People v. Alunday, G.R. No.

181546, September 3, 2008

FACTS

Sometime in May 2000, the Intelligence Section of the Police Provincial Office ofMountain Province
received a report from a confidential informant of an existing marijuanaplantation within the vicinity of
Mount Churyon, Sadanga, Mountain Province. After a series ofvalidations, the existence of the subject
plantation was finally confirmed.On Aug. 2, a contingent composed of policemen from Bauko, Sabangan,
Tadian,Sadanga, Provincial Headquarters and Bontoc Municipal Headquarters proceeded to
MountChuryon. On Aug. 3, a group of policemen, including SPO1 George Saipen, was dispatched toscout
the area ahead of the others. At a distance of 30 meters, Saipen, together with the membersof his
group, saw Alunday cutting and gathering marijuana plants. SPO1 Saipen and othersapproached Alunday
and introduced themselves as members of the PNP. Alunday was brought toa nearby hut where the
operatives saw an old woman, an M16 rifle and dried marijuana leaves. Two informations were filed
against Alunday, for violating Sec 9 of RA 6425 (DangerousDrugs Act of 1972) and Sec 1 of PD 1866.
Alunday was convicted for violation of RA 6425 andacquitted for violation of PD 1866 on reasonable
doubt.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not the guilt of Alunday has been proven beyond reasonable doubt – YES
2. Whether or not the court never acquired jurisdiction over Alunday's person because he
wasarrested without a warrant (issue only raised in the SC) – NO

RULING

All told, the cultivation of marijuana fruiting tops by accused-appellant having been establishedbeyond
reasonable doubt, we are constrained to uphold appellants conviction. The penaltyimposed by the RTC,
as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, being in accord with law, is likewiseaffirmed.

1. The prosecution was able to establish the following with conviction:

(1) A police contingent raided a marijuana plantation located in Mt. Churyon,
Sadanga,Mountain Province.(2) In the course thereof, appellant was seen cutting and
gathering marijuana plants fromthe premises.(3) There were no other plants except
marijuana which were growing in the said area.(4) There was a hut apparently used by
appellant and an old woman as a camp ortemporary dwelling which existed alone within the
area of the subject plantation.(5) The samples taken from the said plantation were all found
to be positive formarijuana.On the face of these positive testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, appellant's bare denialsmust necessarily fail.2. Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the
Rules of Court provides that a peace officer or a privateperson may, without a warrant,
arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrestedhas committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit, an offense. Section 5(a) refersto arrest in flagrante
delicto.The police received the information sometime in May 2000 and arrested Alunday
 only onAug. 3 because information about the existing marijuana plantation was finally
confirmed onlyon Aug. 2, 2000. Alunday's arrest on Aug 3 was legal because he was caught
in flagrante delicto.
In People v. Sucro, the Court held that when a police officer sees the offense, although ata
distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene
thereof,he may effect an arrest without a warrant on the basis of Section 5, par. (a), Rule
113 of the Rulesof Court as the offense is deemed committed in his presence or within his
view. In essence,Section 5, par. (a), Rule 113, requires that the accused be caught in
flagrante delicto or caught inthe act of committing a crime.Any objection involving a warrant
of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by thecourt of jurisdiction over the person of
the accused must be made before he enters his plea;otherwise, the objection is deemed
waived. SC also ruled that an accused may be estopped fromassailing the illegality of his
arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information againsthim before his
arraignment. The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court overthe
person of the accused, any defect in the arrest of the accused may be deemed cured when
hevoluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court. Also, the illegal arrest of an
accused isnot a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient
complaintafter a trial free from error; such arrest does not negate the validity of the
conviction of theaccused.Herein, Alunday went into arraignment and entered a plea of not
guilty. Thereafter, heactively participated in his trial. He raised the additional issue of
irregularity of his arrest onlyduring his appeal to the Supreme Court. He is, therefore,
deemed to have waived such allegeddefect by submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the
court by his counsel-assisted plea duringhis arraignment; by his actively participating in the
trial and by not raising the objection beforehis arraignment

Summary: A suspected marijuana plantation was the subject of a raiding operation when the
alleged marijuana grower was caught cutting and gathering marijuana. Further, when taken to a
nearby hut, an unlicensed firearm was found.

Rule of Law: A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense.

Facts: The Intelligence Section of the Police Provincial Office of the Mountain Province received a
report from a confidential informant that there was an existing marijuana plantation within the
vicinity of Mt. Churyon. After a series of validations, the existence of the subject plantation was
finally confirmed.

The Police Director ordered a contingent of policemen to the subject plantation and upon arriving at
the area saw Ricardo Alunday (D) cutting and gathering marijuana leaves. The police took Alunday
(D) to the hut where they saw a woman, an M16 riffle and some dried marijuana leaves.

Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid?

Ruling: Yes. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his
presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit, an offense. Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court refers to arrest in flagrante
delicto.

Furthermore, the Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the
procedure for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be
made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. We have also ruled that
an accused may be estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he fails to move for the
quashing of the information against him before his arraignment. And since the legality of an arrest
affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, any defect in the arrest of
the accused may be deemed cured when he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court.
We have also held in a number of cases that 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;
such arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused.

Herein, Alunday (D) went into arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, he actively
participated in his trial. He raised the additional issue of irregularity of his arrest only during his
appeal to this Court. He is, therefore, deemed to have waived such alleged defect by submitting
himself to the jurisdiction of the court by his counsel-assisted plea during his arraignment; by his
actively participating in the trial and by not raising the objection before his arraignment.