G.R. No. L-54, November 2, 1901
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. JOSE JUNIO, alias “BATAAN,” defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The accused, Jose Junio, was served a copy of the complaint and required to plead “guilty” or “not guilty” under Section 18 of General Orders No. 58. He pleaded “not guilty.” Thereafter, the trial judge required him to answer the complaint, prompting the accused to make a statement. The defense contested this procedure as a violation of the accused’s rights.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in compelling the accused to make a statement after he had already entered a plea of “not guilty,” thereby infringing upon his rights under Section 15 of General Orders No. 58.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the procedure was illegal. Once an accused pleads “not guilty,” the cause is at issue and ready for trial. The judge has no right to compel any further statement or testimony from the accused, as this violates the rights guaranteed by Section 15 of General Orders No. 58. The Court clarified that under Sections 18 and 19, an accused may, within a specified period, demur or file exceptions under Section 24, or simply plead “not guilty.” After a “not guilty” plea, nothing more may be exacted from the accused. The sentence was reversed, and all proceedings subsequent to the plea were declared null. The case was remanded to the trial court for proceedings in accordance with law.