July 24, 2019

G.R. No. 240475

JONATHAN DE GUZMAN Y AGUILAR, Petitioner 

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Rather than take petitioner's declaration for what it was, the Regional Trial Court saw it fit to read
more into what he said and conclude that he had incriminated himself. It did not only make much
of a supposed weakness in the defense; rather, it itself conjured that weakness.

Moreover, the defense noted inconsistencies in the prosecution's version of events. Most
notably, it emphasized that petitioner was not even arrested on October 22, 2014, as the
Information had alleged.  There was also no record on the police station's blotter attesting to the
44

conduct of the patrol that supposedly preceded the arrest.  Yet, the Court of Appeals dismissed
45

these inconsistencies as minor details. 46

However, these inconsistencies are not mere trivial minutiae. The dates of the supposed criminal
incidents and of petitioner's ensuing arrest are matters contained in the Information, and are
matters that concern no less than an accused's constitutional right to be informed of the charges
against him or her. A proper record of police operations would have helped establish the
occurrences upon which petitioner's being taken into custody were predicated.

The entire narrative upon which the prosecution rests its case has been compromised by its
reliance on a solitary witness whose credibility is itself compromised and by imagined
weaknesses in the defense. The added inconsistencies noted by the defense only further
weaken the prosecution's position and instill greater doubt on petitioner's guilt.

June 7, 2017

G.R. No. 200370

MARIO VERIDIANO y SAPI, Petitioner 

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Nevertheless, failure to timely object to the illegality of an arrest does not preclude an accused
from questioning the admissibility of evidence seized.  The inadmissibility of the evidence is not
61

affected when an accused fails to question the court's jurisdiction over his or her person in
atimely manner. Jurisdiction over the person of an accused and the constitutional inadmissibility
of evidence are separate and mutually exclusive consequences of an illegal arrest.
As a component of the right to privacy,  the fundamental right against unlawful searches and
62

seizures is guaranteed by no less than the Constitution. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution
provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.  63