This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-01-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In People v. Alunday, we held that when a police officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene, he may effect an arrest without a warrant on the basis of Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, as the offense is deemed committed in his presence or within his view. [10] In the instant case, it can plausibly be argued that accused-appellants were committing the offense of possessing shabu and were in the act of loading them in a white van when the police officers arrested them. As aptly noted by the appellate court, the crime was committed in the presence of the police officers with the contraband, inside transparent plastic containers, in plain view and duly observed by the arresting officers. And to write finis to the issue of any irregularity in their warrantless arrest, the Court notes, as it has consistently held, that accused-appellants are deemed to have waived their objections to their arrest for not raising the issue before entering their plea. [11] | |||||
|
2008-09-03 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A. Upon seeing that man cutting marijuana plants, I cautioned my companions at my back telling them that there is a man down cutting marijuana which prompted them to move; that others proceeded to the camp while me and my one companion went to the man and cautioned him not to make unnecessary movements.[35] The Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for 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.[36] We have also ruled that an accused may be estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information against him before his arraignment.[37] And since the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, any defect in the arrest of the accused may be deemed cured when he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court.[38] We have also held in a number of cases that the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error; such arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused. | |||||
|
2000-05-30 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, a witness is not expected to remember an occurrence with perfect recollection of minute details; even the most truthful witnesses often err and issue confused statements.[21] By the suddenness of the assault, Josephine could not be expected to remember the details of the attack. What was important was her unequivocal declaration that the attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of opportunity to put up a defense. She remembered that her sister was pulled away from her. She was shocked at the suddenness of the attack. She also did not falter in identifying accused-appellant as the attacker. Contrary to accused-appellant's assertion, inconsistencies and contradictions in the declarations of a witness do not necessarily destroy the witness' credibility. They may even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.[22] | |||||