7/28/2019 Arraignment Digest

1/3

PEOPLE vs ESTOMACA

On May 24, 1994, consequent to five separatecomplaints, Criminal Cases Nos.43567,43568,43569,43570 and43571 were filed in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, IloiloCitycharging herein appellant, an illiterate laborer, with rapecommitted on five separate occasionsagainst his own daughter,complainant Estelita Estomaca.

Heres what happened:

Melita, the eldest daughter of the accused claims that she was raped by the accused.There is someinconsistency in the statements on recordas to what actually took place on June 14, 1994 duringthearraignment of appellant, assisted by his government counsel

deoficio,

Atty. Rogelio Antiquiera. The decision of the court below,dated July 15, 1994, declares that heentered a plea of guilty toCriminal Cases Nos. 43568 and 43571, and a plea of not guilty toCriminalCases Nos. 43567,43569 and 43570. Obviouslyengendered by the insufficiency of the proceedings

conductedand the imprecision of the notes taken at this stage, this matterwill be further discussedhereafter.The two criminal complaints, both subscribed by theoffended party on April29, 1994 andwhich are the subject of thejoint judgment of the lower court challenged in thisappellatereview.Proceeding upon the capital nature of the offensesinvolved, the trial court, afterappellant ostensibly waived thepresentation of evidence for his defense, required theprosecution toadduce evidence purportedly to establish appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Thus, on June 29,1994, the complainant herself, Melita Estomaca, appeared incourt and testifiedthat she was raped by her father once inDecember, 1993 and, again, on March 6, 1994.On theauthority of Republic Act No. 7659 which tookeffect on December 31, 1993, the lower court imposeduponappellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the sexual assault supposedly perpetrated inDecember, 1993, and the supremepenalty of death with respect to the rape allegedly committed

onMarch 6, 1994. In each of the said cases, he was further orderedto indemnify the offended party inthe amount of P50,000.00 andto pay the costs.ISSUE: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURTCORRECTLY CONVICTEDTHE APPELLANT AND IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF DEATHHELD:No.Section 1(a) of Rule 116 requires that the arraignment should bemade in open court by the judgehimself or by the clerk of court furnishing the accused a copy of the complaint or information with thelist of witnesses stated therein, then reading the same in the language or dialect that is known tohim, and asking him what his plea is to the charge. The requirement that the reading be made in alanguage or dialect that the accused understands and knows is a mandatory requirement, just as thewhole of said Section 1 should be strictly followed by trial courts. This the law affords the accused byway of implementation of the all-important constitutional mandate regarding the right of an accusedto be informed of the precise nature of the accusation leveled at him and is, therefore, really anavenue for him to be able to hoist the necessary defense in rebuttal thereof. It is an integral aspectof the due process clause under the Constitution. At threshold, what strikes this Court as peculiar is

that the arraignment appears to have consisted merely of the barereading of the five complaints,synthetically and crypticallyre ported in the transcript, thus: (Reading the information/complaint tothe accused in Ilonggo/local dialect).

Since what was supposed to have been read was stated in the singular, but there were five criminalcomplaints against appellant, this Court is then left to speculate on whether all five criminalcomplaints were actually read, translated or explained to appellant on a level within hiscomprehension, considering his limited education.

7/28/2019 Arraignment Digest

2/3

There is no showing whether or not appellant or his counsel deoficio was furnished a copy of eachcomplaint with the list of witnesses against him, in order that the latter may duly prepareand complywith his responsibilities. Of more troublous concernis the fact that appellant was not specificallywarned that on hisplea of guilty, he would definitely and in any event be given thedeath penaltyunder the NewLaw, as the trial court calls Republic Act No. 7659. He was also not categoricallyadvised that his plea of guilty would not under any circumstance affect or reduce the death

sentenceas he may have believed or may havebeen erroneously advised.The significance of thisdistinction is found right in the provisionsof Section 1(a) of Rule 116 which, cognizant of theaforestated linguistic variations, deliberately required that the complaint or information be read to theaccused in the language or the dialect known to him, to ensure his comprehension of the charges.The Court takes judicial notice, because it is either of public knowledge or readily capable ofunquestionable demonstration, that in the central and northwestern part of Iloilo province andall theway up to and throughout Antique, including necessarilySan Joaquin where the offenses werecommitted and of whichappellant and his family are natives, the local dialect is known as kinaray -a. Barring previous exposure to or as a consequence of extended social or commercialintercourse,kinaray -a is not readily understandable to nor spoken by those born to theHiligaynonregional language or who have lived in the areas under its swayfor an appreciable periodof time. The converse is true for thosewhose native tongue is the dialect of kinaray -a, since theyaregenerally not well-versed in Ilonggo, or Hiligaynon. Since all thecomplaints are not only in English

but in technical legal language, we are again at sea as to whether and how the indictmentsweretranslated to Ilonggo and/or tokinaray -a,or that the appellant was truly and honestly made ofthe charges and, especially, the consequences of his guilty plea thereto. The records are silent anddo not reveal anything on this point, nor how the dialogue between the presiding judge and appellantwas translated. Yet a mans life is at stake while this Court wrestles with that dilemma created by anomission of official duty. The trial court should also be convinced that the accused has not beencoerced or placed under a state of duress either by actual threats of physical harm coming frommalevolent or avenging quarters and this it can do, such as by ascertaining from the accused himselfthe manner in which he was subsequently brought into the custody of the law; or whether he had theassistance of competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations; and,ascertaining from him the conditions under which he was detained and interrogated during theaforestated investigations. Likewise, a series of questions directed at defense counsel as to whetheror not said counsel had conferred with, and completely explained to the accused the meaning of aplea and its consequences, would be a well-taken step along those lines. Questions of these natureare undoubtedly crucial and no truer is this than in the case of appellant for, again, the originalrecords and rollo of this case now under review are completely bereft of any document or recordconcerning his apprehension, detention and prior investigation, whether custodial or preliminary. Theforegoing circumstances must be taken in addition to the appropriate forewarnings of theconsequences of a plea of guilty, as well as the questions by the court regarding the age,educational attainment and socio-economic status of the accused which may reveal contributoryinsights for a proper verdict in the case. The searching inquiry of the trial court must be focused on:(1)the voluntariness of the plea; and (2) the full comprehension of the consequences of the plea. Thequestions of the trial court failed to show the voluntariness of the plea of guilt of the

appellant nor did the questions demonstrate appellants full comprehension of the consequences of

the plea. The records donot reveal any information about the personality profile of theappellantwhich can serve as a trustworthy index of his capacityto give a free and informed plea of guilt. Theage, socio-economicstatus, and educational background of the appellant were not plumbed by thetrial court

WHEREFORE

7/28/2019 Arraignment Digest

3/3

, the judgment of the court a quo in Criminal CasesNos. 43568 and 43571 convicting accused-appellant MelchorEstomaca y Garque of two crimes of rape is hereby SET ASIDE.Said cases areREMANDED to the trial court for further andappropriate proceedings, with instructions that the samebegiven appropriate priority and the proceedings therein beconducted with deliberate dispatch andcircumspection..

PEOPLE VS. BONIFACIO DURANGO G.R. NO. 135438-39 (2000)

Facts: A was charged with rape. During arraignment, A entered a plea of not guilty.

During the trial, As defense counsel manifested to the court that A wanted to withdrew his

earlier plea of not guilty and substitute it with a plea of guilty. On the basis of the

manifestation, A was re-arraigned, and this time A pleaded guilty. After the prosecution

had concluded its presentation, the RTC rendered a decision finding the accused guilty and

sentencing him to death.

Issue: Whether the RTC erred in convicting A despite his improvident plea of guilty

Held: Yes. When an accused enters a plea of guilty, the trial court is mandated to see to it thatthe exacting standards laid down by the rules therefore are strictly observed. It cannot be said

that when a person pleads guilty to a crime there is no chance at all that he could, in fact, be

innocent. The improvident plea, followed by an abbreviated proceeding, with practically no roleat all played by the defense is just too meager to accept as being the standard constitutional due

process at work enough to forfeit human life.

______________

People vs alberto chua

G.R. No. 137841 (October 1, 2001)

Held: In Philippine society, the father is considered the head of the family, and the children are taughtnot to defy the fathers authority, even when this is abused. They are taught to respect the sanctity ofmarriage and to value the family above everything else. Hence, when the abuse begins, the victim seesno reason or need to question the righteousness of the father whom she had trusted right from the start.The value of respect and obedience to parents instilled among Filipino children is transferred into the verysame value that exposes them to risks of exploitation by their own parents. The sexual relationship couldbegin so subtly that the child does not realize that it is abnormal. Physical force then becomesunnecessary. The perpetrator takes full advantage of this blood relationship. Most daughters cooperateand this is one reason why they suffer tremendous guilt later on. It is almost impossible for a daughter toreject her fathers advances, for children seldom question what grown-ups tell them to do.

But incest, no matter how despicable, hateful and revolting it is both to the victim and society, is not acrime in our statute books. There is no law that specifically defines and penalizes incest. The case at barinvolves rape.