Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 321 views

    People v. Calimlim, G.R. No. 123980.digest

    Uploaded by

    Dominique Vasallo
    Manuel Calimlim was convicted of four counts of rape for sexually assaulting 14-year-old Lanie Limin. On appeal, Calimlim argued his arrest was illegal because it was conducted without a warrant one day after the crime. However, the Supreme Court held that by pleading not guilty, Calimlim waived his right to question any irregularities in his arrest. The Court ruled that an illegal arrest is not sufficient to set aside a valid conviction if the trial was free of error. Calimlim's claim of a warrantless arrest did not invalidate the proceedings leading to his conviction, given the evidence clearly showed his culpability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Calimlim, G.R. No. 123980.digest

    Uploaded by

    Dominique Vasallo
    321 views2 pages
    Manuel Calimlim was convicted of four counts of rape for sexually assaulting 14-year-old Lanie Limin. On appeal, Calimlim argued his arrest was illegal because it was conducted without a warrant one day after the crime. However, the Supreme Court held that by pleading not guilty, Calimlim waived his right to question any irregularities in his arrest. The Court ruled that an illegal arrest is not sufficient to set aside a valid conviction if the trial was free of error. Calimlim's claim of a warrantless arrest did not invalidate the proceedings leading to his conviction, given the evidence clearly showed his culpability.

    Original Description:

    People v. Calimlim, G.R. No. 123980.Digest

    Original Title

    People v. Calimlim, G.R. No. 123980.Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Manuel Calimlim was convicted of four counts of rape for sexually assaulting 14-year-old Lanie Limin. On appeal, Calimlim argued his arrest was illegal because it was conducted without a warrant one day after the crime. However, the Supreme Court held that by pleading not guilty, Calimlim waived his right to question any irregularities in his arrest. The Court ruled that an illegal arrest is not sufficient to set aside a valid conviction if the trial was free of error. Calimlim's claim of a warrantless arrest did not invalidate the proceedings leading to his conviction, given the evidence clearly showed his culpability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    321 views2 pages

    People v. Calimlim, G.R. No. 123980.digest

    Uploaded by

    Dominique Vasallo
    Manuel Calimlim was convicted of four counts of rape for sexually assaulting 14-year-old Lanie Limin. On appeal, Calimlim argued his arrest was illegal because it was conducted without a warrant one day after the crime. However, the Supreme Court held that by pleading not guilty, Calimlim waived his right to question any irregularities in his arrest. The Court ruled that an illegal arrest is not sufficient to set aside a valid conviction if the trial was free of error. Calimlim's claim of a warrantless arrest did not invalidate the proceedings leading to his conviction, given the evidence clearly showed his culpability.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

    MANUEL CALIMLIM y
    MUYANO, accused-appellant.
    [G.R. No. 123980. August 30, 2001]

    Facts:
     Lanie S. Limin was 14 years old and had been living with the family of Kagawad
    Manny Ferrer and Cresencia Ferrer for the past 3 years.
     On the night of 2 April 1995, she was left alone in one of the two houses of the
    Ferrers since her usual companions, the sons of Manny and Cresencia, were out
    for the night (disco).
     The Ferrers were in the other house about 15 meters away. At around 11:30
    P.M., she was awakened when she heard somebody, later identified as Manuel
    Calimlim y Muyano, enter her room. Calimlim immediately poked a knife at the
    left side of her neck and said "Accompany me because I killed my wife." She was
    then dragged to the pig pen, about 8-9 meters away from the place where she
    slept. Afterwards, she was again forcibly taken back to her room, then to her
    cousin's room and to the kitchen. In each of these places, Calimlim forcibly had
    sexual intercourse with her while he poked a knife against her neck. According to
    Limin, she first recognized Calimlim while they were in the kitchen when she was
    able to remove the cloth covering his face. She stated that she knew Calimlim
    because she had seen him always following her whenever she went to school.
    Limin claimed that she did not struggle nor shout nor resist because she was
    afraid that appellant might kill her. After the fourth intercourse, Calimlim
    threatened that he would kill her if she reported the incidents. Despite the threat,
    she told her cousin, Manicris Ferrer, who then reported the matter to Dr. Nancy
    Quinto who lived nearby.
     The rapes were reported to the station of SPO1 Mario Suratos by Kagawad
    Ferrer. Dr. Ricardo Ferrer conducted the physical examination on Lanie, and
    found that there was minimal vaginal bleeding and there were lacerations in the
    hymen, the positions of which were at 9:00 o'clock, 6:00 o'clock and 3:00 o'clock,
    all fresh, indicating that there were insertions within the past 24 hours. There was
    also a whitish vaginal discharge which was found positive for spermatozoa.
    Manuel Calimlim denied the accusations. Calimlim was charged in 4 informations
    for rape in Criminal Cases U-8525, 8638 to 8640.
     On 17 November 1995, the Regional Trial Court, First Judicial Region, Branch
    46, Urdaneta, Pangasinan found Calimlim guilty of 4 counts of rape and
    sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death, to pay the offended party the
    amount of P50,000.00 as damages, and to pay the costs, in each of the cases.
    Hence, the automatic review.

    Issue: WON Calimlim may raise the illegality of the warrantless arrest conducted
    against him, especially as the arrest was made a day after the crime was committed.
    Held: No.
    Calimlim avers that his arrest violated Section 5 of Rule 113, 40 since his arrest was
    made one day after the crime was committed, but without any judicial warrant, although
    the police had ample time to get one. This he claims is also in violation of Article III,
    Sec. 2 of the Constitution. But here it will be noted that Calimlim entered a plea of not
    guilty to each of the informations charging him of rape. Thus, he had effectively
    waived his right to question any irregularity which might have accompanied his arrest
    and the unlawful restraint of his liberty. This is clear from a reading of Section 9 of Rule
    117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides that "the failure of the
    accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the
    complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or
    failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any
    objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b),
    (g) and (i) of section 3 of this Rule." Given the circumstances of his case, the
    exceptions do not apply here and the Court is constrained to rule that Calimlim is
    estopped from raising the issue of the legality of his arrest. Moreover, the illegal arrest
    of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a
    sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. The defense's claim of warrantless arrest
    which is illegal cannot render void all other proceedings including those leading to the
    conviction of Calimlim, nor can the state be deprived of its right to convict the guilty
    when all the facts on record point to his culpability.

    You might also like