This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2014-08-20 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Any objection to the procedure followed in the matter of the acquisition by a court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be opportunely raised before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.[34] The accused-appellants never objected to or questioned the legality of their warrantless arrests or the acquisition of jurisdiction by the RTC over their persons before they entered their respective pleas to the kidnapping for ransom charge. Considering this lapse and coupled with their full and active participation in the trial of the case, accused-appellants were deemed to have waived any objection to their warrantless arrests. The accused-appellants voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the RTC thereby curing whatever defects that might have attended their arrest. It bears stressing that the legality of the arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over their persons.[35] Their warrantless arrests cannot, by themselves, be the bases of their acquittal. | |||||
|
2010-12-14 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Indeed, appellants by their individual acts, taken as a whole, showed that they were acting in unison and cooperation to achieve the same unlawful objective, even if it was only Webb, Ventura and Lejano who actually went inside the Vizconde house while Estrada, Fernandez, Rodriguez, Gatchalian and Filart stood as lookouts outside the house. Under these premises, it is not even necessary to pinpoint the precise participation of each of the accused-appellants, the act of one being the act of all.[165] | |||||
|
2007-04-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| A: Na papatayin po niya ang Mama ko at kapatid po.[22] As regards the proximity of the adjoining rooms to the place of the alleged commission of the offense, this Court has consistently ruled that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate in parks, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other family members are sleeping.[23] Lust is no respecter of time, place or kinship.[24] In contrast, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[25] | |||||
|
2003-07-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, while it may be stated that appellant was taken into police custody without a valid warrant of arrest, such illegality was, however, deemed cured when appellant applied for bail,[17] entered a plea of "not guilty" during his arraignment,[18] and actively participated in the trial of his case.[19] By so doing, appellant submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court. In People v. Lagarto,[20] it was held:The argument has no merit. CORDERO voluntarily entered a plea of "not guilty" when he was arraigned on 22 August 1994. By so pleading, he submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest, for the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over his person. Besides, his act of entering a plea when arraigned amounted to a waiver of the right to question any irregularity in his arrest. It is too late for CORDERO to protest his arrest because a valid information had been filed against him, he was properly arraigned, trial commenced and was terminated, and a judgment of conviction had been rendered against him. Besides, his illegal arrest, if such was the fact, did not have any bearing on his liability since an allegation of an invalid warrantless arrest cannot deprive the State of its right to prosecute the guilty when all the facts on record point to his culpability. Any irregularity in his arrest will not negate the validity of his conviction duly proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.[21] Regarding the amendment of the Information, the same was amended to conform to what the evidence showed as the total amount of money undeposited and unaccounted for by appellant after the requisite audit examination was further conducted in the Treasurer's Office. The amendment stated with specificity something that was already charged in the Information, and which added nothing essential for convicting appellant for the crime charged. It did not involve a variance of the nature of the offense committed but only a change in the amount involved as the alleged converted public funds. It did not cause a change in the basic theory of the prosecution which would require the appellant to prepare his defense anew. Neither did it expose appellant to a charge that called for a higher penalty beyond that stated in the law. The defense available to appellant under the original Information as it originally stood was still available to him after it was amended.[22] Hence, such amendment was only in form and not in substance, to which no double jeopardy can be said to have attached. | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Rape need not be committed in an isolated place.[42] That there are other people sleeping in the same room will not guarantee that it cannot be committed.[43] This observation is totally consistent with the fact that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate -- in parks, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other family members are sleeping.[44] Lust is no respecter of time, place or kinship.[45] There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[46] | |||||
|
2003-01-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| With regard to the legality of the arrest and confinement of appellant, it was shown that upon arraignment, appellant voluntarily entered a plea of "not guilty" without first questioning the legality of his arrest. By so pleading, he has submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest. Such act amounted to a waiver of the right to question any irregularity in his arrest.[57] | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Besides, this Court has consistently ruled that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate - in parks, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other family members are sleeping.[31] Lust is no respecter of time, place or kinship.[32] In contrast, there is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion.[33] | |||||
|
2001-08-22 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In People vs. Lagarto,[36] we held that attendant circumstances may be considered to determine civil liability. Thus, in view of the evident cruelty inflicted upon Rebelyn, as shown by the multiple burns and contusions on her body, we grant the award of exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00[37] | |||||
|
2000-11-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| And even assuming that accused-appellant's family members were around at the time, this does not discount the possibility that a rape was perpetrated inside the house. It has time and again been said that rape is no respecter of time or place as it can be committed in small, confined places or in places which many would consider as unlikely and inappropriate, or even in the presence of other family members.[27] | |||||