People vs.

Dy

G.R. Nos. 115236-37

PONENTE: Justice Ynares – Santiago

Facts:

Gina and Helen are visitors from United States. On their way to Baguio, appellants Giovan and Bryan offered the
girls a ride to Baguio. They all checked in at the Benguet Pines Tourist Inn, and later went out together for some drinks and
dancing. On their way back to the hotel, the girls were offered and drank a cup of cola drinks each. When they reached the
hotel, the girls were already feeling dizzy and groggy. Gina was in the boy's room and half conscious when she felt Giovan
all over her but could not effectively resist him. Thereafter, Bryan came and laid on top of her. She was helpless when she
felt Bryan going inside her that she stopped him by doing an oral sex on him. She then became unconscious and woke up
late in the afternoon. She was still feeling groggy and confused when she discovered that the boys were already gone and
her money was missing. The Court affirmed the findings of the trial court that both appellants are guilty of rape and acts of
lasciviousness.

Accused-appellants Bled separate appeals. The defense contends that there was no valid arraignment since they
were not furnished a copy of the complaint or information. Moreover, the complaint or information was not read in a dialect
or language known to them. While they waived their right to enter a plea, they claim that they never waived their right to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the accused was deprived of their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against them. [NO]

Ruling:

Accused-appellants were substantially informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them when their
counsel received a copy of the Prosecutor's resolution maintaining the charge for rape and acts of lasciviousness. The
failure to read the complaint or information in a language or dialect known to them was essentially a procedural infirmity that
was eventually non-prejudicial to accused-appellants. Not only did they receive a copy of the information, they likewise
participated in the trial, cross-examined the complainant and her witnesses and presented their own witnesses to debunk
and deny the charges against them. The conduct of the defense, particularly their participation in the trial, clearly indicates
that they were fully aware of the nature and cause of the accusations against them. Interestingly, after the arraignment, the
defense never brought up the supposed invalidity or defect thereof. Rather, accused-appellants and their counsel vigorously
and fully participated in the trial of the case. Accused-appellants are clearly estopped to question the alleged invalidity of or
infirmity in their arraignment. By actively participating in the trial of the case, they have effectively waived whatever
procedural error there was in their arraignment. In short, whatever was the defect in their arraignment was substantially
cured by their own omission and subsequent actions.