ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 83466. June 28, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. ELIZALDE CULALA Y BOGNOT

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 28 2000.

G.R. No. 83466 (People of the Philippines, vs. Elizalde Culala Y Bognot.)

This resolves appellant's motion for reconsideration of the Decision dated October 13, 1999, which affirmed with modifications the decision of Branch 172, Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide.

In seeking reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision, appellant contends that:

1. His arrest was invalid because the same was not effected without a warrant of arrest.

2. The judge who rendered the decision is not the one who conducted the trial so that she did not have an opportunity to observe the credibility of the witnesses.

3. The witnesses against him are not credible.

4. His extra-judicial confession is inadmissible.

Settled is the rule that an accused should question the validity of his arrest before he enters his plea before the trial court. He is estopped from questioning any defect in the manner of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information before the trial court or if he voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court by entering a plea and therefor, by participating in the trial.1 People vs. Galleno, 291 SCRA 761, 776-777 citing: Filoteo, Jr., vs. Sandiganbayan, 263 SCRA 222; People vs. Compil, 244 SCRA 135; People vs. De Guzman, 224 SCRA 93; and People vs. Lopez, 245 SCRA 95. Thus, the validity of appellant's arrest in this case, raised for the first time in the present motion for reconsideration, cannot now be questioned. The right to assail the same was deemed waived when appellant failed to dispute the legality of his arrest, before entering a plea.

The second ground invoked by appellant is equally devoid of merit. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the fact that the Judge who rendered the decision is not the one who conducted the trial does not preclude the incumbent judge from convicting the appellant. After all, the full records including the transcript of stenographic notes are available for the study and evaluation of the judge at bar.2 People vs. Fulinara, 247 SCRA 28, 38 citing: People vs. Sandiganbayan, 220 SCRA 551. Indeed, this is especially so in the case where there was an eyewitness and appellant has not shown any improper motive of the witness in taking the stand against him.

The Court need not discuss the other issues posed as they merely reiterate the thrust of the appeal. The points raised and arguments advanced in support thereof have been passed upon, and after giving the same a second hard look, the Court discerns no sustainable basis for distributing the ruling sought to be reconsidered.

WHEREFORE, the Motion for reconsideration under consideration is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE