PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

 WILLIAM ONG y LI and CHING DE MING

alias ROBERT TIU

G.R. NO. 137348 : June 21, 2004

Facts:

SPO1 Rodolfo S. Gonzales, a confidential informant reported

about the alleged drug activities of accused William Ong and Ching De
Ming. As per order, a team decided to conduct a buy-bust operation
wherein both Ong and De Ming were arrested. Once, CI confirmed the
meeting time and venue with the drug dealer, and exchanges of gift-
wrapped packages rendered of one sealed plastic bag by the accused
Ong and boodle money placed in a W. Brown plastic bag by SPO1
Gonzales, thereafter, the latter arrested Ong while the CI and the back-
up agents arrested co-accused De Ming.

RTC convicted appellants as charged and imposed on them the

penalty of death. It likewise ordered each of them to pay a fine of P1
million pesos. However, the case was on automatic review. Appellants
insist on their innocence. They claim that their guilt was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the arraignment of appellants violates Rule 116,

Section
(a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure?

Ruling:

Yes, Rule 116 provides that the accused must be arraigned

before the court where the complaint or information was filed or
assigned for trial , that it be made in open courts before a judge be
informed of his violations and asks if he pleads guilty or not.

The trial court held that the arraignment violated the above rule because
appellants are Chinese nationals, that they were informed of their
violations but in a languages not understandable to them. The
arraignment requires that the information should be read in a language
or dialect known to the accused is mandatory. It must be strictly
complied with as it is intended to protect the constitutional right of the
accused to be informed of the nature and cause the of the accusation
against him. The constitutional protection is part of due process. Failure
to observe the rules necessarily nullifies the arraignment.