G.R. No. 171020
March 14, 2007
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALFREDO PANGILINAN y TRINIDAD, Accused-Appellant. TOPIC: Arraignment TOPIC: Arraignment DOCTRINE: The arrest of the accused and o! h"# arra"$%&! conferred arra"$%&! conferred on the trial court jurisdiction over over his his pers person on.. Absenc bsence e of arra arraig ignm nmen entt can can be cure cured d by the the coun counse sell of the the accu accuse sed’ d’s s acti active ve participat participation. ion. Counsel’s Counsel’s active active participat participation ion (in the absence absence of an arraignmen arraignment t is an indicatio indication n that accused is fully a!are of the charges. FACTS: ". T!o T!o information informations s !ere filed filed charging charging appellant appellant !ith raping raping AAA, AAA, his daughter. daughter. #. "$$% & Prosecu Prosecution tion formally formally offered offered its evidence evidence '. "$$ "$$ & Accu Accused sed appl applied ied for for bail bail & denie denied d ). "$$$ "$$$ & Case Case !as !as submi submitt tted ed for for decis decision ion *. "$$$ "$$$ & the trial trial court court,, having having discove discovered red that that appella appellant nt had o! y&! '&& arra"$&(, arra"$&( , scheduled his arraignment. a. appell appellant ant,, !ith !ith the assistan assistance ce of counse counsell de ofici oficio, o, pleaded pleaded not guilty guilty to the charges charges against him. +. RTC: guilty & death penalty o %. CA: affirmed . SC: automatic revie! (death penalty asi a. Accused Accused alleges alleges that he !as !as not properly properly arraigned arraigned ISS)E*1: hether ISS)E*1: hether or not /TC had no jurisdiction because he !as not properly arraigned HELD: /TC HELD: /TC has jurisdiction R)LING: Appellant assails his conviction because he !as !as not properly arraigned. 0ince he !as arraigned arraigned only after the case !as submitted for decision, said irregularity, he argues, is a procedural error !hich is prejudicial to the appellant and is tantamount to denial of his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him. 1e claims that his subse2uent arraignment did not cure the defect in the trial proceedings because at the time the petition for bail !as heard, the trial court had not yet ac2uired jurisdiction over his person. Appellant is mistaen. hen the hearings for his petition for bail !ere conducted, the trial court had already ac2uired jurisdiction over his person. 0ettled is the rule that jurisdiction over the person of the accused is ac2uired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. 3n the case at bar, the trial court ac2uired jurisdiction over the person of the appellant !hen he !as arrested. H"# arr&#!, o! h"# arra"$%&!, co+&rr&( o !h& !r"a co-r! -r"#("c!"o o/&r h"# &r#o. Arraignment is the formal mode and manner of implementing the constitutional right of an accused to b e informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The purpose of arraignment is, thus, to apprise the accused of the possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him, or at the very least to inform him of !hy the prosecuting arm of the 0tate is mobili4ed against him. ISS)E*2: ere appellant’s rights and interests prejudiced by the fact that he !as arraigned only at this stage of the proceedings5
HELD: 6o. Appellant’s belated arraignment did not prejudice him. R)LING: This procedural defect !as cured !hen his counsel participated in the trial !ithout raising any objection that his client had yet to be arraigned. 3n fact, his counsel even cross-e7amined the prosecution !itnesses. H"# co-#&# ac!"/& ar!"c"a!"o " !h& h&ar"$# "# a c&ar "("ca!"o !ha! h& a# +-y aar& o+ !h& char$&# a$a"#! h"%8 other!ise, his counsel !ould have objected and informed the court of this blunder. 9oreover, no protest !as made !hen appellant !as subse2uently arraigned. The parties did not 2uestion the procedure undertaen by the trial court. 3t is only no!, after being convicted and sentenced to t!o death sentences, that appellant cries that his constitutional right has been violated. 3t is already too late to raise this procedural defect. This Court !ill not allo! it. 3n People v. Cabale## and People v. Atien4a, !here the same issue !as raised under similar circumstances, !e held that !hile the arraignment of appellant !as conducted after the cases had been submitted for decision, the error is non-prejudicial and has been fully cured. 0ince appellant’s rights and interests !ere not prejudiced by this lapse in procedure, it only follo!s that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him !as not violated.
