This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-09-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Prefatorily, the Court finds in order the appellate court's observation that it is too late for petitioner to question the legality of his arrest in view of his having already entered his plea upon arraignment and participated at the trial. Having failed to move to quash the information on that ground before the trial court,[18] and having submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court, any supposed defect in his arrest was deemed waived. For the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over his person.[19] | |||||
|
2009-03-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We are not convinced that respondent Dumlao was unfairly discriminated against and his constitutional right to equal protection violated. It must be remembered that the manner in which the prosecution of the case is handled is within the sound discretion of the prosecutor, and the non-inclusion of other guilty persons is irrelevant to the case against the accused.[33] We find that there was no clear and intentional discrimination in charging respondent Dumlao. A discriminatory purpose is never presumed.[34] It must be remembered that it was not solely respondent who was charged, but also five of the seven board members. If, indeed, there were discrimination, respondent Dumlao alone could have been charged. But this was not the case. Further, the fact that the dismissal of the case against his co-accused Canlas and Clave was not appealed is not sufficient to cry discrimination. This is likewise true for the non-inclusion of the two government officials who signed the Lease-Purchase Agreement and the other two board members. Mere speculation, unsupported by convincing evidence, cannot establish discrimination on the part of the prosecution and the denial to respondent of the equal protection of the laws. | |||||
|
2008-09-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A. Upon seeing that man cutting marijuana plants, I cautioned my companions at my back telling them that there is a man down cutting marijuana which prompted them to move; that others proceeded to the camp while me and my one companion went to the man and cautioned him not to make unnecessary movements.[35] The Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.[36] We have also ruled that an accused may be estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information against him before his arraignment.[37] And since the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, any defect in the arrest of the accused may be deemed cured when he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court.[38] We have also held in a number of cases that the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error; such arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused. | |||||
|
2004-03-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| that the delay in the filing of the Information was intentional, appellant should have taken steps to report or file charges against the officers, failing which he cannot now rely on administrative shortcomings of police officers to get a judgment of acquittal.[33] At all events, appellant's entry of a valid plea[34] and active participation in the trial cured any defect in his arrest.[35] | |||||