PPL Vs Yau

G.R. No.
208170 August 20, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
PETRUS YAU a.k.a. "John" and "Ricky" and SUSANA YAU y SUMOGBA a.k.a. "Susan",
Accused-Appellants.
The Facts
Ruling:
Petrus and Susana were charged with the crime of Kidnapping For Ransom. They allegedly
kidnapped private complainant - Alistair Onglingswam.
While said ALASTAIR JOSEPH ONGLINGSWAM was on board a white Toyota taxi cab with
plate number PVD-115 being driven by the above-named accused Petrus Yau a.k.a. "John"
and "Ricky" and the taxi cab was travelling (EDSA), he suddenly fell unconscious and upon
regaining consciousness he was already handcuffed and in chains inside a house.
During private complainant’s twenty-two (22) days of captivity, while he was allowed to
communicate with his family almost daily to prove that he was still alive and was served with
meals almost five times a day either by John or the other accused Susan Yau, he was also
maltreated i.e. beaten with sticks, made to lay-down biting a piece of wood which was made
as target for a rifle.
In February 2004, the PACER received information that a taxi with plate number PVD 115
was victimizing passengers. They followed the white taxi, then flagged it down and
approached the driver. The driver was asked to scroll down his window and was told
that the vehicle was being used to victimize foreign nationals.
- Appellant 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.
- Thereafter, appellant’s cellphones, a QTEK Palmtop and Sony Erickson were
confiscated. Upon instructions of P/Supt. Nerez, [appellant] was brought to the
parking lot of SM City Bacoor for a possible rescue operations of the victim.
Appellant led the team to his house and after opening the gate of his residence, he was led
back to the police car. The rest of the members of PACER proceeded inside the house and
found a man sitting on the floor chained and handcuffed. The man later identified himself as
Alastair Onglingswam.
Issue:
Was the warrantless arrests of the accused legal?
Ruling:
They waived any objection to the warrantless arrest. 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.
Riano (same gist)
- It bears stressing that the illegality of the arresr affects only the jurisdiction of
the court over the person of the accused. The illegality of the arrest, canont, in
itself, be the basis for acquittal. (Page 264)
- The accused appellants never objected to or questioned the legality of their

warrantless arrests or the acquisition of jurisdiction bythe RTC over their persons
before they entered their respective please 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. (page 266)

PPL Vs Yau

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PPL Vs Yau

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PPL Vs Yau

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

208170 August 20, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

- Appellant did not offer to make any comment.

- HE WAS IMMEDIATELY INFORMED THAT HE WAS BEING PLACED UNDER

Was the warrantless arrests of the accused legal?

Riano (same gist)

- The accused appellants never objected to or questioned the legality of their

You might also like