People v Yau (2014, G.R. No. 208170)

People v Petrus and Susana Yau

G.R. No. 208170, August 20, 2014

Yau spouses were charged with kidnapping for ransom and illegal detention of an American lawyer. They questioned the validity of the warrantless arrest. SC: Yau spouses failed to question the validity of their arrest before arraignment, thus any objection is deemed waived. EVEN IF the arrest was illegal, this cannot deprive the State of its right to prosecute the guilty when all other facts on record point to their culpability.

 

Facts:

            Petrus was charged as principal of kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention (RPC A267), while Susana was charged as accomplice, allegedly for the kidnapping of an American lawyer (Alastair Onglingswam) in January 2004, while the victim hailed a cab driven by Petrus in Mandaluyong City. Alastair was kept for 22 days in a house owned by Susana, until the police rescued Alastair. The offenders allegedly demanded for 600K USD ransom.

 

            According to the police, during the rescue operation on February 11, 2004, the police flagged down Petrus’ cab, asked him to scroll down his window and was told that the vehicle was being used to victimize foreign nationals. Petrus did not offer to make any comment. Hence, this prompted the officers to ask for his name and since he answered that he was Petrus Yau, a British national, they asked him for his driver’s license and car registration but appellant was not able to produce any. Since he could not produce any driver’s license and car registration, they were supposed to bring him to the police station for investigation, however, when shown a picture of private complainant and asked if he knew him, he answered that the man is being kept in his house. He was immediately informed that he was being placed under arrest for kidnapping private complainant Alastair Onglingswam after being informed of his constitutional rights. Petrus brought the police to his house, and there they found Alastair.

 

            According to Petrus, he went to his wife Susana in her shop and after he alighted from his car, 3 men bigger than him held his hands, pushed him inside their van and beat him until he became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he was inside an airconditioned room. He was still restrained and blindfolded, and then was beat up. They accused him of being a kidnapper, to which he replied that he was not. He pleaded to them to allow him to make a call to the British Embassy, his friends and his wife, but to no avail. The following day, he was brought to and detained at the PACER Custodial Center.

 

Issue: W/N the warrantless arrest was valid.

 

Held: The accused are deemed to have waived any objection to their warrantless arrest because they failed to raise the objection before they entered their pleas.

 

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. 

 

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. Their warrantless arrests cannot, by themselves, be the bases of their acquittal.

 

Even assuming arguendo that the accused-appellants made a timely objection to their warrantless arrests, jurisprudence is replete with rulings that support the view that their conviction was proper despite being illegally arrested without a warrant. In People v. Manlulu, the Court ruled that the illegality of the warrantless arrest cannot deprive the State of its right to prosecute the guilty when all other facts on record point to their culpability. Indeed, the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error.