Dear PAO,
My friend Pitoy has a pending criminal case and is now awaiting the decision. He revealed to me that he might be convicted, so he already talked to someone regarding his possible appeal. However, he was told that his failure to object to the validity of his arrest resulted in the waiver of his right to question the evidence presented against him. Is this correct?
Armenia
Dear Armenia,
There are two issues raised based on the facts you have presented — jurisdiction over the person of the accused, and the admissibility of the evidence obtained from him after his arrest.
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused may be acquired by virtue of a warrant of arrest or a warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides:
“A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
“(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 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 is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.”
Remember, however, that a valid search of a person arrested may only be made after a lawful arrest. This is in consonance with Section 13,
Rule 126 of the same rules, which provides that:
“A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.”
While it is true that the validity of an arrest may be waived, such waiver does not include the right to question the admissibility of evidence obtained after the arrest. As explained in Dominguez vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 235898, March 13, 2019, Ponente: Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa):
“Well settled is the rule that an accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move to quash the information against him before his arraignment. Any objection involving the arrest or the procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Even in the instances not allowed by law, a warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect, and objection thereto is waived where the person arrested submits to arraignment without objection. xxx
“However, this waiver to question an illegal arrest only affects the jurisdiction of the court over his person. It is well-settled that a waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.”
Applying the above-quoted jurisprudence to your situation, the objection to the validity of Pitoy’s arrest may be waived because of his failure to move for the quashal of the information before his arraignment. This waiver will only affect the jurisdiction of the court over his person. It is, however, important to emphasize that the said waiver does not include, nor does it carry with it, a waiver of the right to question the admissibility of the evidence seized during an illegal arrest. Pitoy may still argue that the evidence against him should not be considered by the court if he can show that the same were illegally obtained.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
