People of the Philippines v Alfredo Pangilinan
March 14, 2007, G.R. No. 171020
Pangilinan was charged with two counts of rape against his daughter. After the hearings for the petition of bail concluded, the trial ensued without arraignment, thereafter, the court scheduled his arraignment and then the case was submitted for decision. Accused: the delay in the arraignment violated his right to be informed of the accusation against him. SC: No, the defect was cured by the accused's active participation in trial, indicating that he was fully aware of the charges against him.
Facts:
Pangilinan was charged with two counts of rape for raping his daughter, AAA (11 years old) in 1995 and in 1997. Timeline of the case was as follows:
- March 19, 1997: Pangilinan was arrested
- May 5, 1997: Pangilinan arrested and detained with no bail recommended. Thereafter, accused filed a petition for bail and hearings for the petition for bail followed. Prosecution presented AAA's mother and the doctor who examined AAA as witnesses. Pangilinan was his sole witness.
- April 23, 1998: RTC denied Pangilinan's petition for bail (ground: the evidence against the accused is strong)
- June 9, 1999: RTC scheduled his arraignment
- June 17, 1999: accused pleaded not guilty, and in September, the court found him guilty.
Accused appealed his conviction on the ground that he was arraigned only after the case was submitted for decision. An irregularity and a procedural error which is prejudicial to the accused and tantamount to denial of his constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him.
Issue: W/N arraignment after the case was submitted for decision was a violation of the right of the accused to be informed of the accusation against him.
Held: Pangilinan's belated arraignment did not prejudice him. This procedural defect was cured when his counsel participated in the trial without raising any objection that his client had yet to be arraigned. His counsel also actively participated in the hearings, which is a clear indication that he was fully aware of the charges against him.
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.
It's purpose is to apprise the accused of the possible loss of freedom, life, depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him. Or at the very least to inform him of why the prosecuting arm of the sate is mobilized against him.
Doctrine:
- three principles in determining the guilt of the accused in rape cases
1. an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even difficult for the accused to disprove
2. there are only two persons involved in this crime, and as such the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with great caution
3. The evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
- Rule on affidavits: being taken ex parte, they are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for lack of searching inquiries but he investigating officer or du got partial suggestions, and are thus generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court.
- It is when the testimony (in rape cases) appears totally flawless that a court might have some misgiving on its veracity. This is especially true in rape cases where victims are not expected to have a total recall of the incident.
