This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-05-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The erstwhile ruling of this Court was that posting of bail constitutes a waiver of any irregularity in the issuance of a warrant of arrest, that has already been superseded by Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rule of Criminal Procedure. The principle that the accused is precluded from questioning the legality of the arrest after arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial, without previously invoking his objections thereto.[22] | |||||
|
2008-04-09 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances for the court to pronounce judgment. Under the new rules, the information or complaint must state the designation of the offense given by the statute and specify its qualifying and generic aggravating circumstances. Otherwise stated, the accused will not be convicted for the offense proved during the trial if it was not properly alleged in the information. Although the rule took effect on December 1, 2000, the same may be applied retroactively because it is a cardinal rule that rules of criminal procedure are given retroactive application insofar as they benefit the accused.[64] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| [24] People v. Vallejo, G.R. No. 125784, November 19, 2003, 416 SCRA 193. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The earlier ruling of this Court that posting of bail constitutes a waiver of the right to question the validity of the arrest has already been superseded by Section 26,[22] Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, the principle that the accused is precluded from questioning the legality of his arrest after arraignment is true only if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial, without previously invoking his objections thereto.[23] | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Cesar's positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime, absent any showing of ill motive, must prevail over the appellant's lame and obviously fabricated defenses of denial and alibi. Denials, as negative and self-serving evidence, do not deserve as much weight in law as positive and affirmative testimonies. Prevalently repeated is the rule that for alibi to countervail the evidence of the prosecution confirming the appellant's guilt, he must prove that he was not at the locus delicti when the crime was committed and that it was also physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was perpetrated.[30] In the case at bar, the defense utterly failed to satisfy these requirements. | |||||