GR L 6353; (May, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6353 May 26, 1954
DANIEL CABANGANGAN, petitioner, vs. ROBERTO CONCEPCION, ARSENIO P. DIZON, and DIONISIO DE LEON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND DIVISION, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Daniel Cabangangan, was charged before the Court of First Instance of Samar with illegal possession of a firearm under an original information dated November 21, 1950. On January 25, 1951, the prosecution filed an amended information, which added the allegation that the accused carried the firearm and ammunition and used them to coerce one Antonio Pacuan, to pave the way for conviction under Republic Act No. 482 . When the petitioner was arraigned on June 29, 1951, the court read to him the original information, not the amended one, and he pleaded not guilty. His counsel pointed out to the court that the arraignment was not under the amended information, and again reminded the court of this fact at the close of the trial. Nevertheless, the trial court found him guilty of illegal possession, sentenced him to imprisonment, and ordered confiscation of the firearm and ammunition. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the petitioner, being aware of the amended information and not objecting to evidence proving the additional allegation, waived formal arraignment under it, and that proof of the charge was admissible under the original information. The petitioner then filed this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner’s conviction under the amended information, without being arraigned thereon, is valid despite his counsel’s reminders to the trial court about the omission.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petitioner was not actually arraigned under the amended information, and he did not waive his right to arraignment because his counsel twice called the trial court’s attention to the omission, which amounted to an objection. Arraignment is mandatory, as the accused has a constitutional right to be informed of the charge against him. Therefore, his conviction under the amended information suffers from a reversible defect. The Court also noted that the original information was superseded by the amended one, so evidence to establish felonious possession under Republic Act No. 482 could not be properly admitted under the original information. The case was remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.