SECOND DIVISION

[UDK No. 15310. August 24, 2016.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS OF MARIO SARMIENTO , petitioner, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF
THE BUREAU OF PRISON , respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 24
August 2016 which reads as follows:
"UDK No. 15310 (In the Matter of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus of Mario Sarmiento v. The Director of the Bureau of Prison)
This petition for habeas corpus seeks the release from imprisonment of
petitioner Mario Sarmiento (Sarmiento) who was convicted of the crime of rape.
Sarmiento has been incarcerated at the Maximum Compound of the Bureau of
Corrections, Muntinlupa City for the last seventeen (17) years. In 1997, Sarmiento was
charged with the crime of rape before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Gapan, Nueva
Ecija (RTC).
On November 21, 1997, Sarmiento was arraigned, but he refused to enter a plea.
Thus, Presiding Judge Arturo M. Bernardo of the RTC ordered that a plea of not guilty
be entered of record for Sarmiento. After evaluation of the records, however, the order
of the RTC directing the entry of plea of not guilty was not found.
Hence, in order to correct the error, the RTC ordered the arraignment of
Sarmiento after trial on the merits had already been concluded. Sarmiento, who was
then assisted by Atty. Ambrocio Matias, pleaded not guilty to the charge. On
September 7, 2000, judgment was rendered by the RTC convicting Sarmiento of the
crime of rape.
Believing that he was deprived of liberty without due process, Sarmiento led the
present petition raising the:
Sole Issue
WHETHER THE ARRAIGNMENT OF SARMIENTO, WHICH WAS CONDUCTED
AFTER TRIAL ON THE MERITS, RENDERED THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION
NULL AND VOID.
Sarmiento argues that the decision and actuation of the presiding judge violated
his constitutional right to substantive due process. He insists that he was wrongly
convicted of the crime of rape because he was never duly informed of the accusation.
In its Comment, 1 dated September 26, 2015, the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor)
contended that the petition for habeas corpus should be denied because Sarmiento is
in its custody by virtue of the September 7, 2000 judgment rendered of the RTC.
In his Reply, 2 dated March 18, 2016, Sarmiento countered that non-arraignment
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 before trial on the merits was a gross violation of the constitutional right of the
accused to be formally informed of the accusation against him. As such, he concluded
that the belated arraignment rendered the judgment of conviction void.
The Court's Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
In cases 3 where the same issues were raised, the Court held that while the
arraignment of the accused was conducted after the cases had been submitted for
decision, the error is non-prejudicial. The error or defect had been substantially or fully
cured considering that the counsel of the accused had full opportunity of cross-
examining all the witnesses. Thus, the accused's constitutional right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him was observed and respected.
In this case, Sarmiento's belated arraignment did not prejudice him. This
procedural defect was cured when his counsel participated in the trial without raising
any objection that his client had yet to be arraigned. The active participation of
Sarmiento's counsel in the hearings is a clear indication that he was fully aware of the
charges against him — otherwise his counsel would have objected and informed the
court. TIADCc

Moreover, when the RTC noticed after trial on the merits that Sarmiento's plea
was not stated in the records, it timely scheduled another arraignment where he, with
the assistance of counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. The said arraignment was held
before the RTC rendered its judgment. Sarmiento did not object that he was to be
arraigned anew. It is only now, after being convicted and after serving sentence for
seventeen (17) years, that he cries that his constitutional right has been violated. Thus,
Sarmiento's conviction cannot be set aside.
Habeas corpus is a writ directed to a person detaining another, commanding the
former to produce the body of the latter at a designated time and place. 4 Section 1,
Rule 102 of the Rules of Court provides that "the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to
all cases of illegal con nement or detention by which any person is deprived of his
liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person
entitled thereto." The objective of the writ is to determine whether the con nement or
detention is valid or lawful. 5 If it is, the writ cannot be issued. Section 4, Rule 102 of the
Revised Rules of Court provides:
Section 4. When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. If it appears
that the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an
officer under process issued by a court or judge or by virtue of judgment or order
of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the
process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed; or
if the jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be
discharged by reason of any informality or defect in the process, judgment, or
order. Nor shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the discharge of a
person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a person
suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.
In the present case, Sarmiento was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
rape. He was accordingly sentenced and is now suffering the penalty of imprisonment
by virtue thereof. Thus, the issuance of the protective writ is not warranted.
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED .
SO ORDERED . (Brion, J. , on leave)"
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO

Division Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON

Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 21-22.

2. Id. at 29.
3. People v. Cabale, 263 Phil. 838 (1990); People v. Atienza, 86 Phil. 576 (1950).

4. Ilusorio v. CA, GR No. 139808, May 12, 2000, 332 SCRA 169.

5. Sombong v. CA, 322 Phil. 737, 749 (1996).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com