Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 424 views

    Stephen Sy V People

    Uploaded by

    Oculus Decorem
    The petitioner challenged the legality of his arrest for the first time on appeal, arguing that the police officers lacked probable cause. However, the Supreme Court ruled that he was estopped from assailing any irregularity in his arrest, as he failed to raise the issue before his arraignment. Once an accused participates in trial proceedings without first objecting to the arrest, the objection is deemed waived. Moreover, an illegal arrest alone is not sufficient grounds to overturn a valid conviction. The police officers in this case had lawful grounds for a warrantless arrest, as they were investigating a tip about drug activity and the petitioner's actions aroused their suspicion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Stephen Sy V People

    Uploaded by

    Oculus Decorem
    424 views2 pages
    The petitioner challenged the legality of his arrest for the first time on appeal, arguing that the police officers lacked probable cause. However, the Supreme Court ruled that he was estopped from assailing any irregularity in his arrest, as he failed to raise the issue before his arraignment. Once an accused participates in trial proceedings without first objecting to the arrest, the objection is deemed waived. Moreover, an illegal arrest alone is not sufficient grounds to overturn a valid conviction. The police officers in this case had lawful grounds for a warrantless arrest, as they were investigating a tip about drug activity and the petitioner's actions aroused their suspicion.

    Original Description:

    REMEDIAL LAW Philippines - Criminal Procedure

    Original Title

    Stephen Sy v People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner challenged the legality of his arrest for the first time on appeal, arguing that the police officers lacked probable cause. However, the Supreme Court ruled that he was estopped from assailing any irregularity in his arrest, as he failed to raise the issue before his arraignment. Once an accused participates in trial proceedings without first objecting to the arrest, the objection is deemed waived. Moreover, an illegal arrest alone is not sufficient grounds to overturn a valid conviction. The police officers in this case had lawful grounds for a warrantless arrest, as they were investigating a tip about drug activity and the petitioner's actions aroused their suspicion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    424 views2 pages

    Stephen Sy V People

    Uploaded by

    Oculus Decorem
    The petitioner challenged the legality of his arrest for the first time on appeal, arguing that the police officers lacked probable cause. However, the Supreme Court ruled that he was estopped from assailing any irregularity in his arrest, as he failed to raise the issue before his arraignment. Once an accused participates in trial proceedings without first objecting to the arrest, the objection is deemed waived. Moreover, an illegal arrest alone is not sufficient grounds to overturn a valid conviction. The police officers in this case had lawful grounds for a warrantless arrest, as they were investigating a tip about drug activity and the petitioner's actions aroused their suspicion.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 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.

    You might also like