Case 40 – BAIL BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT, APPEARANCE DURING ARRAIGNMENT

 Bail should be granted before arraignment, otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing a motion
to quash. For if the information is quashed and the case is dismissed, there would be no need of
arraignment. Relative to the case, to the condition the grant of bail on his arraignment would be to place
him in a position where he has to choose between:
a. filing a motion to quash and, thus, delay his release until his motion can be resolved because
prior to its resolution, he cannot be arraigned
b. foregoing the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be arraigned and thereafter be released
on bail
These scenarios violate the accused’s constitutional right to bail.
 One of the conditions of bail is that the accused shall appear before the court whenever so required by
the court. The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification despite due notice shall be
deemed an express waiver of his right to be present on the date specified in the notice. There can be no
trial in absentia unless the accused has been arraigned.
 The Constitution allows the accused to be absent at the trial but not at certain stages of the proceedings,
to wit:
a. at arraignment and plea
b. during trial whenever necessary
c. at the promulgation of sentence

 R.A No. 7160 is similar to rape in which each act should be the subject of a separate information.

Case 41 – BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT

 In order to impose a penalty of life imprisonment to death under P.D. No. 1689, the estafa or swindling
must be committed by a syndicate. The law states that a syndicate consists of five or more persons.
Herein, only four persons are actually charged. Aggravating and qualifying circumstances must be
expressly alleged in the complaint or information. In the absence, therefore, the penalty imposable shall
be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
 Capital nature of an offense is determined by the penalty prescribed by law and not the penalty to be
actually imposed. In this case, the judge did not abuse his discretion because the information did not
charge a syndicated estafa.
 All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt
is strong, shall before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties or be released on recognizance as may
be provided by law.
 All persons in custody shall, before conviction by a regional trial court of an offense not punishable by
reclusion perpetua, be admitted to bail as a matter of right. Relative to the case, since the imposable
penalty is reclusion temporal, the respondents are entitled to bail as a matter of right.
 As a general rule, the application of bail may be filed with the court where the case is pending. If the
judge is absent or unavailable, with any branch of the same court within the province or city. Relative to
the case, although it was alleged in in the supplemental petition prepared by petitioner’s counsel that the
judge was available on that day, it was not under oath.

Case 42 – RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL

 Arraignment is a vital stage in criminal proceedings in which the accused are formally informed of the
charges against them. Under the law, arraignment shall be held within 30 days from the date the court
acquired jurisdiction of the accused. Failure to act expeditiously on the arraignment is a violation of right
to speedy trial.
  The essence of the judicial function is that justice shall be impartially administered without unnecessary
delay. It is part of the constitutional right of the accused. However, the concept of speedy trial is a relative
term and must necessarily be a flexible concept. The right to speedy trial is deemed violated only when
the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays, or when unjustified
postponements of trial are asked for and secured.
 Relative to the case, there were 14 postponements in all. Though some of the delays were completely
sound, like the retirement of the judge and filing of motion for preliminary investigation, most of the
postponements are unreasonable. There was a lack of effort on the part of the respondent to conduct the
arraignment as soon as the court calendar would allow.
 It is a constitutional right of any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall at all
times be assisted by a counsel. The court has a mandatory duty to appoint a counsel de officio when the
accused has no counsel of choice at the time of arraignment. In this case, the judge should have
appointed a counsel de oficio for purposes of arraignment only.
 A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required period. The
foremost cause of delay was the repeated failure of the jail wardens to bring the accused to the court .
The judges should exhibit efficiency in the performance of their duty to avoid loss of faith and confidence
in the administration of justice.
 A writ of mandamus may be issued if there is undue delay that can be characterized as a grave abuse of
discretion. Even if a motion for reconsideration is a proper remedy, the accused is not precluded to resort
to a special civil action when the available remedy will not afford expeditious relief and when the motion
for reconsideration is useless. Procedural rules should not be strictly enforced if their enforcement would
result in a miscarriage of justice.

Case 43 – SUSPENSION OF ARRAIGNMENT

 Under the old law, arraignment shall be suspended, if at the time thereof, the accused appears to be
suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand the
charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. Under this case, this law was applied because the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure took effect only after the commission of the crime.
 Under the new law, upon motion by the proper party, arraignment shall be suspended, if at the time
thereof, the accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders
him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto.
 When a judge is informed or discovers that an accused is apparently in a present condition of insanity or
imbecility, it is the duty of the court to suspend the proceedings and commit the accused to a proper
place of detention until his faculties are recovered. In this case, the trial court failed to exercise utmost
care in assuming that the accused was in full possession of his mental faculties.
 There was also a shortcoming on the part of the defense lawyer because he did not ask for the
deferment of arraignment and for leave of court to have the accused subjected to psychological
examination. He also failed to present every defense that would prove the mental illness of the accused.

Case 44 – DELAY OF ARRAIGNMENT

 After the filing of information, the court is in complete control of the case and any disposition therein is
subject to its sound discretion. The decision to suspend arraignment to await the resolution of an appeal
with the Secretary of Justice is an exercise of such discretion.
 It bears stressing that the court is however not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of Justice
since the court is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the case, and may either
agree or disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
 The Speedy Trial Act prescribing the 30-day period for the arraignment of the accused is not absolute. It
enumerates periods of delay that shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial must
commence, especially if taking such action outweighs the best interest of the public and the defendant in
a speedy trial and this includes filing an appeal to the Secretary of Justice. It gives the accused to exhaust
the administrative remedies available to her before the court could proceed to a full-blown trial.
 The trial court which takes cognizance of an accused’s motion for review of the resolution of the
investigating prosecutor and defers the arraignment until resolution of the said motion must act on the
resolution reversing the investigating prosecutor’s finding or on a motion to dismiss based thereon only
upon proof that resolution is already final and no appeal was taken before the Department of Justice.
 Since the period of disposition of appeals or petition in the Secretary of Justice shall be 75 days, indefinite
suspension of arraignment is unlikely to happen.