Sei sulla pagina 1di 2

Stephen Sy

---vs--PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


GR 182178
When to challenge
FACTS:
1. An information was filed against Petitioner Sy for possession of shabu. He pleaded not
guilty upon arraignment.
2. Evidence for Prosecution:
a. Two police officers on duty at Dumaguete Police Station responded to a phone call
from a concerned citizen about an illegal drug trade happening at a barangay in
Dumaguete City. When they arrived at the scene, they saw Petitioner at a distance
flicking a sealed transparent plastic in his hand containing what appeared to be
white powder. They approached Petitioner and introduced themselves to be police
officers, and announced his arrest, apprising him of his constitutional rights
b. Before they could finish announcing his rights, Petitioner struggled, and when he
was finally restrained, they were able to finish the appraisal of his constitutional
rights. They retrieved the sealed plastic sachet that fell to the ground during the
struggle, and brought the Petitioner and the seized item to the Police Station.
c. The police officers gave the plastic sachet to the provincial crime laboratory who
tested it positive for shabu.
d. In support of the case, the two police officers executed a joint affidavit of arrest.
3. Evidence for Defense:
a. That he was merely looking for a masseuse at the time the police officers saw him.
Failing to find a masseuse, he boarded his motorcycle when the two police officers
suddenly approached him and arrested him without even identifying his offense.
He resisted fearing for his life, but was subdued.
b. The police searched him, and even removed his pants and other clothing in full
view of onlookers, but found nothing. Then, out of his sight, the police officers
picked up items which they identified to be shabu. He was then promptly taken
to the police station afterwards
c. At the police station, he kept requesting for a drug exam for a week, but was
refused.
4. RTC ruled IFO of prosecution, finding Petitioner GUILTY
5. CA AFFIRMED the decision in toto.
6. Hence, this petition
ISSUE: W/N the legality of the arrest was timely challenged
HELD: NO.

RATIO:
Doctrine:
An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or
move for the quashal of the information filed against him on this ground before his arraignment.
Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired
jurisdiction over his person must be made before he enters his plea. Otherwise, the objection is
deemed waived.
Explanation:
Petitioner argues that the officers lacked probable cause in the arrest. The act of flicking a plastic
sachet is not an illegal act per se, and thus he was not caught in flagrante delicto. SC is not
persuaded. Petitioner never objected to the irregularity of his arrest before he was arraigned and
even participated actively in the proceedings. Thus, he is deemed to have waived to raise this
argument.
Moreover, an illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient to set aside a valid judgment.
There is also a lawful warrantless arrest. They were in active duty in the area after a tip from a
caller. Since the crime they were looking for is for the alleged drug trade, it naturally aroused
their suspicion of the Petitioners flicking of a transparent plastic sachet containing what
appeared to be white powder.

Potrebbero piacerti anche