G.R. No.

171020 March 14, 2007

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ALFREDO PANGILINAN y TRINIDAD, Accused-Appellant.
TOPIC: Arraignment
DOCTRINE: The arrest of the accused and o! h"# arra"$%&! conferred on the trial court jurisdiction
over his person. Absence of arraignment can be cured by the counsel of the accuseds active
participation. Counsels active participation (in the absence of an arraignment is an indication that
accused is fully a!are of the charges.
FACTS:
". T!o informations !ere filed charging appellant !ith raping AAA, his daughter.
#. "$$% & Prosecution formally offered its evidence
'. "$$( & Accused applied for bail & denied
). "$$$ & Case !as submitted for decision
*. "$$$ & the trial court, having discovered that appellant had o! y&! '&& arra"$&(, scheduled
his arraignment.
a. appellant, !ith the assistance of counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty to the charges
against him.
+. RTC: guilty & death penalty ,o
%. CA: affirmed
(. SC: automatic revie! (death penalty -asi
a. Accused alleges that he !as not properly arraigned
ISS)E*1: .hether or not /TC had no jurisdiction because he !as not properly arraigned
HELD: /TC has jurisdiction
R)LING:
Appellant assails his conviction because he !as not properly arraigned. 0ince he !as arraigned only after
the case !as submitted for decision, said irregularity, he argues, is a procedural error !hich is prejudicial
to the appellant and is tantamount to denial of his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation
against him. 1e claims that his subse2uent arraignment did not cure the defect in the trial proceedings
because at the time the petition for bail !as heard, the trial court had not yet ac2uired jurisdiction over his
person.
Appellant is mista-en. .hen the hearings for his petition for bail !ere conducted, the trial court had
already ac2uired jurisdiction over his person. 0ettled is the rule that jurisdiction over the person of the
accused is ac2uired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. 3n the case at bar, the trial court ac2uired
jurisdiction over the person of the appellant !hen he !as arrested. H"# arr&#!, o! h"# arra"$%&!,
co+&rr&( o !h& !r"a, co-r! .-r"#("c!"o o/&r h"# 0&r#o.
Arraignment is the formal mode and manner of implementing the constitutional right of an accused to be
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 appellants rights and interests prejudiced by the fact that he !as arraigned only at this
stage of the proceedings5
HELD: 6o. Appellants 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-#&,1# ac!"/& 0ar!"c"0a!"o " !h& h&ar"$# "# a c,&ar "("ca!"o !ha! h& 2a# +-,,y
a2ar& o+ !h& char$&# 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 underta-en 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 appellants 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.