CASE DIGEST SET 7

76 PEOPLE V. PLANA - Effect of Entry of Plea

FACTS:
Helen Perote: was found dead by her brother and the police in Brgy. Cobe, Dumarao, Capiz. The body was in
prone position and was already in an advance state of decomposition.
Per the post mortem examination conducted by Dr. Ricardo Betita, Rural Health Officer of Cuartero, Capiz: the
most probable cause of death was massive hemorrhage or blood loss secondary to multiple stab wound.
According to Dr. Betita, the victim died more than seventy-two (72) hours already before the police authorities
found her body.
Felix Lagud (witness): identified accused-appellants Plana, Perayra and Saldevea as the three men who were
holding the girl while their fourth companion Banday was raping her.
Lagud did not immediately disclose what he witnessed to the authorities. As Lagud explained on cross-
examination, he was afraid that accused-appellants would harm him had they known that he saw them commit the
crime.
Delay in bringing up the matter to the authorities do not destroy the veracity and credibility of the
testimony offered.
Assessment of the witness/es credibility: The defense failed to impute any ill motive on the part of the
prosecution witnesses to testify falsely against accused-appellants. In this case, the trial court correctly gave
credence to the positive identification of accused-appellants as the assailants of Helen by Felix Lagud. His
testimony was straightforward, direct and consistent.

The prosecutors questioned them if they saw a girl named Helen Perote. They answered no. Accused-Appellants
were then instructed by the police to go to the police detachments, but they didn't comply. So the policemen
looked for them and when they were already at the detachment, the authorities began interrogating them. Later in
the afternoon, the four accused-appellants were brought to the municipal hall in Dumarao, Capiz. They were
placed under detention there.
Accused-apellants denounce as violative of their constitutional rights their detention without, at the time, a judicial
order or an information filed in court.

ISSUE:
WON the detention without a judicial order or an information filed in court violated their constitutional
rights.

RULING:
Prior to the filing of the information, suffice it to say, that they already waived their right to question the
irregularity, if any, in their arrest: this is because Accused-appellants respectively entered a plea of not guilty at
their arraignment. By so pleading, they submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in
their arrest, for the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over their persons.

Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the
person of the accused must be made BEFORE HE ENTERS HIS PLEA, otherwise the objection is deemed
waived. The accused must move for the quashing of the information against him before arraignment. Otherwise,
he is estopped from questioning the validity of the arrest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accused-appellants interposed the defense of denial and alibi.

Alibi: is concededly one of the weakest defenses in criminal cases. It cannot prevail over, and is worthless in the
face of, positive identification by credible witnesses that the accused perpetrated the crime.

For alibi to prosper, the following must be established: (a) the presence of accused-appellant in another place
at the time of the commission of the offense and; (b) physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime.

Accused-appellants miserably failed to satisfy these requisites. Considering that they admit that they were
all in Barangay Cobe where the rape and killing of Helen was committed, it cannot be said that it was
physically impossible for them to have committed the crime.In fine, accused-appellants guilt for the crime of
rape with homicide had been proved beyond reasonable doubt in this case. Further, the trial court rightly
appreciated the existence of conspiracy among the accused-appellants. Their individual acts, taken as a whole,
revealed that they shared a common design to rape and kill Helen. They acted in unison and cooperation to
achieve the same unlawful objective. The principle that the act of one is the act of all is applicable to accused-
appellants in this case.

After due trial: a judgment was rendered by the trial court finding accused-appellants guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape with homicide. The trial court imposed upon them the supreme
penalty of death.

77 PEOPLE vs. CONDE

FACTS:
The RTC ruled that Conde, Atis and Perez, Jr. were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex
crime of Robbery with Homicide.

Prosecution witness Apollo Romero narrated that on the same date, at around 8:00am he saw four men block the
path of the two indian nationals. Romero stated that Conde along with Atis and Perez Robbed the indian nationals
at gunpoint and stabbing them.
On May 30, 1992, the police arrested the three accused and the police was also able to recover the stolen goods
located at the house of a certain “Jimmy”. The weapons used in the robbery were also recovered in the possession
of Felicidad, Conde’s wife.
PO3 Sevillano admitted that there was no warrant of arrest nor a search warrant when they apprehended the
accused. Oscar Conde claims that he was illegally arrested by the authorities. He adds that the Indian Embassy
was pressuring the police to solve the murder. He also wants the Court to disregard as evidence the stolen items
and weapons illegally seized by the police.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the appellants were illegally arrested.
2. Whether or not the items seized were admissible as evidence.
RULING:
1. YES
The arrests of the appellants came after the lapse of 5 days from the time they were seen committing the
crime. At the time they were arrested, the police were not armed with any warrants for their arrests. Section 5 of
Rule 113, of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure enumerates the instances when an arrest can be made
without warrant, namely:
(a) When, in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he
is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
None of the above circumstances is present in this case. Appellants were merely walking along Tandang
Sora Avenue and were not committing any crime. Neither can it be said that the crime had just been committed. It
cannot also be said that the arresting officers had probable cause based on personal knowledge. PO3 Sevillano
admitted that they learned about the suspects from Apollo Romero and certain unnamed informants. The third
circumstance is patently not present. The lapse of five days gave the police more than enough time to conduct
surveillance of the appellants and apply for a warrant of arrest. Clearly, appellants rights provided in Sec. 2, Art.
III of the Constitution were violated.
Unfortunately, appellants did not assert their constitutional rights prior to their arraignment. An accused is
estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of the Information against
him before his arraignment. When the appellants entered their pleas on arraignment without invoking their rights
to question any irregularity, which might have accompanied their arrests, they voluntarily submitted themselves to
the jurisdiction of the court and the judicial process. It is much too late for appellants to raise the question of their
warrantless arrests.
Furthermore, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment
rendered upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from error. The warrantless arrest, even if illegal, cannot
render void all other proceedings including those leading to the conviction of the appellants and his co-accused,
nor can the state be deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to their culpability.
2. NO
The warrantless search in the house of a certain Jimmy, based on the confession of accused Perez, Jr., is
definitely questionable. PO3 Sevillano categorically stated that they were able to recover the stolen items, i.e., the
beach towel and the umbrella, because of the confession of Perez, Jr. who was not assisted by counsel when he
confessed and eventually led the police to the whereabouts of the said items. The use of evidence against the
accused obtained by virtue of his testimony or admission without the assistance of counsel while under custodial
investigation is proscribed under Sections 12 and 17, Article III of the Constitution.

Moreover, the Court find in order the search of the bag of Felicidad Macabare, at the time she was visiting
her husband who was a detainee. PO3 Sevillano testified, this search is part of police standard operating procedure
and is recognized as part of precautionary measures by the police to safeguard the safety of the detainees as well
as the over-all security of the jail premises. However, the weapons confiscated from Felicidad Macabare, were not
formally offered as evidence by the prosecution, hence probatively valueless.
With regards to the crime committed, appellants are guilty of two counts of homicide and not robbery with
homicide because only the facts and causes of deaths were established with moral certainty.