Suspension of arraignment

Suspension of arraignment | Arraignment and Plea (RULE 116) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

SUSPENSION OF ARRAIGNMENT UNDER RULE 116 OF THE PHILIPPINE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(A Comprehensive Discussion)

1. LEGAL BASIS

The primary authority on the suspension of arraignment in Philippine criminal procedure is Section 11, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. This provision guides courts and litigants on when and how an arraignment may be postponed or put on hold.

Section 11. Suspension of Arraignment.
Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases:
(a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively renders him/her unable to fully understand the charge against him/her and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order the mental examination of the accused and, if necessary, his/her confinement for such purpose;
(b) There exists a prejudicial question; and
(c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice or the Office of the President; Provided, that the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.

2. NATURE AND PURPOSE OF SUSPENSION OF ARRAIGNMENT

  1. Protection of the Accused’s Rights

    • Arraignment is a critical stage in a criminal proceeding because it is where the accused is formally informed of the charges and required to enter a plea. Due process mandates that the accused must be in a position to fully understand the nature and cause of the accusation.
    • By allowing suspension, the Rules ensure that the accused is mentally fit, that any unresolved critical legal questions are settled, and that prosecutorial actions are properly reviewed where necessary.

  2. Court’s Discretion within Statutory Boundaries

    • While Section 11 provides specific grounds, the trial court still retains a certain measure of discretion in evaluating whether the grounds are present. However, the court’s power is not absolute and must be exercised within the confines of the Rules and jurisprudential guidelines.

  3. Avoidance of Prejudice and Multiplicity of Suits

    • Suspending the arraignment in the presence of a prejudicial question or a pending review ensures that the judicial process is not wasted. If an important issue might render the criminal case moot or might alter its complexion, it is more efficient for the court to wait for resolution of that matter.

3. GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION OF ARRAIGNMENT

A. Unsound Mental Condition of the Accused

  1. Definition and Importance

    • When the accused is “suffering from an unsound mental condition,” it means they are not in a state to comprehend the proceedings or assist in their defense. The fairness of the trial is compromised if an individual who cannot rationally understand or respond is forced to plead.

  2. Procedure

    • Court-Ordered Mental Examination: The judge, upon motion or on the basis of clear indications, may order the accused to undergo a mental examination.
    • Confinement: If needed, the accused may be confined in a medical facility for proper diagnosis and treatment.
    • Suspension Period: The court will generally await the report of mental health professionals before proceeding with the arraignment.

  3. Resumption of Proceedings

    • If the examining psychiatrist or physician concludes that the accused is fit to stand trial, the court will set the arraignment anew.
    • If found permanently incompetent, other legal measures (e.g., possible guardianship or indefinite suspension) may be taken.

B. Prejudicial Question

  1. Concept

    • A prejudicial question is one that arises in a civil case or another proceeding which is so intimately related to the criminal case that the resolution of the question in the other case is determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case.

  2. Requirements

    • (a) A previously instituted civil action or proceeding involving an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal case;
    • (b) The resolution of the civil action or proceeding is determinative of the criminal case.

  3. Effect on Arraignment

    • If the court finds that a prejudicial question truly exists, it must suspend the arraignment (and further criminal proceedings) until the prejudicial question is resolved.
    • This prevents the possibility of conflicting rulings and ensures the correct adjudication of the criminal case in light of the outcome of the related matter.

C. Pending Petition for Review of the Prosecutor’s Resolution

  1. Where Filed

    • The petition for review must be pending with the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the Office of the President.
    • This usually happens when the accused (or any aggrieved party) questions the finding of probable cause by the prosecutor.

  2. Time Limit

    • The period of suspension cannot exceed sixty (60) days from the time the petition is filed.
    • This is to ensure that the prosecution process is not unduly delayed by dilatory tactics.

  3. Court’s Role

    • The court generally grants the suspension of arraignment to allow the DOJ or the Office of the President to resolve the petition.
    • After 60 days (or upon earlier resolution of the petition), the court will direct the parties to proceed with the arraignment if probable cause still stands.

4. PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS

  1. Motion to Suspend Arraignment

    • The initiative to suspend arises via a motion by the accused or any “proper party” (which may also include the prosecution or the court motu proprio in some circumstances, if the conditions are clearly present).
    • The motion must clearly state the ground for suspension and, where applicable, be supported by documentary or testimonial evidence (e.g., medical certificate for mental incapacity, copy of the civil complaint raising a prejudicial question, official proof of a pending petition for review, etc.).

  2. Timing of the Motion

    • The motion to suspend must be filed before the accused is arraigned. Once the accused enters a plea, the court is generally constrained to proceed with trial unless exceptional circumstances justify a suspension even after plea (which is rare).

  3. Opposition and Hearing

    • The adverse party (usually the prosecution, but can also be the defense if the prosecution moves for suspension) is entitled to oppose the motion.
    • The court may conduct a summary hearing to determine the validity of the ground and whether the rules on suspension squarely apply.

  4. Effect on the Prescriptive Period

    • Suspension of arraignment effectively suspends the continuity of the criminal proceeding. However, it does not necessarily stall the running of prescriptive periods for the offense, unless the law or specific jurisprudence provides otherwise.
    • Also, any provisional remedies or bail conditions generally remain in effect during the suspension.

  5. Ethical Considerations for Counsel

    • Duty to Inform: A lawyer for the accused must ensure that the client is informed of the consequences of seeking suspension, including possible delay in the resolution of the case.
    • Duty of Candor: Counsel must not file frivolous or dilatory motions merely to delay arraignment without valid grounds. Doing so could subject counsel to administrative or disciplinary sanctions.
    • Duty to Protect the Client’s Rights: If legitimate grounds exist—such as the accused’s mental incompetence or a valid prejudicial question—counsel must proactively seek suspension to safeguard the client’s right to a fair trial.

5. JURISPRUDENTIAL HIGHLIGHTS

  1. Strict Interpretation of Grounds

    • The Supreme Court consistently strictly construes the grounds for suspension of arraignment to avoid undue delay. Filings or motions not falling squarely under Section 11 are generally denied.

  2. Prejudicial Question Must Be Determinative

    • Case law emphasizes that a prejudicial question must be one whose resolution is essential and determinative of the outcome of the criminal case. If it has no direct effect on the criminal liability, courts will not suspend the arraignment.

  3. 60-Day Limit is Mandatory

    • Where a petition for review of the prosecutor’s resolution is the invoked ground, courts have stressed that the 60-day limit cannot be used as a tactic for indefinite postponement. Once the period lapses, the court proceeds with the arraignment unless an extension is justified by exceptional circumstances (e.g., a specific directive from a higher tribunal).

  4. Unsound Mental Condition Requires Clear Showing

    • Courts generally require some medical basis or a credible showing of mental incompetence. Conclusory statements from the defense or the prosecution, without professional evaluation, usually do not suffice to suspend the arraignment.

6. PRACTICAL AND PROCEDURAL STEPS

  1. Drafting and Filing the Motion to Suspend Arraignment

    • Caption the motion clearly, indicating the specific rule (Rule 116, Section 11) and ground relied upon.
    • Attach necessary supporting documents (e.g., medical certificate, copy of civil complaint or resolution of the prosecutor, proof of filing petition for review).
    • Include a notice of hearing and serve copies on the prosecution or the accused, as applicable.

  2. Court Hearing and Resolution

    • The court may set the motion for hearing, allowing both parties to present arguments.
    • The judge issues an order either granting or denying the suspension. If granted, the order specifies the reason and, where relevant, the period of suspension (especially in petitions for review).

  3. Monitoring the Suspension Period

    • Counsel must keep track of any deadlines—particularly the 60-day period under paragraph (c) of Section 11—so as to be prepared to proceed with arraignment or file any subsequent motions if necessary.

  4. Resumption of Proceedings

    • Once the ground for suspension is resolved (e.g., the accused is declared fit, the prejudicial question is settled, or the DOJ resolves the petition), the court will set a new date for arraignment.
    • The case proceeds in accordance with the usual rules on criminal procedure (presentation of evidence, pre-trial, trial, etc.).

7. COMMON PITFALLS AND REMINDERS

  1. Late Invocation of Grounds

    • Attempting to raise grounds for suspension after entering a plea often fails, unless extremely compelling reasons exist.

  2. Mislabeling the Ground

    • A motion should clearly specify the ground under Section 11. A vague reference to a “pending motion for reconsideration” or “pending settlement in a civil case” without showing it amounts to a “prejudicial question” will likely be denied.

  3. Dilatory Tactics

    • Judges are vigilant against repeated motions for suspension on unsubstantial grounds. Abuse of this remedy can lead to denial of motions and possible disciplinary action.

  4. Interaction with Other Procedural Devices

    • Motion to Quash (Rule 117) vs. Motion to Suspend (Rule 116): A motion to quash challenges the validity of the Information (e.g., no offense charged, lack of jurisdiction) while a motion to suspend arraignment addresses external or special circumstances. They are distinct remedies but can sometimes be raised concurrently if circumstances warrant.

  5. Ethical Duty

    • Lawyers must remember the duty of candor to the court and the overarching interest in a fair and expeditious resolution of criminal cases. Any suspension must be in good faith and for legitimate grounds only.

8. SUMMARY

Suspension of arraignment under Rule 116, Section 11 of the Philippine Rules of Criminal Procedure is a carefully regulated mechanism designed to ensure that no accused is forced to plead without fully understanding the charge, that no criminal proceeding is pursued while an essential related question remains unresolved, and that no accused is deprived of timely resolution when a prosecutorial determination is under higher-level review. Strict adherence to the grounds—unsound mental condition, prejudicial question, or pending petition for review—is necessary. Courts and lawyers alike bear the responsibility of preventing abuses of this rule while safeguarding the accused’s constitutional and statutory rights.

In essence, the suspension of arraignment is an instrument of fairness and judicial efficiency—used sparingly, governed by precise rules, and closely monitored by the courts. Properly invoked, it upholds due process and protects the integrity of criminal proceedings.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login