TITLE: People of the Philippines v.

Jerry Pepino y Rueras and Preciosa Gomez y

Campos
DATE: January 12, 2016
PONENTE: Justice Brion
HEADING: Rights of an arrested person upon arrest, detention, or custodial
investigation
APPELLEE: People of the Philippines
APPELLANT: Preciosa Gomez y Campos (Jerry Pepino y Rueras withdrew his appeal)

FACTS:
The appellants were among the kidnappers who abducted Edward Tan, a businessman,
from his office in Paranaque City and demanded ransom from his family. They were
arrested by the NBI and the police in separate operations in Cebu City and Marikina
City. They were identified by the victim and his wife in a police lineup and in court.
They did not testify for their defense but presented alibi witnesses and challenged the
legality of their warrantless arrests.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE

INFORMATION FILED: The appellants were charged with kidnapping for ransom and
serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

NATURE OF THE CASE: Automatic review of the death penalty imposed by the RTC and
affirmed by the CA.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
 The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellants but reduced the
penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in view of the
prohibition of the death penalty under Republic Act No. 9346. The Court also
modified the amounts of damages awarded to the victim.
 The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision with the modification that the
amounts of moral and exemplary damages were increased.
  The RTC convicted the appellants of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and
sentenced them to suffer the death penalty. The RTC also ordered them to pay
the victim the amount of ransom, moral damages, and exemplary damages. The
trial court acquitted one of their co-accused for insufficiency of evidence.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

Whether the appellants waived their right to question the legality of their warrantless
arrests.

ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONERS
The appellants argued that their warrantless arrests were illegal and that they were
subjected to torture and coercion by the arresting officers.

ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENTS
The respondents contended that the appellants waived their right to question the
legality of their arrests when they did not move to quash the information before
entering their plea, and when they participated in the trial.

HELD/RATIO:
The Court held that the appellants waived their right to question the legality of their
arrests when they did not raise any objection before their arraignment and when they
actively participated in the trial. The Court also held that the illegality of the warrantless
arrest cannot deprive the State of its right to prosecute the guilty when all other facts
on record point to their culpability.

DISPOSITION:
The Court affirmed the conviction of the appellants but reduced the penalty to
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, and modified the amounts of moral
damages, civil indemnity, and exemplary damages. The Court also affirmed the
restitution of the amount of ransom to the victim. The Court ordered the awarded
amounts to earn interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of the
finality of the decision until fully paid.