September 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 184178 : September 26, 2011]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIO D. SARMIENTO
G.R. No. 184178 (People of the Philippines v. Mario D. Sarmiento). - In our July 25, 2011 Resolution, we affirmed with modification the July 31, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01570, finding Mario D. Sarmiento guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with the Use of a Deadly Weapon. We sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordered him to pay the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
In his two-page motion for reconsideration, the appellant argues that the trial court violated his right to be informed of the accusation against him when he was arraigned only after the prosecution rested its case.
We find no substantial argument to reconsider our July 25, 2011 Resolution.
In People v. Pangilinan,[1] where the accused was arraigned after the case was submitted for decision, we held that the accused's belated arraignment did not prejudice him since the procedural defect was cured when his counsel participated in the trial without objecting on the ground that his client had yet to be arraigned; his counsel even cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. We stressed that his counsel's active participation in the hearings is a clear indication that he was fully aware of the charges against him.
In this case, the records show that the appellant was duly apprised of the charges against him at the hearing of his petition for bail on November 21, 1997 where he refused to be arraigned and the trial court entered a plea of "not guilty" for him. However, the order of the trial court directing the entry to the records of a plea of "not guilty" for the accused was not reflected on the records, and to correct and straighten up the records, the appellant was again arraigned on January 17, 2000. The prosecution and the defense adopted the same evidence they earlier offered for admission, and manifested that they do not intend to adduce any rebuttal evidence; they likewise agreed and moved to submit the case for decision." Clearly, the appellant's rights and interests were not prejudiced by the lapse in procedure; his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was not violated.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY. No further pleadings shall be entertained. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] G.R. No. 171020, March 14, 2007, 518 SCRA 358.[2] Rollo, p. 56.
* Carpio, J., on official leave; Brion, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 1083 dated September 13, 2011.
** Carpio, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 1084 dated September 13, 2011.