This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-08-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Generally, factual findings of trial courts especially those which revolve matters of credibility of witnesses deserve to be respected when no glaring errors bordering on a gross misapprehension of the facts, or where no speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions, can be gleaned from such findings.[20] The evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses' deportment, demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.[21] | |||||
|
2011-01-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The foregoing proviso refers to arrest in flagrante delicto. [8] In the instant case, contrary to accused-appellants' contention, there was indeed a valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto. Consider the circumstances immediately prior to and surrounding the arrest of accused-appellants: (1) the police officers received information from an operative about an ongoing shipment of contraband; (2) the police officers, with the operative, proceeded to Villa Vicenta Resort in Barangay Bignay II, Sariaya, Quezon; (3) they observed the goings-on at the resort from a distance of around 50 meters; and (4) they spotted the six accused-appellants loading transparent bags containing a white substance into a white L-300 van. The following exchange between Capt. Ibon and the prosecutor sheds light on the participation of all six accused-appellants: | |||||
|
2010-07-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's claim that his warrantless arrest is illegal lacks merit. We note that nowhere in the records did we find any objection interposed by petitioner to the irregularity of his arrest prior to his arraignment. It has been consistently ruled that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.[5] In this case, petitioner was duly arraigned, entered a negative plea and actively participated during the trial. Thus, he is deemed to have waived any perceived defect in his arrest and effectively submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court trying his case. At any rate, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. It will not even negate the validity of the conviction of the accused.[6] | |||||
|
2010-05-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We have consistently ruled that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue, or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground, which should be made before arraignment.[33] In this case, appellant only raised for the first time the alleged irregularity of his arrest in his appeal before the CA. This is not allowed considering that he was already properly arraigned and even actively participated in the proceedings. He is, therefore, deemed to have waived such alleged defect when he submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court. | |||||
|
2010-03-09 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As to the regularity of appellant's arrest, we have consistently ruled that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue, or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground, before arraignment.[17] Here, appellant was arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty and actively participated in his trial. He raised the issue of the irregularity of his arrest only during his appeal to the CA. He is, therefore, deemed to have waived such alleged defect by submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court through his counsel-assisted plea during the arraignment, by actively participating in the trial, and by not raising the objection before his arraignment.[18] | |||||
|
2009-09-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| To be sure, the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, hence, any defect therein may be deemed cured when, as here, the accused voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court.[25] An illegal arrest is thus not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error.[26] | |||||