G.R. No. 1686 : February 13, 1905
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. PAULINO PALISOC, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The defendants were charged with the crime of robbery. The complaint alleged that on September 23, 1903, in a barrio of San Carlos, Pangasinan, they entered the house of Regino Maminta, all armed with talibones (bolos), and by force and violence took and carried away money and jewelry valued at 120 pesos (Mexican). After trial, the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan sentenced Paulino Palisoc, Fabiano Diadib, Inocencio Valerio, and Domingo Torres to five years of presidio correccional each. Rufino Lavarias, found to be the leader, was sentenced to six years of presidio correccional. The court also ordered indemnification of the offended parties. Defendants Fabiano Diadib, Inocencio Valerio, and Rufino Lavarias appealed.

During the trial, Rufino Lavarias was not initially present and only appeared after the prosecution had presented all its witnesses. The other defendants were present, arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and were represented by counsel. Upon discovering Lavarias’s presence, the court recalled a prosecution witness and examined him regarding Lavarias’s participation in the robbery. This was done without first arraigning Lavarias, reading the complaint to him, or informing him of his right to counsel as required by law.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court committed a reversible error in proceeding against defendant Rufino Lavarias without complying with the mandatory procedural requirements of arraignment and right to counsel.

RULING:
Yes. The provisions of sections 16, 17, and 18 of General Orders, No. 58 (the procedural code then in force) are mandatory. The court’s failure to arraign Rufino Lavarias, read the complaint to him, and inform him of his right to counsel before proceeding with his trial constituted a fundamental error. Consequently, the judgment against Rufino Lavarias is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan for a new trial as to him.

Upon review of the evidence, the Supreme Court found it sufficient to support the conviction of the other appellants. Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed with respect to the sentences imposed on defendants Fabiano Diadib and Inocencio Valerio.