PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

DAVID SALVATIERRA
276 SCRA 55|. July 24, 1997.
Puno, J.

Doctrine: The right to counsel guaranteed in Art. III, Section 12(1) of the Constitution does
not extend to police lineups because they are not part of custodial investigations.

FACTS
Accused-appellant David Salvatierra was found guilty of the crime of murder and was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The facts of the case would show that the
victim, Charlie Fernandez was walking along M. de la Fuente Street when suddenly, 3 persons
met him including accused-appellant who lunged a pointed instrument at the victim. The latter
was able to parry the thrust but the appellant swung the instrument anew which hit the victim at
the left breast. The said assault was witnessed by Milagros Martinez but due to feat, she did not
immediately report the incident to the authorities. As a result of the said assault, the victim died.
Three months later, accused-appellant was arrested due to a report that he was causing a
commotion along Sampaloc Manila. He was taken into custody by the police who then later ound
out that he was one of the suspects in the killing of Charlie Fernandez. Accused-appellant was
then turned over to the WPD wherein the witness Milagrosa identified him in the police line-up
as the one who stabbed Charlie. Thereafter, a booking sheet and arrest order was prepared by the
police and signed by the appellant. He was then charged with murder and convicted of the same
crime.
Accused-appellant belies all these assertions. On appeal, he faults the trial court for not
finding that his arrest, investigation and detention for the offense charged was violative of his
constitutional rights.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the arrest was valid?
Accused-appellant invokes his right against warrantless arrests on the ground that
there nothing on record show that his arrest for the minor offense of malicious mischief
was effected by virtue of a warrant. He also points out to the fact that he was arrested for
the crime of killing the victim 3 months after the said commission of the crime, which
according to him is sufficient time for the police authorities to secure a warrant of arrest.
In the present case, while the arguments presented are plausible, the appellant is now
estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest considering that he never raised this
before entering his plea. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure in
the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he
enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court by active participation in the trial would cure any defect in the
arrest made against him.

2. W/N his constitutional rights was violated when he was subjected to a police line-up
without the assistance of a counsel?
Accused-appellant also claims that his right was violated because he was deprived
of his constitutional right to counsel during the police line-up. However, it is a well-
settled doctrine that the right to counsel does not extend to police line-ups since at that

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 point, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory. The
accused’s right to counsel attaches only from the time that adversary judicial proceedings
are taken against him.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court convicting appellant David Salvatierra of the
crime of murder for the killing of Charlie Fernandez is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Cost de
oficio.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2