NOLASCO v.

ENRILE (1985)
Doctrine
Aguilar had not been legally arraigned when a plea of "not guilty" had been entered
for her together with the other defendants who had refused to plead. There can be
no arraignment or plea in absentia. Under both the 1964 Rules of Court and the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, a defendant must be present at the arraignment
and must personally enter his plea.
Background
This case involves three defendants: Cynthia Nolasco, Willie Tolentino, and Mila
Aguilar. Communist Party of the Philippines members sila. Nolasco and Tolentino
have already been released by order of the President, and so this case ONLY
involves Aguilar.
Facts
Aguilar was charged with rebellion, but during the time of the charge (1973-1977),
the crime of rebellion was not a capital offense. P.D. No. 1834, which became
effective in 1981, made rebellion a capital offense. Sometime in 1978, Aguilar et. al
were charged before Military Commission No. 25 (MC-25) with Subversion. Aguilar
remained at large until her arrest in 1984.

In the meantime, in the rebellion case, arraignment was held in 1978 without
Aguilar being present. The other defendants refused to plead, and pleas of not
guilty were entered for them including one for Aguilar. In 1982, the trial
commenced but sometime in 1984 the SC issued a TRO enjoining the Special
Military Commission 1 from proceeding with the rebellion case. As for the
subversion case, it was initially dismissed but was subsequently revived after the
MR. A plea of not guilty has also been entered for Aguilar, notwithstanding that
she had not yet been arrested up to then.

Aguilar was arrested in 1984 together with Nolasco. Tolentino was arrested on the
same day. A Presidential Detention Action was issued against the three. After, an
Information was filed against them for illegal possession of Subversive Documents
in the MeTC. That Court ordered the release of the three defendants on the same day
on a P600.00 bail for each. In the Rebellion Case, SMC-1 ordered Aguilar held in
custody while in the Subversion Case, MC 25 also directed Aguilar's confinement
during the pendency of the trial. Aguilar also questioned the jurisdiction of the
Commission (MC 25) over her, but the Commission upheld its jurisdiction.

Issue
Whether the plea of not guilty entered by the Commission on Aguilars behalf is
valid
Held: No.
Ratio
Aguilar had not been legally arraigned when a plea of "not guilty" had been entered
for her together with the other defendants who had refused to plead. There can be
no arraignment or plea in absentia. Under both the 1964 Rules of Court and the
1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, a defendant must be present at the arraignment
and must personally enter his plea.

The rulings at bar in the subversion case are fully applicable, mutatis mutandis, to
the rebellion case, i.e. her arraignment in absentia was null and void; consequently,
"the military commission had lost jurisdiction to try her as of January 12, 1981 (date
of effectivity of G.O. No. 69 which phased out military commissions") and "a new
complaint or information should be filed against her before the civil courts; and that
"in the light of the attendant facts, particularly, that Aguilar was still not arraigned in
the Rebellion case as of January 12, 1981, that [Special Military Commission No. 1 17
had lost jurisdiction to try Aguilar in the Rebellion case when she was brought
before the tribunal to appear before the ongoing trial of the other defendants.
Moreover, with the lifting of Martial Law in 1981, Military Commissions were
dissolved and they could no longer try civilians.