This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-08-12 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Appellant would assail the legality of his arrest and the consequent seizure of the subject tricycle solely on the basis of the inadmissible extrajudicial confession of Fuentes. The argument would be non sequitur. In any event, any objection, defect, or irregularity attending an arrest or its consequences should be made before an entry of plea in the arraignment; otherwise, the objection would be deemed waived.[19] The records would show that on 01 October 1991, appellant and the other accused, Lobaton and Fuentes, entered a plea of not guilty[20] without assailing the validity of his arrest.[21] Indeed, on 25 November 1991, appellant filed a "Motion to Admit Accused to Bail"[22] setting the hearing of the motion on 29 November 1991. The trial court required the prosecution to file its comment on the motion.[23] After the prosecution submitted its opposition,[24] the trial court later granted the motion of appellant and required him to post a bail bond in the amount of P80,000.00 for his provisional liberty.[25] Appellant posted a property bond amounting to P80,000.00, secured by two parcels of land[26] which the trial court approved.[27] Appellant filed an "Entry of Appearance with Motion for Postponement."[28] After the prosecution had rested its case, appellant filed two "Motions with Express Leave of Court to file Demurrer to Evidence," one by the Public Attorney's Office and the other by his private counsel.[29] He even opposed the prosecution's formal offer of exhibits.[30] After the trial court had denied his earlier motion,[31] appellant participated in the trial of the case by testifying in his own behalf and by presenting other witnesses as evidence for the defense. It would, therefore, be much too late in the day to complain about the warrantless arrest after the accused was arraigned, trial commenced and completed, and a judgment of conviction rendered against him.[32] | |||||