1.

Lapi vs People of the Philippines

Principle: The right to question the validity of an arrest may be waived if the accused, assisted by
counsel, fails to object to its validity before arraignment.

RTC: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Section 15 of RA 9165. It ruled that the warrantless
arrest against him was legal since he was caught in flagrante delicto.
CA: Affirm. PO2 Villeran, upon seeing the pot session, "had reasonable ground to believe that
[Lapi was] under the influence of dangerous drugs.

Facts:
Operatives of the Bacolod City Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Group conducted a stake-
out operation in Purok Sigay, Barangay 2, Bacolod City. During the operation, Police Officer 2
Ronald Villeran (PO2 Villeran) heard noises from one (1) of the houses. He "peeped through its
window"[8] and saw Lapi, Sacare, and Lim "having a pot session."

Petitioner asserts that while he failed to question the validity of his arrest before entering his
plea, his warrantless arrest was illegal from the start. Hence, any evidence obtained cannot be
used against him. Intrusion into his privacy "cannot be equated in plain view[;] therefore[,]
petitioner cannot be considered caught in flagrante delicto.

Respondent asserts that the warrantless arrest was valid, as " [t]he act of having a pot session is
clearly the overt act required under the law, which indicates that petitioner is actually
committing an offense.

Issue:

Whether or not the warrantless arrest against petitioner Simeon M. Lapi was valid.

Held:
Yes, it is valid.

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.
 In this case, accused-appellant 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.

2. Dio vs People of the Philippines

Principle: If a motion to quash is based on a defect in the information that can be cured by
amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made.
A defect in the complaint filed before the fiscal is not a ground to quash an information; On the
other hand, lack of authority to file an information is a proper ground.

RTC: Order to quash the Informations charging the petitioner with libel because these
Informations failed to allege publication.
CA: Reverse and set aside. It sustained that the Informations did not substantially constitute the
offense charged. However, it found that the trial court erred in quashing the Informations
without giving the prosecution a chance to amend them pursuant to Rule 117, Section 4 of the
Rules of Court.

Facts:
Private respondent Timothy Desmond (Desmond) is the Chair and Chief Executive Officer of
Subic Bay Marine Exploratorium, of which Dio is Treasurer and Member of the Board of
Directors.
On December 9, 2002, Desmond filed a complaint against Dio for libel.
Petitioner send electronic messages to the offended party and to other persons namely: Atty.
Winston Ginez, John Corcoran, and Terry Nichoson which are defamatory or constituting an act
causing or tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt against the person of the said
Timothy Desmond, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party.
Dio filed a Petition to suspend the criminal proceedings, but it was denied. Dio moved for
reconsideration. She also moved to quash the Informations, arguing that the “facts charged do
not constitute an offense.
The trial court denied both Motions.
Dio filed a Motion for leave of court to file a second motion for reconsideration. She also filed an
Omnibus Motion to quash the Informations for failure to allege publication and lack of
jurisdiction, and for second reconsideration with leave of court.
The trial court’s Order denied both Motions and scheduled Dio’s arraignment. Dio moved for
partial reconsideration. The trial court granted Dio’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration.
Desmond filed Notice of Appeal before the CA. CA set aside RTC’s decision.

Dio stresses that “venue is jurisdictional in criminal cases.” Considering that libel is limited as to
the venue of the case, failure to allege “where the libelous article was printed and first
published” or “where the offended party actually resided at the time of the commission of the
offense” is a jurisdictional defect. She argues that jurisdictional defects in an Information are not
curable by amendment, even before arraignment.

Issue:
Whether or not an information’s failure to establish venue is a defect that can be cured by
amendment before arraignment.

Held:
Yes.
Rule 117, Section 4 of the Rules of Court states “If the motion to quash is based on an alleged
defect of the complaint or information which can be cured by amendment, the court shall order
that an amendment be made.”
In this case, petitioner Virginia Dio has not yet been arraigned; thus, Rule 117, Section 4 of the
Rules of Court applies. If the information is defective, the prosecution must be given the
opportunity to amend it before it may be quashed.

 On the other hand, lack of authority to file an information is a proper ground.

Petitioner, however, insists that his failure to assert the lack of authority of the City
Prosecutor in filing the information in question is deemed a waiver thereof.

For an information to be quashed based on the prosecutor’s lack of authority to file it,
the lack of the authority must be evident on the face of the information.
In this case, the Informations here do not allege that the venue of the offense was other
than Morong, Bataan. Thus, it is not apparent on the face of the Informations that the
prosecutor did not have the authority to file them.
The proper remedy is to give the prosecution the opportunity to amend the
Informations. If the proper venue appears not to be Morong, Bataan after the
Informations have been amended, then the trial court may dismiss the case due to lack
of jurisdiction, as well as lack of authority of the prosecutor to file the information.