Cabangangan v. Concepcion
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Daniel Cabangangan was charged with illegal possession of a home-made shotgun, an empty shell, and six rounds of .38 caliber pistol ammunition. An amended information later alleged that he possessed these items between May and September 1950, carried the shotgun and ammunition on September 28, 1950, and used them to coerce one Antonio Pacuan, intending to prosecute under Republic Act No. 482. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner was arraigned on the original information dated November 21, 1950, despite the filing of an amended information on January 25, 1951. His counsel repeatedly brought this omission to the attention of the Court of First Instance of Samar. Nevertheless, the trial court found him guilty of illegal possession and imposed a penalty. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that his conviction was erroneous due to the lack of arraignment under the amended information. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the petitioner had waived formal arraignment by not objecting to evidence supporting the amended information and that the original information was sufficient. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. He contends that his conviction is reversible due to the mandatory requirement of arraignment under the amended information, which he argues he did not waive, as his counsel explicitly alerted the trial court to the omission. The petition argues that the original information was superseded by the amended one, and thus, conviction could not stand under the former. The Supreme Court notes that while the remedy might be technically an appeal, the petition contains sufficient allegations for an appeal under Rule 46 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner waived his right to be arraigned under the amended information. Whether the conviction suffers from a reversible defect due to the lack of arraignment under the amended information.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that the petitioner did not waive his right to arraignment under the amended information because his counsel twice called the trial court's attention to the omission, which amounted to an objection. Consequently, the conviction, which would be based solely on the amended information, suffers from a reversible defect. The case was remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Waiver of Arraignment): The Court held that the petitioner did not waive his right to be arraigned under the amended information. The fact that his counsel twice brought to the attention of the trial court the omission of arraignment under the amended information served as a clear objection. This action indicated that the petitioner was not consenting to proceed without being formally informed of the charges in the amended information. Therefore, the Court found that the petitioner's right to be informed of the charges against him, a fundamental aspect of due process, was not waived. On Issue 2 (Reversible Defect): The Court ruled that the conviction suffers from a reversible defect because the petitioner was not arraigned under the amended information. Arraignment is a mandatory procedural step, and the accused has a constitutional right to be informed of the specific charges against them. The Court clarified that the original information was superseded by the amended information, meaning the conviction could only stand if based on the latter. Since the arraignment was not conducted under the amended information, the proceedings leading to the conviction were flawed and thus reversible. The Court also noted that the respondent's argument regarding the proper remedy (appeal by certiorari vs. special civil action) was a matter of form rather than substance, and the petition contained sufficient allegations for an appeal under Rule 46.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that arraignment is a mandatory procedural step where the accused must be informed of the charges against them. Conviction based on an amended information without a proper arraignment thereunder is a reversible error. Even if evidence supporting the amended information was presented, the accused's counsel's repeated reminders to the court about the lack of arraignment constitute an objection, negating any claim of waiver.