[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
56 views1 page

Veridiano Drug Possession Case Ruling

Veridiano was found guilty of illegal possession of marijuana by the trial court and sentenced to 12-20 years in prison. He appealed arguing his arrest was illegal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the guilty verdict. In this case, the Supreme Court held that while an illegal arrest may affect the court's jurisdiction over the accused, Veridiano waived this issue by participating in the trial. However, failure to object to the illegality of the arrest does not preclude challenging the admissibility of evidence obtained from an illegal search or seizure. The legality of the arrest and admissibility of evidence are separate issues.

Uploaded by

RHODORA SORIANO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
56 views1 page

Veridiano Drug Possession Case Ruling

Veridiano was found guilty of illegal possession of marijuana by the trial court and sentenced to 12-20 years in prison. He appealed arguing his arrest was illegal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the guilty verdict. In this case, the Supreme Court held that while an illegal arrest may affect the court's jurisdiction over the accused, Veridiano waived this issue by participating in the trial. However, failure to object to the illegality of the arrest does not preclude challenging the admissibility of evidence obtained from an illegal search or seizure. The legality of the arrest and admissibility of evidence are separate issues.

Uploaded by

RHODORA SORIANO
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Veridiano vs People

G.R. No. 200370, June 7, 2017

Facts:
In an information filed before the RTC of San Pablo City, Laguna, Veridiano was charged with the crime
of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. He was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the offense
charged. Trial on the merits ensued. The Regional Trial Court found Veridiano guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal possession of marijuana. Accordingly, he was sentenced to
suffer a penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20)
years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of ₱300,000.00.

Veridiano appealed the decision of the trial court asserting that "he was illegally arrested." He argued
that the tea bag containing marijuana is "inadmissible in evidence being the 'fruit of a poisonous tree.”
Veridiano further argued that the police officers failed to comply with the rule on chain of custody. On
the other hand, the prosecution asserted that "the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the
court over the person of the accused." Thus, by entering his plea, Veridiano waived his right to question
any irregularity in his arrest. With regard to the alleged illegal warrantless search conducted by the
police officers, the prosecution argued that Veridiano's "submissive deportment at the time of the
search" indicated that he consented to the warrantless search.

The CA rendered a Decision affirming the guilt of Veridiano. Veridiano moved for reconsideration which
was denied then this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

Issue:
Whether or not there is lack of jurisdiction over the person accused as a result of an invalid arrest.

Held:
No. The voluntary submission of an accused to the jurisdiction of the court and his or her active
participation during trial cures any defect or irregularity that may have attended an arrest. The reason
for this rule is that "the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of
the accused."

Nevertheless, failure to timely object to the illegality of an arrest does not preclude an accused from
questioning the admissibility of evidence seized. The inadmissibility of the evidence is not affected
when an accused fails to question the court's jurisdiction over his or her person in a timely manner.
Jurisdiction over the person of an accused and the constitutional inadmissibility of evidence are
separate and mutually exclusive consequences of an illegal arrest.

You might also like