Court Visit Observation

People vs. William Charles

On August 13, 2014, I went to the Makati Metropolitan Branch 67. The public attorney that is
assigned to the arraignment called out the names of the accused that before the start of the hearing.
She first asked the accused whether they an attorney or not. Then she discussed to the accused who do
not have legal with them what are crimes that are charged against them. She also told them about what
to do and she told them to just enter guilty plea because there would be Judicial Dispute Resolution
(JDR). After that, the court started its hearing. One of the staffs read the information in english to the
accused. Then the judge asked the public attorney if he was ready to be arraigned. The public attorney
answered the judge that he is ready and he has been informed about the crime. He plead guilty to
offense charged and then the judge set the schedule for the JDR.

The thing that I observed right away is that the assistance of the public attorney was done
before the arraignment is made. The attorney said to the accused it is ok to plead guilty because there
would be JDR after the arraignment. There would be violation of the duties of the counsel de officio in
this case becuase the attorney informed them about the crimes charged against them and said that they
should enter guilty plea because there would be JDR before the promulgation of the judgement. Under
the rules, the appoinment of the counsel de officio should be competent. The attorney did not even
discuss what are his remedies and rights. She just proceed in saying just enter guilty plea. This should
not be the case because it would prejudice the rights of the accused.

According to the case of People v. Dayot, the court held that solemn duty of the counsel de
officio is to make sure that his client gets what he lawfully deserves whether it would be an aquittal or
conviction, the rightful penalty. The concern of the counsel should not be to “get it over with”, at the
expense of the very freedom of the accused. Clearly, the things done by the public attorney before the
arraignment was tell the accused what to do so that it would be over quickly because she did even
mention the rights of the accused or their remedies. She just said the accused enter guilty plea since
there woudl JDR and most likely that the accused would pay and not be imprisoned. She did not ask
whether or not they are guilty. She assumed they are guilty of the offense charged.

The information was in read in english language without asking the accused whether or not he
understand english. It was also ready by a staff of the court rather than by the judge or clerk. The rules
states that the arraignment shall be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused
with a copy of the complaint or information, reading the same in the language or dialect known to him,
and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. This rules are mandatory and not just optional.
This should be strictly complied by the courts because it protects the rights of the accused to be
informed of the nature and cause of the charges against him. The judge did not even ask the accused
whether he understands english and presumed that he understands english. Also, it was not the judge
or clerk who was reading the information which contradicts what is written in the rules. Clearly there is a
violation of the rule here because the court presumed that the accused understand since the
information was read in english without any confirmation from the accused.
 Lastly, The judge did not ask the accused whether or not he wants a lawyer of his choice. After
the reading of the information, the judge just ask whether he was ready to be arraigned. One of the
rights of the accused is that his right to counsel. The court should not presumed he does not want the
counsel of his choice that since the public attorney is already there for him in arraignment. The court
should ask whether he would like to have his own counsel for him or he is okay with assistance of the
public attorney. It should considered that the accused has the right to choose his counsel if he can
afford it and that the counsel is available. It should be noted that the court would only provide the
counsel for him if he cannot afford his own counsel or it is used this to delay the proceeding
unreasonably. This should be given importance and be taken seriously because it is one of the
constitutional rights of a person that would be violated here.

There are many irrelugarities in the arraignment when I observed it during that day. However,
there is presumption that accused was arraigned in accordance with the rules. It is said that in view of
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, it can be presumed that the accused
was duly arraigned in the absence of anything to indicate contrary. It cannot be said that arraignment is
void because there would be presumption that the arraignment was actually valid unless there anythint
to indicate contrary.

It can be said that courts use their own system that would help them deal with cases that are
filed in the said court. There are many cases that are filed in the MTC which requires a lot of time.
However, these methods adopted by the courts should not be at the expense of the accused because
the will and liberty of the accused is at stake here. They should use a system which would follow the
rules and would not be prejudicial to the accused.