CASE DIGEST: Taglay v. Judge Marivic Daray

ESTRELLA TAGLAY, petitioner, vs. JUDGE MARIVIC TRABAJO DARAY and LOVERIE PALACAY, respondents

G.R. No. 164258 | August 22, 2012

FACTS:

On June 19, 2001, a Criminal Complaint for Qualified Trespass to Dwelling was filed against petitioner Estrella Taglay with the 5th MCTC of Sta. Maria-Malita-Don Marcelino, Davao del Sur.

After finding probable cause, the Public Prosecutor assigned to handle the case filed an Information against Taglay on November 19, 2001.

Upon arraignment on June 7, 2002, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Pre-trial conference was set on August 13, 2002. 

However, on August 15, 2002 the MCTC issued an order transferring the trial to Branch 20, Regional Trial Court, Digos City since private complainant was still a minor when the incident happened. Hence, the case was transferred to the RTC of Digos City where the petitioner was brought to trial.

Witnesses were then presented by the prosecution. Prior to the presentation of the final witness for the prosecution, petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner contended that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the case, because the MCTC erroneously transferred the case to the RTC instead of dismissing it. Petitioner also argued that the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction was further aggravated when she was not arraigned before the RTC.

On March 9, 2004, the RTC issued a ruling that it acquired jurisdiction over the case when it received the records of the case as a consequence of the transfer effected by the MCTC; that the transfer of the case from the MCTC is authorized under A. M. No. 99-1-13-SC and Circular No. 11-99; that there is no doubt that the offended party is a minor and, thus, the case falls within the original jurisdiction of Family Courts pursuant to R.A. 8369. The RTC also held that even granting that there was defect or irregularity in the procedure because petitioner was not arraigned before the RTC, such defect was fully cured when petitioner’s counsel entered into trial without objecting that his client had not yet been arraigned. Furthermore, the RTC noted that petitioner’s counsel has cross-examined the witnesses for the prosecution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner should have been arraigned anew before the RTC and that her arraignment before the MCTC does not count because the proceedings conducted therein were void.

RULING:

It is true that petitioner was arraigned by the MCTC. However, the MCTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the present case. It is settled that the proceedings before a court or tribunal without jurisdiction, including its decision, are null and void. Considering that the MCTC has no jurisdiction, all the proceedings conducted therein, including petitioner’s arraignment, are null and void. Thus, the need for petitioner’s arraignment on the basis of a valid Information filed with the RTC.

It is also true that petitioner’s counsel participated in the proceedings held before the RTC without objecting that his client had not yet been arraigned. However, it is wrong for the RTC to rely on the case of People v. Cabale, because the accused therein was in fact arraigned, although the same was made only after the case was submitted for decision. In the similar cases of People v. Atienza and Closa and People v. Pangilinan, the accused in the said cases were also belatedly arraigned. The Court, in these three cases, held that the active participation of the counsels of the accused, as well as their opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses during trial without objecting on the ground that their clients had not yet been arraigned, had the effect of curing the defect in the belated arraignment. Moreover, the accused in these cases did not object when they were belatedly arraigned. The same, however, cannot be said in the instant case. There is no arraignment at all before the RTC. On the other hand, the arraignment conducted by the MCTC is null and void. Thus, there is nothing to be cured. Petitioner’s counsel also timely raised before the RTC the fact that her client, herein petitioner, was not arraigned.

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. As an indispensable requirement of due process, an arraignment cannot be regarded lightly or brushed aside peremptorily. Otherwise, absence of arraignment results in the nullity of the proceedings before the trial court.