You are on page 1of 1

G.R. No.

131946-47 February 8, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

An Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque charging Rogelio Gomez with illegal
recruitment in large scale resulting in economic sabotage as defined and penalized under the provisions of
Art. 38, par. (a), in relation to Arts. 13, par (b), 34 and 39 of PD 442 otherwise known as the Labor Code of
the Philippines, as amended by PD Nos. 1920 and 2018. The Information alleged that Rogelio Gomez,
without the requisite license or authority from the POEA, recruited seven (7) individuals, namely, Rebecca
M. Talavera, Herminia S. Antones, Cynthia P. Castillo, Guillermo D. Gumabon Jr., Dionisio M. de los Reyes,
Ramil del Rosario and Ronnie Agpalo for employment in Japan and charged them placement fees ranging
from P65,000.00 to P160,000.00 each. On 10 January 1996 eight Informations were also filed before the
same court each charging Rogelio Gomez with estafa under par. 2, subpar. (a), Art. 315, of the Revised
Penal Code. Analiza G. Santos was added to the list of complainants as she also alleged that she was
defrauded by the same accused.

a. Whether or not the accused was unlawfully arrested by the NBI agents headed by NBI Special
Investigator III Syrus Aluzan
b. the trial court erred in denying his application for bail after his arraignment

a. The Court has consistently ruled that any objection to the warrant of arrest or the procedure in 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. Thus, if he fails to move for the quashing of the information
against him before his arraignment he may be estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest. Records
show that accused-appellant was arraigned on 31 January 1996 where he entered a plea of not guilty. Prior
to such date he did not file any motion to quash the Information. Hence, it is now too late for him to question
the legality of his arrest.

b. Regarding the issue of bail, accused-appellant argues that although his counsel was given the chance
to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses at the bail hearings, he was not given the opportunity to submit
rebuttal evidence to disprove that the evidence of his guilt was strong. In such cases, where the prosecution
was not given the chance to present evidence to prove that the guilt of the accused was strong, we held
that the proper remedy was for him to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. This same principle must
apply to cases where the defense was not accorded a chance to present any rebuttal evidence. When the
trial court denied his application for bail accused-appellant should have filed a petition for certiorari before
the appellate court. Hence, it is also too late for him to question the trial court's decision of denying his
application for bail. Besides, the conviction of accused-appellant undoubtedly proves that the evidence of
guilt against him was strong.