University of the Visayas

Gullas Law School

Criminal Procedure

Notes for the Coverage of the Final Exam

(Part 1)
Caveat: These notes are specially prepared by the professor to supplement the student’s study for the Finals
exam coverage. Essentially it is a collation, summarization, and at times, a simplification, of the salient points
for a given topic. It should not be used as a main reference in the study of the subject but should rather act as a
guide and supplement to the assigned texts and jurisprudence. Nonetheless, it is hoped that it will serve the
student well in his/her study. (Apologies in advance also for any typographical errors that were not spotted)

Rights of the Accused

I’m sure some of these principles are not new to you. Most of these you’ve already tackled during your
Constitutional Law II under the Bill of Rights. For purposes of Crim Pro, we will now focus on the different rights
specific for the accused, and the related principles thereto.

Under the Rule 115 they are:

1. Right to Be Presumed Innocent Until the Contrary is Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt

§ Confronted by the full panoply of state authority, the accused is accorded the presumption of innocence
to lighten and even reverse the heavy odds against him. Mere accusation is not enough to convict him,
and neither is the weakness of his defense. The evidence for the prosecution must be strong per se,
strong enough to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, he is entitled
to be freed.” (PEOPLE vs. SEQUERRA (October 12, 1987))
§ The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the
quantum of evidence required. In so doing, the prosecution must rest on the strength of its own evidence
and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. And if the prosecution fails to meet its burden of
proof, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf.
§ So the accused cannot rely forever in the presumption of innocence. This is a disputable presumption.
The prosecution can destroy that presumption by presenting evidence that you are guilty and once the
prosecution has presented that you cannot anymore rely on this presumption. It is now your duty to
present evidence that you are innocent.

§ This is more commonly known as the “right to be presumed innocent”, and it is the reason why any
accused cannot be treated as a criminal yet until final conviction.

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

o "x x x Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such degree of proof as, excluding possibility of
error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind: (Sec. 2 R 133, Rules of Court)
o It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence,
leaves the minds of jurors in such a condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to
a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor. All the
presumptions of law independent of evidence are in favor of innocence; and every person is presumed
to be innocent until he is proved guilty. If upon such proof there is reasonable doubt remaining, the
accused is entitled to the benefit of it by an acquittal.
o For it is not sufficient to establish a probability, though a strong one arising from the doctrine of chances,
that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary; but the evidence must establish the
truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty; a certainty that convinces and directs the
understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously

1
 upon it. This we take to be proof beyond reasonable doubt; because if the law, which mostly depends
upon considerations of a moral nature, should go further than this, and require absolute certainty, it
would exclude circumstantial evidence altogether.(PP vs. Claro. G.R. No. 199894, April 5, 2017)

Presumption of Innocence Continues Even on Appeal

§ The fact of respondent's conviction by the RTC does not necessarily warrant the suspension. Since the
convictions are currently on appeal before the CA, the same have not yet attained finality. As such, the
respondent still enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence...Until the accused's guilt is shown
(beyond reasonable doubt), the presumption continues and until a promulgation of final conviction is
made, this constitutional mandate prevails (Re: Conviction of Judge Angeles, AM No. 06-9-545-RTC, Jan.
31, 2008).
§ In short: You’re innocent until judgment is final.

Regularity in the performance of duty vs. presumption of innocence

o the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty relied upon by the lower courts cannot by
itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As a rule,
the testimony of public officers who apprehended the accused is accorded full faith and credit because of the
presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. However, when the performance of their duties is
tainted with irregularities such presumption is effectively destroyed (People vs. Frondoso, GR No. 177164, June
30, 2009).

Equipoise Rule

-Also corollary to the right to be presumed innocent.

Under the equipoise rule, where the evidence on an issue of fact
is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence
preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses.

o In Criminal Cases, since it is the prosecution that has the

burden of proof, then the judgment should be in favor of
the accused. In dubio pro reo
o The equipoise rule finds application if the inculpatory
facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations, one of which is consistent with the
innocence of the accused and the other consistent with
his guilt, for then the evidence does not fulfill the test of
moral certainty, and does not suffice to produce a
conviction. Briefly stated, the needed quantum of proof
to convict the accused of the crime charged is lacking.

2. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him

§ The rule is that the prosecution can only prove what are alleged in the information and the accused can
only be convicted of the crime charged if proven.
§ a minor variance between the information and the evidence does not alter the nature of the offense.
§ This is why we discussed what constitutes a valid and sufficient information. If there’s a certain
deficiency, it could violate this right of the accused. So remember the principles relating to that topic.

Can the Right be waived?

o When the counsel of the accused actively participated in the proceedings this indicates that the accused was
fully aware of the charges against him, otherwise, his counsel would have objected and informed the court of
the blunder (People vs. Pangilinan, 518 SCRA 318)
o But the failure to file a motion to quash the information cannot amount to a waiver of the constitutional right
to be informed (Burgos vs. Sandiganbayan 413 SCRA 385)
o What is important is you must object to such evidence (ex: rape by another mode of commission)
o
Quick Review: Examples of things that must be alleged in the information or else it violates this right

2
 § Special qualifying circumstance in rape. “half-sister” not enough (Pp vs Sajolga)
§ Failure to specify age of minoirty victim in a case of rape (pp vs blancaflor)
§ Different mode of commission of the crime: charged for stabbing victim, but evidence showed victim
died by drowning. (pp vs Ortega, jr.)
§ A person charged with sale of shabu. Can’t be convicted of possession (Pp vs Del Rosario)
§ 2 informations for separate crimes, same instance, and convicted for a special complex crime (pp vs.
Legaspi)

3. Right of the Accused to be present in Trial

§ Accused has the right to be present at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation.
§ GR: Accused can waive his right to be present pursuant to stipulations in his bail.
§ Exception: Accused has to appear in the ff:
1. Specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification
2. Arraignment
3. Promulgation of Judgment (There is an exception to this exception – more on this on Topic on Judgment)

Trial in Absentia

§ If accused is absent without justifiable cause, despite notice, it shall be be considered a waiver of his right to be
present thereat.
§ Assumes that the court has already acquired jurisdiction over the person, and accused has been arraigned
and entered his plea
§ If accused under custody escapes, he is deemed to have waived his right to be present on all subsequent trial
dates until custody over him is regained

TN: In the first sentence, the accused is absent without justifiable cause during the particular trial date, and so the
trial may continue. But he can still appear in the next trial. He only waived his right to be present on that date but he
has not waived his right to be present on subsequent trial dates. He has not waived his right to present evidence.
In the second sentence, you escaped or you jumped bail. You are not only waiving your right to be present on this
date but on all subsequent dates. And therefore, there can be a judgment against you when the prosecution rests. In
the second, the right to be notified is deemed waived precisely because he has escaped.

- “Upon the termination of a trial in absentia, the court has the duty to rule upon the evidence presented in
court. The court need not wait for the time until the accused who escape from custody finally decides to
appear in court to present his evidence and cross-examine the witnesses against him. To allow the delay of
proceedings for this purpose is to render ineffective the constitutional provision on trial in absentia.

4. Right to Counsel During Trial

§ To be defended by counsel at every stage of the proceeding from arraignment to promulgation of judgment
§ The accused, upon motion, may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court
that he can properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel.

Right to Counsel is right to efficient counsel

§ The right to counsel must be more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding
of standard questions and objections. It means that the accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a
counsel who commits himself to the cause for the defense and acts accordingly. It assumes an active involvement
by the lawyer in the proceedings, particularly at the trial, his bearing constantly in mind of the basic rights of
accused, his being well-versed on the case, and his knowing the fundamental procedures, essential laws and
existing jurisprudence. The right of an accused to counsel finds substance in the performance by the lawyer of his
sworn duty of fidelity to his client. It means an efficient and truly decisive legal assistance and not a simple
perfunctory representation. (People v. Ferrer, 406 SCRA 658)

“Intelligent counsel” not covered in the guaranteed right to counsel

§ The “right to be assisted by counsel” does not presuppose “the right to an intelligent counsel.” The requirement
is not for counsel to be intelligent, but to be effective. While fairness is the object of Art. III, Sec. 14 (2) of the
Constitution, the assistance afforded by counsel to an accused need only be in accordance with the provisions of
the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility. In the Philippine setting, a counsel assisting an
accused is presumed to be providing all the necessary legal defenses which are reasonable under the
circumstances in accordance with said norms. Coupled with the presumption that counsel’s performance was
reasonable under the circumstances, as long as the trial was fair in that accused was accorded due process by
3
 means of an effective assistance of counsel, then the constitutional requirement that an accused shall have the
right to be heard by himself and counsel is satisfied.
§ So the accused cannot say that his right was violated because he was unsatisfied how his lawyer cross-examined
the prosecution’s witnesses that lead to his conviction
(Sidenote: Students taking this CrimPro class need not worry about this portion. A prima facie presumption
arises that he/she is an intelligent and more than capable counsel 😉 )

5. Right to Testify on His Behalf

§ The accused has the right to testify as a witness in his own behalf
§ He can be cross-examined on matters covered by his direct examination
§ Right available only to natural individuals
§ Silence shall not in any manner prejudice him

Problem:

Accused, together with several others, was charged with murder. During trial, his counsel manifested
to the court that he is invoking the defense of alibi and denial and was adopting the arguments of one
of his co-accused. Thereafter, counsel for the accused rested. Later accused was convicted. While his
conviction was pending review by the Supreme Court, he sent a handwritten letter to the Presidential
Action Center seeking help to reopen his case which was duly indorsed to the Court. He claims that he
was never asked to give his statement and was never given a chance to testify in court.
Was accused deprived of his right to testify in his own behalf?

- No. While accused decries his alleged frustrated desire to testify in court, this is now water under the bridge.
Accused had all the right and opportunity to do so. He was properly represented by his counsel of choice and there
was no hindrance to his testifying except his own volition. While his silence will not in any manner prejudice him,
he cannot now be heard to complain for his failure to avail of his right to be a witness in his own behalf. If accused
felt that he was deprived of his rights, he could have easily moved for new trial or reconsideration. He did not.
(People v. Tagana, 424 SCRA 620)

6. Right to be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself

§ Also called right against self-incrimination

§ Does not cover mechanical acts
§ Forced re-enactments however are deemed a violation of this right

Tn: Take note that the right of the accused against self-incrimination is not limited to testimonial evidence.
According to the SC, it refers not only to testimonial compulsion but also to production by the accused
of incriminating documents and things. (Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62) So you cannot subpoena his
personal documents.

People v. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383

Facts:
Rondero was charged with rape with homicide. When the corpse of the 9-year old victim was found,
tightly gripped in her right hand were hair strands. To enable the NBI to conduct an examination on the
hair strands, it sent a fax message to the police that hair strands be pulled, no cut, from Rondero, from
the 4 regions of his head for comparison with the specimen. By then Rondero was detained and he now
claims that his hair strands were taken by the police without his consent.

Issue:
Was his right against self-incrimination violated?

Held:
No. What is proscribed by the right against self-incrimination is the use of physical or moral compulsion
to extort communication from the accused, and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may
be material. For instance, substance emitted from the body of the accused may be received as evidence
in prosecution for rape, and morphine forced out of his mouth may also be used as evidence against
him. Consequently, although Rondero insists that hair samples were forcibly taken from him and
4
 submitted to the NBI for forensic examination, the hair samples may be admitted in evidence against
him for what is proscribed is the use of testimonial compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature
acquired from him under duress.

People v. Besonia, 422 SCRA 210

Facts:
Accused pleaded guilty to 2 counts of murder. The RTC conducted a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his guilty plea. In the course of the
questioning, accused admitted that he shot the victims with a .38 caliber because they were planning to
kill him. On automatic review of the death sentences, accused claims that his admissions and confessions
violated his right not to testify against himself.

Issue:
Is the contention correct?

Held:
No. The right against self-incrimination is intended to prevent the State, with all its coercive
powers, from extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict him and to avoid a person
subjected to such compulsion to perjure himself for his own protection. It does not apply where, as in
these cases, the testimony was freely and voluntarily given by the accused himself without any
compulsion from the agents of the State. There is nothing in the records that would indicate that accused
was forced, intimidated, or compelled by the trial court or by anybody into admitting the crimes. At any
rate, his plea of guilty and confession or admissions during the searching inquiry cannot be the sole basis
for his conviction.

People v. Yatar, 428 SCRA 504

Facts:
Accused was convicted of rape with homicide. Among the evidence presented was the testing of
the DNA of the sperm specimen from the vagina of the victim, which was identified to be that of the
gene type of the accused. Accused contends that the blood sample taken from him as well as the DNA
tests were conducted in violation of his right against self-incrimination.

Issue:
Was the right of accused not to be a witness against himself violated?

Held:
No. The kernel of the right against self-incrimination is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial
compulsion. The right against self-incrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the
lips of the accused an admission of guilt. Hence, a person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting,
photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA tests, as there is no testimonial compulsion involved. It must
also be noted that the accused in this case submitted himself for blood sampling that was conducted in
open court in the presence of counsel.

BAR PROBLEM: The accused is charged with falsification for writing a falsified letter. The prosecution
presented it as evidence that this letter was written by the accused. The accused said, “No, that is not
my handwriting.” On cross-examination, he was asked to write on a piece of paper as dictated. The
defense object on the ground of violation of the right to self-incrimination. Rule on the objection.

A: The objection should be overruled. The case is not covered by the right against self-incrimination. He
can be compelled because he testified that it is not his handwriting. From that moment he waived his
right against self-incrimination. It is unfair that you say it is not your signature and I have no way of telling
you to give me a specimen.

§ But take note: “writing is something more than moving that moving the body, or the hands, or the
fingers; writing is not a purely mechanical act, because it requires the application of intelligence and
5
 attention; and in the case at bar writing means that the petitioner herein is to furnish a means to
determine whether or not he is the falsifier, as the petition of the respondent fiscal clearly states. Here
the witness is compelled to write and create, by means of the act of writing, evidence which does not
exist, and which may identify him as the falsifier” (Beltran vs Samson)

Can Right be waived?

Yes, when:
§ the accused taking the stand and testifying as a witness or by freely answering the incriminating
questions put to him.
§ by not objecting to the incriminating question.

Accused vs Ordinary witness

§ Ordinary witness may be compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege as each question
requiring an incriminating answer is asked.
§ Accused may altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer all questions

7. Right to Confront and cross-examine the Witness against him at the Trial

§ The accused has the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial
§ The right to confrontation has two purposes:
first, to secure the opportunity of cross-examination; and,
second, to allow the judge to observe the deportment and appearance of the witness while
testifying.
§ Does not apply in preliminary investigation
§ Does not include the right to know the names and addresses in advance
- the accused has no such right because the case of the prosecution might be endangered if the
accused were to know the prosecution witnesses in advance, for known witnesses might be
subjected to pressure or cowered not to testify. (People vs. Palacio, L-13933, May 25, 1960) So, you
confront them during the trial, not now.
- Though under the current Rules, during Pre-Trial, names of the Witnesses must be
indicated, and some judges reinforce this. Nonetheless, just take note of this and the
reason behind it.

Exceptions:
§ Second Portion of Par (f) “Either party may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who
is deceased, out of or can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise
unable to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same
parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-examine him”.
- Sometimes there is no choice. Now, one good example where the testimony of a witness is
admissible even if he does not appear in the trial is when the witness is about to die so you need
to take his testimony in advance. In civil cases we call it deposition. In criminal procedure,
deposition is called conditional examination of a witness. That is governed by Rule 119 Sections
12, 13, and 15.
§ When there is a separate civil action filed against the accused by the offended party
- Normally, the prosecution witnesses in the criminal case are also the witnesses for the plaintiff in
the civil case. Assuming that the trial of the civil case is ahead, these witnesses testified during the
trial of the civil case, they were cross-examined by the lawyer of the defendant who is also the
accused in the criminal case. Now, under the law, when the criminal case is tried, these witnesses
have to testify again in the criminal case, practically they will have to repeat their testimony. The
trouble is, in the meantime, some of these witnesses died.Can the testimony recorded in the civil
case be now admissible in the criminal case when there is no more confrontation there?
- Yes. because that is the exception, “when the testimony of the witness who is now deceased,
given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and
subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross examine him.

6
8. To have Compulsory Process Issued to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses and Production of other Evidence in his
Behalf

§ The 1973 and 1987 Constitutions expanded the right to compulsory process which now includes the
right to secure the production of evidence in one’s behalf. Thus, the movant must show: [a] that the
evidence is really material; [b] that he is not guilty of neglect in previously obtaining the production of
such evidence; [c] that the evidence will be available at the time desired; and [d] that no similar evidence
could be obtained. (People v. Chua, 356 SCRA 225)

- Suppose my witness is somewhere there in Cagayan de Oro, can I secure a subpoena to compel him when under
the rules on subpoena a witness is not bound if he resides more than 100 kilometers?
- That has already been answered in the cases of PEOPLE VS. MONTEJO and MILLORCA VS. QUITAIN. The SC said
that the 100-km limitation (formerly 50 kms.) does not apply when you are talking of witnesses for the defense in
a criminal case because of the Constitutional right to have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of
witnesses in his behalf. That right cannot be precluded by provisions in the Rules of Court.

9. To Have a Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial

§ There are actually three rights here:
1. the right to a speedy trial;
2. the right to an impartial trial; and
3. the right to a public trial.

Speedy Trial
§ In determining whether petitioner was deprived of the right to speedy trial, the factors to consider and balance
are the following: (a) duration of the delay; (b) reason therefor; (c) assertion of the right or failure to assert it; and
(d) prejudice caused by such delay
§ An accused’s right to speedy trial is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious,
capricious, and oppressive delays.

Impartial Trial

Facts:
Mayor Sanchez was convicted of 7 counts of rape with homicide. Considering the position of accused, the trial
was accompanied by widespread media coverage. On appeal, Sanchez claims that his right to a fair trial was violated
due to the intense publicity.
Issue:
Does intensive publicity of a trial violate the right to a fair trial?
Held:
No. The right of an accused to a fair trial is not incompatible with a free press. Pervasive publicity is not per se
prejudicial to the right of an accused to fair trial. It does not by itself prove that the publicity so permeated the mind
of the trial judge and impaired his impartiality. At best accused can only conjure possibility of prejudice on the part of
the trial judge due to the barrage of publicity. But the test is not the possibility of prejudice but actual prejudice. To
warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be allegation and proof that judges have been unduly
influenced, not simply that they might be. Accused must discharge this burden. In this case, there is no proof that
the judge acquired a fixed opinion, or actual bias as a consequence of extensive media coverage.

Public Trial
§ The requirement of public trial is for the benefit of the accused, that the public may see that he is fairly
dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of spectators may keep his triers keenly
alive to a sense of responsibility and to the importance of their functions. (1 Cooley, Constitutional
Limitations, p. 647)
§ TN: This doesn’t mean a publicized trial where it will be broadcasted live or recorded. Just means that it
will not be conducted in closed doors so that the accused worries that his in going through an unfair
inquisition rather than a fair trial.

10. Right to Appeal All Cases Allowed in the Manner Prescribed by Law
§ The right to appeal is but a statutory right, and the party who seeks to avail of it must faithfully comply with the
rules. These rules are designed to facilitate an orderly disposition of cases before the appellate courts; they

7
 provide for a system under which suitors may be heard in the correct form and manner at the prescribed time in
a peaceful though adversarial confrontation before a judge whose authority litigants acknowledge.

Arraignment & Plea

Arraignment is the part of the Trial where the accused is read the Information in open court(usually done
by the Court Interpreter; sometimes Clerk of Court and Judge if interpreter is not available), in a language he/she
understands, and after knowing the crime charged, enters his/her plea, whether guilty/not guilt.

- It is an indispensable requirement of due process (remember right of the accused to be informed – see
above)
- Also needed for accused to invoke double jeopardy (more discussion on this in MTQ)
- After arraignment, accused is now precluded from questioning the legality of his arrest

Suspension of Arraignment

The accused may ask the arraignment be suspend in the ff instances:

1. When he appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which renders him unable to
understand the charge against him
2. There exists a prejudicial question
3. There is a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor pending at the DOJ or the Office of the
President
- Tn: The period of suspension shall not exceed 60 days counted from the filing of the petition with
the reviewing office. After that, the Arraignment must proceed or else the judge may be held
administratively.

Presence of the Parties

§ Accused must be present to personally enter his plea
§ Offended party must also be present (incase there might be plea bargaining, or to determine civil liability,
or other matters that that require his presence)
o If Offended party fails to appear despite due notice, court can allow plea bargaining but with the
conformity still of the prosecutor alone.

“Not Guilty” Plea

§ Happens when the accused himself says he is not guilty after being asked by the court.
§ Or if the accused refuses to enter a plea (a plea of not guilty will be entered on his behalf)
§ If he makes a conditional plea
o When the accused pleads guilty and bargain for a lesser penalty (compare this later on to pela
bargaining). Meaning his plea of guilty to the crime charged is on the condition he receives a
lesser penalty. The court will not entertain his conditional guilty plea, but consider it as a plea of
NOT guilty.
o But if the accused merely requests for a lesser penalty, especially if it is an emotional appeal for
leniency, Court will not consider as a conditional plea.
§ Pleads guilty but presents exculpatory evidence
o Here the guilty plea will be withdraw and substituted with a not guilty plea.
o Quick metaphor: It’s like when your partner confronts you if you had an affair, and you admit you
admit nalang you did para walay samok, but you also keep insisting and trying to prove that you
were out with your friends the entire time.)

“Guilty” Plea
§ Judicial confession of guilt. An admission of all material facts in the information, including the aggravating
circumstances alleged.
§ If the Accused pleads guilty to a capital offense (RP or death) the court will not immediately render judgment on
the basis of the plea of guilty. It must first conduct a searching inquiry to ascertain whether the plea was voluntarily

8
 made, and whether the accused has full comprehension as to the consequences of his plea. The court will also
require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and his precise degree of his culpability, and will ask the
accused if he would still like to present evidence.
o When we talk about “searching inquiry” there’s no hard and fast rule yet. But we can take guidance from
People vs. Pastor1 where the SC laid down the following guidelines:
1. Ascertain from the accused himself how he was brought into custody, whether he was assisted
by counsel and under what conditions he was detained – to rule out the possibility that he has
been coerced
2. Ask the defense counsel questions as to whether he completely explained to the accused the
meaning and consequences of his plea of guilty
3. Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused – may serve as an index of his
capacity to give a free and informed plea
4. Inform the accused of his exact length of imprisonment or nature of the penalty – because
oftentimes the accused pleads guilty only in the hope of lenient treatment
5. Judge must satisfy himself that the accused, in pleading guilty, is truly guilty. The accused must be
required to narrate the tragedy or re-enact the crime.
- If court fails to conduct the required searching inquiry, it’s now called an Improvident Plea. The effect is
that at any time before judgment becomes final, the plea of guilt can be withdrawn and substituted with
a plea of not guilty.
§ If the accused pleads guilty to a non-capital offense a searching inquiry is not required (though in my experience,
I’ve heard Judges ask on occassion if the accused is sure about his plea and whether he understand what it means.
But again, this is not required unlike in a plea of guilt to a capital offense). The court can also receive evidence to
determine the penalty to be imposed, and sometimes to verify if the admission of guilt was intelligently made.

Plea Bargaining
The process whereby the accused and the prosecution work a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case,
subject to court approval.
• Accused pleading guilty to a lesser offense
• Accused pleading guilty to only one or some of the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a
lighter sentence than that for the graver charge.

Requirements:
1. The lesser offense is necessarily included in the offense charged
2. The plea must be with the consent of both the offended party and the prosecutor.
* ( If offended party fails to appear during arraignment despite due notice, consent of the offended
party is not required; the fiscal alone will be the one to give consent)

Plea Bargaining in Drugs Cases and the Case of “Inol” Sayre in a Nutshell
(See: Sayre vs. Hon. Judge Xenos)2

In April 10, 2018, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued guidelines for plea bargaining in
drug cases, while in June of the same year, the DoJ also issued its own guidelines. The problem there
was that the guidelines were quite different from each other. You could say the guidelines issued by the
OCA were less stringent in that there were more options to avail of under plea bargaining, and
sometimes for a lesser penalty. For awhile this created a conflict between the Fiscal and the Judge where
the fiscal has no choice but to object to the plea bargaining because it’s not what is provided for under
their guidelines. In some courts, the fiscal would have to bow down to the wishes of the judge, because,
what else can they do? They’ll just put it on record that they interpose their objections. But the lingering
question in the legal community was: which prevails? The OCA guideline or the DoJ guideline?

This issue was finally was finally brought up before the Supreme Court. Inol basically wanted to insist on
the OCA guidelines because it was more favorable to him. But the Judge disregarded the OCA circular
and abided by the DoJ guidelines for plea bargaining. One of the arguments raised was that the DoJ

1
G.R. No. 140208 March 12, 2002
2
G.R. Nos. 244413 & 244415-16, February 18, 2020

9
guidelines encroaches on the rule making power of the SC. The SC ruled that while the OCA circular was
pursuant to its rule-making power, plea bargaining still requires the consent of all parties. The rules say
the court MAY grant plea bargaining; meaning it has the discretion to grant it. The DoJ guidelines do
violate the rule making power of the SC because it just basically provides as an internal guide to
prosecutors to observe before they may give their consent to proposed plea bargains.

In short, the SC did not side with its own guidelines saying it should prevail. But instead it recognized
that plea bargaining requires the consent of offended party and the prosecutor. The prosecutor can refer
to its internal guidelines issued by the DoJ before it can give its consent; even if it is stricter.
o If you have time, please go over the full text of this case J

(it is interesting to note that Caguioa dissented and said the DoJ circular is unconstitutional for
encroaching on the powers of the judiciary. The 2 guidelines are also irreconcilable. But this is just more
for academic discussion)

10