Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    People v. Calimlim

    Uploaded by

    Yuri Nishimiya
    Calimlim was charged with four counts of rape. He entered a plea of not guilty. He later claimed his arrest was illegal as it was warrantless and one day after the crime. However, the Court ruled that by entering a plea, he waived his right to question any irregularities in his arrest. Furthermore, an illegal arrest is not sufficient to set aside a valid conviction if the trial was otherwise fair. The facts indicated Calimlim's culpability, so the State could not be deprived of convicting him due to an illegal arrest.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Calimlim

    Uploaded by

    Yuri Nishimiya
    47 views2 pages
    Calimlim was charged with four counts of rape. He entered a plea of not guilty. He later claimed his arrest was illegal as it was warrantless and one day after the crime. However, the Court ruled that by entering a plea, he waived his right to question any irregularities in his arrest. Furthermore, an illegal arrest is not sufficient to set aside a valid conviction if the trial was otherwise fair. The facts indicated Calimlim's culpability, so the State could not be deprived of convicting him due to an illegal arrest.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Calimlim was charged with four counts of rape. He entered a plea of not guilty. He later claimed his arrest was illegal as it was warrantless and one day after the crime. However, the Court ruled that by entering a plea, he waived his right to question any irregularities in his arrest. Furthermore, an illegal arrest is not sufficient to set aside a valid conviction if the trial was otherwise fair. The facts indicated Calimlim's culpability, so the State could not be deprived of convicting him due to an illegal arrest.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Calimlim

    Uploaded by

    Yuri Nishimiya
    Calimlim was charged with four counts of rape. He entered a plea of not guilty. He later claimed his arrest was illegal as it was warrantless and one day after the crime. However, the Court ruled that by entering a plea, he waived his right to question any irregularities in his arrest. Furthermore, an illegal arrest is not sufficient to set aside a valid conviction if the trial was otherwise fair. The facts indicated Calimlim's culpability, so the State could not be deprived of convicting him due to an illegal arrest.

    Copyright:

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

    People v.

    Calimlim
    G.R. No. 123980, August 30, 2001, en banc, Quisumbing, J.

    TOPIC: Arrest [Warrantless Arrest – Arrest in flagrante delicto (illegality of arrest v. validity
    of judgment)]

    DOCTRINE: When the accused enters a plea, he effectively waives his right to question
    any irregularity which might have accompanied his arrest and the unlawful restraint of his
    liberty.

    Calimlim averred that his arrest violated Section 5 of Rule 113 since his arrest was made
    one day after the crime was committed but without any judicial warrant. He claimed
    that such arrest likewise violated Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. However,
    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.

    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.

    FACTS:
    • Manuel Calimlim was charged of four counts of rape by the RTC. He pleaded not
    guilty to the charges.
    • The private complainant, Lanie S. Limin, testified for the prosecution.
    o She was 14 years old and had been living with the family of Kagawad Manny
    Ferrer and Cresencia Ferrer for the past three years. On 2 April 1995, she
    was left alone in one ofn the two houses of the Ferrers since her usual
    companions, the two sons of the Ferrers, were out for the night. The Ferrers
    were in the other house about 15 meters away.
    o At around 11:30 PM, she was awakened when she heard somebody
    (Calimlim) 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.
    o Afterwards, she was 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 she poke a knife against her neck. After
    the fourth intercourse, Calimlim threatened that he would kill her if she
    reported the incidents.
    § She was able to recognize Calimlim when she removed the cloth
    covering his face. She knew him because she had seen him always
    following her whenever she went to school.
    o She told her cousin who then reported the matter to Dr. Quinto who lived
    nearby. She did not struggle nor shout nor resist because she was afraid
    that Calimlim might kill her.
    • The RTC found Calimlim guilty of all charges of rape and sentenced him to death.
    • In his appeal before the Supreme Court, Calimlim averred that his arrest violated
    Section 5 of Rule 113 since his arrest was made one day after the crime was
    committed but without any judicial warrant. He claimed that such arrest
    likewise violated Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

    ISSUE: Whether Calimlim can question any irregularity which might have accompanied
    his arrest after entering a plea of not guilty to each of the four informations charging him
    of rape

    RULING: NO.
    • Calimlim averred that his arrest violated Section 5 of Rule 113 since his arrest
    was made one day after the crime was committed but without any judicial
    warrant. He claimed that such arrest likewise violated Article III, Section 2 of the
    Constitution.
    • However, 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 restrain of his liberty.
    • This is clear from a reading of Section 9 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of
    Criminal Procedure:
    Sec. 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. - 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 this case, the exceptions do not apply here; hence,
    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