People v. Paran, G.R. No.

241322

Facts:
At around 4:00 a.m. of July 23, 2010, Cosme and Paula left their house and were on their way to their other house in Sitio
Ilaya, Barangay Biga, Toledo City to pasture their animals.
While they were walking along the road in Sitio Danawan, Barangay Biga, Toledo City, Paran and Roelan suddenly
approached them. Thereafter, Paran immediately struck Paula with a hard object, causing her to fall on the ground and,
while she was lying on the ground, he struck her again.
On the other hand, Roelan clubbed Cosme once in the mouth, knocking some of the latter's front teeth which caused him
to lose consciousness. Cosme regained consciousness because Roelan kept on searching his body.
Paran also searched the body of Paula and was able to find money from her in the amount of P2,500.00, which cash
Cosme earlier gave to Paula, before they left their house. Cosme heard Paran tell Roelan that the money was with Paula.
When Macaday arrived, Paran and Roelan ran away, and took with them the money. Gerardo brought Cosme and Paula to
a hospital. Paula expired three (3) days after the incident, while Cosme recovered.
Roelan, together with Paran, was indicted for the crime of Robbery with Homicide and Serious Physical Injuries in an
Information dated July 26, 2010,
Upon arraignment, Paran and Roelan pleaded not guilty to the charge.
On May 27, 2015, the RTC rendered its Decision finding Paran and Roelan guilty as charged.
On September 21, 2016, the counsel of Paran filed a Manifestation informing the CA of the fact of death of Paran while
detained at the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City.
On March 28, 2018, the CA in its assailed Decision affirmed the conviction with modification. ( Robbery with Homicide)
ISSUE: WON there is a waiver of objection.
RULING: YES
Anent Roelan's warrantless arrest, any irregularity that may have attended the same would be of no help to him in the
present appeal. In voluntarily submitting himself to the RTC by entering a plea of not guilty, instead of filing a motion to
quash the information for lack of jurisdiction over his person, Roelan is deemed to have waived his right to assail the
legality of his arrest.
Our pronouncements in Rebellion v. People are instructive, thus:
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.

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.
 People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 191759, March 2, 2020

Facts:
On appeal is the August 27, 2009 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals, affirming the Decision of the (RTC), which found
appellant Moreno guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder.
That on or about the 16th day of November 2001, in the City of Manila, said accused, id then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously x x x at about 2:15 a.m., with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, attack,
assault and use personal violence upon the person of one CECIL MIJARES by then and there stabbing him with a bladed
weapon on his body, thereby inflicting upon said CECIL MIJARES Y LEOCADIO mortal stab wounds at the back and
chest which were the direct and immediate cause of his death, thereafter.
Appellant pleaded "not guilty." After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision finding appellant guilty of Murder, treachery
having attended the attack.
The trial court rejected appellant's defenses of alibi and denial; his alleged lack of motive in committing the crime; his
arguments that the uncorroborated testimony of Adelriza was insufficient to convict him; and that his identification
outside a police line-up was irregular. Ultimately, the RTC ratiocinated that the clear, positive and credible testimony of
Adelriza that appellant was the culprit sufficiently removed any reasonable doubt on his guilt.
Undeterred, appellant appealed his conviction before the CA. The appellate court, finding no reversible error, upheld the
trial court's Decision.
Issue:
Whether or not there is a waiver of objection on the irregularity of appellant Moreno’s arrest.
Held:
Yes.
About the legality of appellant's arrest, it bears stressing that questions on arrest shall be made before arraignment and
failure to object to the illegality of arrest constitutes a waiver on the part of the accused. It is settled that any objection to
the manner of arrest must be opportunely raised before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
Here, the records clearly show that the objection was only raised on appeal.
The Court ruled in People v. Kulais and Samson:
Appellant is now estopped from questioning any defect in the manner of his arrest as he failed to move for the quashing of
the information before the trial court. Consequently, any irregularity attendant to his arrest was cured when he voluntarily
submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a plea of "not guilty" and by participating in the trial.
Even assuming that appellant's arrest was irregular, still, it is not a jurisdictional defect, and objection thereto is waived
where the person arrested submits to arraignment without objection.

There was no violation of appellant's right to counsel during custodial investigation. The records show that appellant was
informed of his constitutional rights when he was arrested. Since he chose to remain silent, he was not interrogated and no
statement or evidence was extracted from him; neither was any evidence presented in court that was supposedly obtained
from him during custodial investigation.
 Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 239756, September 14, 2020

Facts:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision, and the
Resolution of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the Decision of the RTC, in finding Mendoza guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in
relation to Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of
Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act.
Herein petitioner was charged with the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to
Section 5 (b), RA 7610.
That on or about the 8th day of March 2016, the said accused, with lewd designs by means of force and coercion, did then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously perform lascivious acts upon the person of one AAA, a nine (9) years old,
minor, by then and there kissing her lips twice, done against her will and without her consent, which act debase, degrade
and demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the said child as a human being.
When arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. After the pre-trial conference, trial on the merits
ensued.
The RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish and prove the elements of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. The
direct, clear and straightforward testimony of AAA was given credence by the RTC compared to petitioner's defense of
bare denial. The RTC opined that petitioner's act of kissing a nine (9)-year-old child is morally inappropriate and indecent
designed to abuse her.
On appeal, petitioner argued that the RTC erred in convicting him considering that his arrest was illegal and that the
prosecution failed to establish his identity beyond reasonable doubt. The CA denied his appeal stating that petitioner is
estopped from questioning the illegality of his arrest on appeal due to his failure to object to the illegality of his arrest
prior to his arraignment.
Issue:
WON petitioner waived his objection on the illegality of his arrest.

Held:
Yes.
Petitioner is estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest.
Herein petitioner claims that he was denied due process as his warrantless arrest was illegal. It is well-settled that failure
to move for the quashal of an Information on this ground prior to arraignment bars an accused from raising the same on
appeal under the doctrine of estoppel.16 The CA correctly held that any defect on the arrest of petitioner has been cured
by his voluntary act of entering a plea and actively participating in the trial
All the elements of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness were duly established and proven.

It bears to emphasize that in a petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court is only
limited to questions of law. The Court is not a trier of facts and its function is limited to reviewing errors of law that may
have been committed by the lower courts.
Petitioner admits in his petition questions of fact and he asserts that this case falls under the exception15 to the general
rule considering that the factual findings of the lower courts do not conform to the evidence on record.
An evaluation of the case shows that none of the exceptions are present in the case to warrant the review and reversal of
the factual findings of the lower courts.
Even assuming that the exceptions are present in the case, the grounds interposed in the petition fail to convince the Court.
 People v. Suwalat, G.R. No. 227749

Facts:
This appeal1 seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court's verdict of
conviction3 against appellant Ben Suwalat for two (2) counts of rape.
Appellant was charged with two (2) counts of rape by carnal knowledge in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610).
The cases were raffled to the RTC-Iloilo City.
Arraignment and Plea
On arraignment, appellant pleaded "not guilty" to both charges.
During the trial, complainant CCC, Elsie Agcanas, Dr. Duyag , PO1 Velasco, Dr. Robles and complainant's father
testified for the prosecution. On the other hand, appellant, his wife, and his neighbor testified for the defense.
The prosecution presented the following documentary evidence: complainant's sworn statement, police blotter report,
complainant's certificate of live birth, complainant's medico-legal certificate, affidavit of Agcanas, psychological report,
and psychiatric report.
The RTC rendered a verdict of conviction, finding the accused SUWALAT guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts
of rape by carnal knowledge under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353.
On appeal, appellant faulted the RTC for finding him guilty of two (2) counts of rape despite the victim's alleged
incredulous testimony and the prosecution's purported failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant
essentially argued: (1) His warrantless arrest was illegal as the police officers did not have any personal knowledge of the
rape he allegedly committed; and (2) Complainant's testimony was hardly straightforward, much less, categorical, thus,
casting doubt on the consummation of rape and the identity of the assailant.
On the other hand, the OSG, through Assistant Solicitor General Mandin and Associate Solicitor Go, maintained that the
prosecution was able to establish appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant was deemed to have waived any
objection against his warrantless arrest when at the arraignment, he did not timely raise it.
Issues:
1. WON the Court of Appeals err in convicting appellant of two (2) counts of rape.
2. WON appellant is estopped from assailing his warrantless arrest.
Held:
1). No.
The RTC and the CA correctly appreciated the prosecution's evidence supporting appellant's conviction.
Rape requires the following elements: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) the offender
accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when the victim was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious,
or when she was under twelve (12) years of age or was demented.

Here, the prosecution had established beyond moral certainty the elements of carnal knowledge and force or intimidation
in both cases. Complainant positively identified appellant as the man who had carnal knowledge of her against her will on
two (2) separate occasions.
As it was, the trial court found complainant's testimony to be spontaneous and straightforward. The Court respects the trial
court's factual findings on complainant's credibility. For the trial court's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses'
testimonies deserves great weight and is conclusive and binding if not tainted with arbitrariness. More so when the trial
court's factual findings carry the full concurrence of the Court of Appeals, as in this case.

2). Yes.
It is settled 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.45
Here, appellant went into arraignment and actively participated in his trial, without questioning his arrest. He only
challenged his warrantless arrest on appeal, after a verdict of conviction was handed down by the trial court. Appellant's
challenge, therefore, came too late in the day.
At any rate, the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed appellant's conviction. For the alleged irregularity of appellant's arrest
is not sufficient to invalidate the judgment of conviction.
 People of the Philippines v. Angelito Dayrit, G.R. No. 241632

Facts:
Accused-appellant Dayrit was indicted for two (2) counts of Murder as defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC).

In his arraignment, Dayrit pleaded not guilty5 to the offense charged in the Informations. Thereafter, trial on merits ensued.

The prosecution presented seven (7) witnesses, and the defense for its part presented four (4) witnesses.

According to Dayrit, he was neither informed of the reason of his arrest nor a warrant of arrest was shown to him. Dayrit was
brought to a detention cell at the city hall. The police authorities asked Dayrit about the gun and motorcycle which he allegedly
used in killing Ariel and Lourdes but he had no idea who the latter were.

On July 28, 2014, the RTC convicted Dayrit of the crime charged.

On appeal, the CA agreed with the findings of the trial court in giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
particularly of the children, who were the eyewitness of the crime. The appellate court was convinced that the qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were duly appreciated. Likewise, the CA finds it proper to consider the
generic aggravating circumstances of use of a motor vehicle that attended the commission of the crime which the trial court
failed to appreciate. The records show that Dayrit was riding a motorcycle when he trailed and fatally shot the victims. It was
also used to facilitate his escape after the commission of the crime.

The People and Dayrit, manifested that that they would no longer file a Supplemental Brief, taking into account the thorough
and substantial discussions of the issues in their respective appeal briefs before the CA.

The Court resolves to dismiss the appeal for failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the judgment of conviction to
warrant the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction.

Issue:
WON there is a waiver of objection on Dayrit’s warrantless arrest.
Held:
Yes.
According the records of the case, Dayrit never raised the supposed illegality of his arrest prior to his arraignment.
Instead, he raised the said issue for the first time in his appeal. As to the legality of his warrantless arrest, appellant is
already estopped from questioning such because it was never raised prior to his having entered a plea of not guilty.
Moreover, the rule is that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move to quash the
information against him before his arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the acquisition by
the court of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is
deemed waived. Even in the instances not allowed by law, a warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect, and objection
thereto is waived where the person arrested submits to arraignment without objection.