Scribd
Upload
22 views1 page

US vs. Jose Junio: Supreme Court Ruling

This document is a summary of a Supreme Court of the Philippines case from November 2, 1901. The court case involved Jose Junio who was accused of a crime. When he pleaded not guilty, the judge required him to answer the complaint, which violated his rights. The Supreme Court found this to be an illegal procedure and reversed the sentence, remanding the case back to the trial court to proceed according to law. The justices concurred in the decision.

Uploaded by

dats_idji
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views1 page

US vs. Jose Junio: Supreme Court Ruling

This document is a summary of a Supreme Court of the Philippines case from November 2, 1901. The court case involved Jose Junio who was accused of a crime. When he pleaded not guilty, the judge required him to answer the complaint, which violated his rights. The Supreme Court found this to be an illegal procedure and reversed the sentence, remanding the case back to the trial court to proceed according to law. The justices concurred in the decision.

Uploaded by

dats_idji
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

9/22/2019 G.R. No.

L-54

Today is Sunday, September 22, 2019

Custom Search

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines


SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-54 November 2, 1901

THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee,


vs.
JOSE JUNIO, alias "BATAAN," defendant-appellant.

Gregorio Pineda, for appellant.


Office of the Solicitor-General Araneta, for appellee.

WILLARD, J.:

It appears from the record that a copy of the complaint was served upon the accused and he was required to plead
"guilty" or "not guilty" in accordance with section 18 of General Orders, No. 58. He pleaded "not guilty." The judge
then required him to answer the complaint. In response to this request the defendant made a statement. We are of
the opinion that this procedure is illegal. The judge had no right to compel the accused to make any statement
whatever. The requirement that he do so was an infringement of the rights guaranteed to the accused by section 15
of general orders, No. 58. It does not appear affirmatively that the latter had any knowledge of his right to refuse to
make such a statement. The error committed by the court is explained in view of the relative order in which sections
18 and 19 are placed. Under the correct interpretation of these sections the accused has a certain time within which
he may determine in what manner he will answer the complaint. he may interpose a demurrer or file either of the two
exceptions, Nos. 3 and 4 of section 24, or he may waive all of these and simply plead "not guilty." When he has so
pleaded the cause is at issue and ready for trial and nothing further may be exacted of him either by way of
statement or testimony. [Link]

The sentence reviewed is reversed and all proceedings subsequent to the plea of "not guilty" are declared null. It is
ordered that this cause be remanded to the trial court with instructions to proceed in accordance with law.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Mapa, and Ladd, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

[Link] 1/1

You might also like