Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD BACLA-AN LAPITAJE

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 200748 2014-07-23	JAIME D. DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
We find that petitioner never raised the alleged irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment and raises the issue only now before this tribunal; hence, he is deemed to have waived his right to question the validity of his arrest curing whatever defect may have attended his arrest.[26] However, "a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest."[27]
	GR No. 197788 2012-02-29	RODEL LUZ Y ONG v. PEOPLE SERENO, J.
The foregoing considered, petitioner must be acquitted. While he may have failed to object to the illegality of his arrest at the earliest opportunity, a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not, however, mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.[22]
	GR No. 182010 2010-08-25	SUSAN ESQUILLO Y ROMINES v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
With respect to the examination of the urine of petitioner, de Belen recorded the results thereof in Toxicology Report No. TDD-02-4128[5] reading: x x x x
	GR No. 170180 2007-11-23	ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ v. PEOPLE TINGA, J,
Well-settled is the rule that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect and weight, in the absence of any clear showing that some facts and circumstances of weight or substance which could have affected the result of the case have been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied.[17]
	GR NO. 170233 2007-02-22	PEOPLE v. JESUS NUEVAS Y GARCIA TINGA, J.
In this case, an acquittal is warranted despite the prosecution's insistence that the appellants have effectively waived any defect in their arrest by entering their plea and by their active participation in the trial of the case. Be it stressed that the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. Inspite of any alleged waiver, the dried marijuana leaves cannot be admitted in evidence against the appellants, Din more specifically, as they were seized during a warrantless search which was not lawful. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.[57]
	GR No. 149889 2003-12-02	PEOPLE v. RUEL BACONGUIS Y INSON CARPIO MORALES, J.
Appellant questions his arrest as bereft of a valid warrant. Having, however, submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court when he entered his plea[15] and actively participated in the trial of the case, any infirmity in his arrest was deemed cured.[16]
	GR No. 140549 2003-07-22	PEOPLE v. JOHN PETER HIPOL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
On the other hand, while it may be stated that appellant was taken into police custody without a valid warrant of arrest, such illegality was, however, deemed cured when appellant applied for bail,[17] entered a plea of "not guilty" during his arraignment,[18] and actively participated in the trial of his case.[19] By so doing, appellant submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court. In People v. Lagarto,[20] it was held:The argument has no merit. CORDERO voluntarily entered a plea of "not guilty" when he was arraigned on 22 August 1994. By so pleading, he submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest, for the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over his person. Besides, his act of entering a plea when arraigned amounted to a waiver of the right to question any irregularity in his arrest. It is too late for CORDERO to protest his arrest because a valid information had been filed against him, he was properly arraigned, trial commenced and was terminated, and a judgment of conviction had been rendered against him. Besides, his illegal arrest, if such was the fact, did not have any bearing on his liability since an allegation of an invalid warrantless arrest cannot deprive the State of its right to prosecute the guilty when all the facts on record point to his culpability. Any irregularity in his arrest will not negate the validity of his conviction duly proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.[21] Regarding the amendment of the Information, the same was amended to conform to what the evidence showed as the total amount of money undeposited and unaccounted for by appellant after the requisite audit examination was further conducted in the Treasurer's Office. The amendment stated with specificity something that was already charged in the Information, and which added nothing essential for convicting appellant for the crime charged. It did not involve a variance of the nature of the offense committed but only a change in the amount involved as the alleged converted public funds. It did not cause a change in the basic theory of the prosecution which would require the appellant to prepare his defense anew. Neither did it expose appellant to a charge that called for a higher penalty beyond that stated in the law. The defense available to appellant under the original Information as it originally stood was still available to him after it was amended.[22] Hence, such amendment was only in form and not in substance, to which no double jeopardy can be said to have attached.