You are on page 1of 4

Sanchez v.

Demetriou| November 9, 1993 | Arrest (generally)

Mayor Sanchez was accused of being involved in the crimes of rape and killing. An
invitation to the preliminary investigation was served on him, and it is by virtue of
that invitation that he was taken to Camp Vicente Lim for questioning, and it was
found out that he was the perpetrator of the act. Formal charges were subsequently
filed. Petitioner assails validity of arrest in the form of invitation. Court held that
original arrest (invitation) was illegal, but subsequent issuance of warrant cures its
Filing of charges and the issuance of corresponding warrant of arrest against a
person invalidly detained will cure defect of detention
On July 28, 1993, pursuant to the request of the Presidential Anti-Crime
Commission, the Panel of State Prosecutors of the Department of Justice conducted
a preliminary investigation with regard to the charges to be filed against several
persons, including petitioner Mayor Antonio Sanchez. Petitioner, along with others,
was alleged to be involved in the killing of one Allan Gomez and the rape-slay of
Mary Eileen Sarmienta. Petitioner was not present during the preliminary
investigation but was represented by his counsel, instead. Thereafter, he was
served an invitation on August 13, 1993 to the investigation in Camp Vicente in
Laguna. At the confrontation, he was identified by Aurelio Centeno, and SPOIII
Vivencio Malabanan, who both executed confessions implicating him as a principal
in the rape-slay of Sarmenta and the killing of Gomez. He was then put on arrest
status and was taken to DOJ. Following the hearing, warrant of arrest was issued by
Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas in connection with the cases for violation of Section 8, in
relation to Section 1, ofR.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees) Sanchez was forthwith taken to the CIS Detention
Center, Camp Crame. Respondent prosecutors filed complaint in RTC Manila for the
crime of special complex crime of rape with homicide for the rape and killing of
Sarmienta, aggravated with the killing of Gomez. Subsequently, warrant of arrest
was served to six other accused.
WON the arrest of Mayor Sanchez was valid
Yes. August 13, 1993 illegal detention (invitation constituted aninvalid arrest) was
cured by subsequent issuance of a valid warrant of arrest. Section 1, Rule 113 of the
Rules of Court defines arrest as thetaking of a person into custody in order that he
may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. Under Section 2of the
same Rule, an arrest is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested
or by his voluntary submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.
Application of actual force, manual touching of the
body, physical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not, required. It is enough
that there be an intent on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other and an
intent on the part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that
submission is necessary. Invitation came from a high-ranking military official and
the investigation of Sanchez was to be made at a military camp. Command or an

order of arrest that the petitioner could hardly he expected to defy. In fact,
apparently cowed by the "invitation," he went without protest (and in informal
clothes and slippers only) with the officers who had come to fetch him. Note that
Under R.A. No. 7438, the requisites of a "custodial investigation" are applicable even
to a person not formally arrested but merely "invited" for questioning. Petitioner
was right when he contended that such arrest wasnot under those included in valid
warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court because only the
testimonies were relied upon regarding the identification of petitioner, so that
arresting officer had no personal knowledge nor were present during the
commission of the crime. Neither it has just been committed because arrest took
place 46 days after the crime was perpetrated. However, even if the original arrest
was illegal, the RTC later on acquired jurisdiction on his person by virtue of the
warrant issued to him and co-accused. Even on the assumption that no warrant was
issued at all, the trial court still lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
Filing of charges, and the issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest, against a
person invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention or at least deny him
the right to be released because of such defect.

People vs. Benipayao

FACTS:On January 31, 2002, respondent Alfredo L. Benipayo, then Chairman of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC), delivered a speech in the Forum on Electoral
Problems: Roots and Responses in the Philippines held at the Balay Kalinaw,
University of the Philippines-Diliman Campus, Quezon City. The speech was
subsequently published in the February 4 and 5, 2002 issues of the Manila Bulletin.
Petitioner corporation, believing that it was the one alluded to by the respondent
when he stated in his speech that - Even worse, the Commission came right up to
the brink of signing a 6.5 billion contract for a registration solution that could have
been bought for 350 million pesos, and an ID solution that isnt even a requirement
for voting. But reason intervened and no contract was signed. Now, they are at it
again, trying to hoodwink us into contract that is so grossly disadvantageous to the
government that it offends common sense to say that it would be worth the 6.5
billion-peso price tag filed, through its authorized representative, an AffidavitComplaint for libel.
Arguing that he was an impeachable officer, respondent questioned the jurisdiction
of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCP-QC). Despite the challenge,
the City Prosecutor filed an Information for libel against the respondent, docketed as
Criminal Case No. Q-02-109407, with the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 102.
Respondent moved for the dismissal of the case on the assertion that the trial court
had no jurisdiction over his person for he was an impeachable officer and thus,
could not be criminally prosecuted before any court during his incumbency; and
that, assuming he can be criminally prosecuted, it was the Office of the
Ombudsman that should investigate him and the case should be filed with the
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the case at bar

Yes. Criminal and civil actions for damages in cases of written defamations shall be
filed simultaneously or separately with the RTC to the exclusion of all other courts. A
subsequent enactment of a law defining the jurisdiction of other courts cannot
simply override, in the absence of an express repeal or modification, the specific
provision in the RPC vesting in the RTC, as aforesaid, jurisdiction over defamations
in writing or by similar means. The grant to the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over
offenses committed in relation to (public) office, similar to the expansion of the
jurisdiction of the MTCs, did not divest the RTC of its exclusive and original
jurisdiction to try written defamation cases regardless of whether the offense is
committed in relation to office. Since jurisdiction over written defamations
exclusively rests in the RTC without qualification, it is unnecessary and futile for the
parties to argue on whether the crime is committed in relation to office.