PP Versus ALFREDO PANGILINAN

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
ALFREDO PANGILINAN y TRINIDAD
G.R. No. 171020 | March 14, 2007

Facts
Herein accused was convicted for the Crime of rape 2 counts. He allegedly raped
her 11 years old daughter several times on different date. His wife was working abroad,
when the crime happened. Thereby, the grandmother of the victim filed a case at the
RTC in Bataan. Then accused applied for bail but was denied because the evidence
against him was strong. Then the case prospered, until it’s the time of the defense to
show there witness.
Accused Pangilinan was the sole witness. He alleged that their daughter
seduced him but the court didn’t accept his claim. Until then the court forgot that he was
not yet arraigned. So they scheduled his arraignment with assistance of the Counsel de
Officio. Thereafter the trial court convicted him, sentence for death penalty and also
payment of the civil liability being imposed upon him.
The trial court forwarded the case at the Supreme Court for automatic review
since the penalty is the capital punishment. But the Supreme Court remanded it to
Court appeals.The latter court affirmed the decision of the RTC Bataan but modified
the civil liability being imposed. Pangilinan, invoked his right for the arraignment. He
contended that the late arraignment made by the court is not correct. He should have
been informed of the accusation against him before the proceeding started, because it
was one of his rights as an accused.

Issue
Whether or not the late arraignment made by the court prejudice the right of
Pangilinan as an accused.
Ruling
No, Pangilinan’s right was not prejudiced. Appellant is mistaken. When the
hearings for his petition for bail were conducted, the trial court had already acquired
jurisdiction over his person. Settled is the rule that jurisdiction over the person of the
accused is acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. In the case at bar, the trial
court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the appellant when he was arrested on 19
March 1997. His arrest, not his arraignment, conferred on the trial court jurisdiction
over his person.
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 why the prosecuting arm of the State is mobilized against
him.21
Admittedly, appellant was arraigned after the case was submitted for decision.
The question is: Were appellant’s rights and interests prejudiced by the fact that he was
arraigned only at this stage of the proceedings?
We do not think so. Appellant’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. In fact, his counsel even cross-
examined the prosecution witnesses. His counsel’s active participation in the hearings is
a clear indication that he was fully aware of the charges against him; otherwise, his
counsel would have objected and informed the court of this blunder. Moreover, no
protest was made when appellant was subsequently arraigned. The parties did not
question the procedure undertaken by the trial court. It is only now, after being
convicted and sentenced to two death sentences, that appellant cries that his
constitutional right has been violated. It is already too late to raise this procedural
defect. This Court will not allow it.
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the decision of the Court of Appeals
dated 16 November 2005 finding appellant Alfredo Pangilinan y Trinidad guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of two counts of qualified rape is AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that each penalty of death imposed on appellant is reduced to
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole pursuant to Republic Act No. 9346. He
is also ordered to pay private complainant AAA, for each count of rape, the amount of
₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱75,000.00 as moral damages and ₱25,000.00 as
exemplary damages. Costs against appellant.

PP Versus ALFREDO PANGILINAN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PP Versus ALFREDO PANGILINAN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PP Versus ALFREDO PANGILINAN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

You might also like