not guilty shall be entered

By entering a plea of not guilty, the accused submits himself to the jurisdiction of the trial
court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest.

The waiver of the right to question the legality of the arrest does not necessarily
carry with it his waiver of the right to question the admissibility of the evidence
procured on the occasion of or incidental to the illegal arrest. The waiver did not
transform an inadmissible evidence to one that is admissible.
Q: D was charged with theft of an article worth
P15,000.00. Upon being arraigned, he pleaded not
guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, before
trial commenced, he asked the court to allow him
to change his plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty
but only to estafa involving P5,000.00. Can the
court allow D to change his plea? Why? (2002
Bar)
A: No, because a plea of guilty to a lesser offense may
be allowed if the lesser offense is necessarily included
in the offense charged (Sec. 2, Rule 116). Estafa
involving P5,000.00 is not necessarily included in
theft of an article worth P15,000.00

Q: Mr. W was charged with raping his neighbor's

seventeen (17)-year old daughter, AAA. When he was
arraigned, Mr. W expressed his desire to plead "guilty,"
provided that his sentence be substantially reduced.
Both AAA's mother and the prosecutor were amenable
to the proposal. Consequently, the judge entered a plea

of guilty for Mr. W and sentenced him to serve a reduced

straight penalty of only ten (10) years of imprisonment,
as agreed upon. (2019 BAR)
(a) Did the judge properly enter a plea of guilty for Mr.
W? Explain.
A: NO. The act of Mr. W is a conditional plea, meaning,
subject to the condition that he be punished to a certain
penalty. In that case, the trial court should have vacated
such a plea and entered a plea of not guilty for a conditional
plea of guilty, or one subject to the proviso that a certain
penalty be imposed upon him. A conditional plea of guilty is
equivalent to a plea of not guilty and would, therefore,
require a full-blown trial before judgment may be rendered.
(UP BOC 2019 Bar Questions and Suggested Answers)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
NO. Rape is considered as a capital offense being punishable
by reclusion perpetua. Thus, under Section 3, Rule 166 of the
Rules of Court, the Judge is duty bound: (1) to conduct a
searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
comprehension of the consequences of the plea of guilt; (2)
to require the prosecution to still prove the guilt of the
accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and (3) to
inquire whether or not the accused wishes to present
evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.
(b) Assuming that Mr. W was once more charged with
the crime of Rape committed against AAA based on
the same incident, may Mr. W validly invoke the
defense of double jeopardy through a motion to
quash and will such motion prosper? Explain.
A: NO. In effect, the judgment rendered by the trial court
against Mr. W which was based on a void plea bargaining is
also void ab initio and cannot be considered to have
attained finality for the simple reason that a void judgment
has no legality from its inception. Thus, since the judgment
of conviction rendered against Mr. W was void, double
jeopardy will not lie. (UP BOC 2019 Bar Questions and
Suggested Answers)
Q: D was charged with theft of an article worth
P15,000.00. Upon being arraigned, he pleaded not
guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, before trial
commenced, he asked the court to allow him to change
his plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty but only to estafa
involving P5,000.00. Can the court allow D to change his
plea? Why? (2002 BAR)
A: NO, because a plea of guilty to a lesser offense may be
allowed if the lesser offense is necessarily included in the
offense charged. (Sec. 2, Rule 116, ROC, as amended) Estafa
involving P5,000.00 is not necessarily included in theft of an
article worth P15,000.00
Q: Cain was indicted under an Information charging
him with the crime of Murder. He was caught by the
police in flagrant delicto as the incident happened in a
public place with many witnesses present. Videos of the
incident were also posted online which the judge was
able to watch.
During his arraignment, Cain pleaded guilty to the
crime charged. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) accepted
the plea because it was made voluntarily and with full
understanding of the consequences. The RTC directed
the prosecution to present evidence to prove Cain's
guilt. However, the prosecution failed to present any
evidence during the scheduled hearings. The RTC then
ruled and found Cain guilty beyond reasonable doubt
based solely on his plea of guilt.
Was Cain’s conviction proper? Explain briefly. (2022
BAR)
A: NO. Cain's conviction for murder was not proper. Under
the Rules of Criminal Procedure, in case the accused pleads
guilty to a capital offense, the court shall still require the
prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of
culpability. (Sec. 3, Rule 116, ROC, as amended) Here, the
accused pleaded guilty to murder, which the Supreme Court
has held to be a capital offense since the death penalty was
not expunged from the Revised Penal Code but merely
prohibited from being imposed. The prosecution failed to
prove the accused Cain’s guilt since it did not present any
evidence. Hence, Cain’s conviction for murder was not
proper. (People v. Pagal, G.R. No. 241257, 29 Sept. 2020;
Riguera, 2023)