People Vs Conde

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
OSCAR CONDE, et. al.
G.R. No. 113269. April 10, 2001
FACTS:
Apollo Romero, a resident of Santolan Street, Kalookan City, Metro Manila, testified that on May
25, 1992 at about 8:00 A.M., he was home sitting by the window and drinking coffee when he saw four
men block the path of two decease Indian nationals on a motorcycle. One of the men, later identified as
Oscar Conde, poked a gun at the two Indians while his three companions approached and stabbed the
Indians. After the stabbing, the four men fled. Romero was about 25 to 35 meters away from the place
where the crime was committed.
PO3 Rodencio Sevillano, testified that he was assigned with the Intelligence and Investigation
Division (IID) of the PNP, he was told to investigate the abovecited incident. The police arrested the three
accused. Police recovered the weapons used in the robbery, when Felicidad Macabare, Conde’s wife, went
to the police station to talk to the accused. These weapons were discovered inside her bag after a routine
inspection. Sevillano admitted, however, that they did not have a warrant of arrest when they
apprehended the accused. Nor did they have a search warrant when they inspected Felicidad’s bag and
when they searched the house of a certain Jimmy where they found the stolen items.
The RTC ruled that Conde, Atis and Perez, Jr. were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special
complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. Oscar Conde claims that he was illegally arrested by the
authorities. He adds that the Indian Embassy was pressuring the police to solve the murder. He also wants
the Court to disregard as evidence the stolen items and weapons illegally seized by the police.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the appellants were illegally arrested.
2. Whether or not the items seized were admissible as evidence.
RULING:
1. YES. The arrests of the appellants came after the lapse of 5 days from the time they were seen
committing the crime. At the time they were arrested, the police were not armed with any warrants
for their arrests.
Section 5 of Rule 113, of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure enumerates the instances when an
arrest can be made without warrant, namely:
(a) When, in his presence the person to be arrested hascommitted, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another.
None of the above circumstances is present in this case. Appellants were merely walking along
Tandang Sora Avenue and were not committing any crime. Neither can it be said that the crime had just
been committed. It cannot also be said that the arresting officers had probable cause based on personal
knowledge. PO3 Sevillano admitted that they learned about the suspects from Apollo Romero and certain
unnamed informants. The third circumstance is patently not present. The lapse of five days gave the police
more than enough time to conduct surveillance of the appellants and apply for a warrant of arrest. Clearly,
appellants rights provided in Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution were violated.
Unfortunately, appellants did not assert their constitutional rights prior to their arraignment. An
accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of the
Information against him before his arraignment. When the appellants entered their pleas on arraignment
without invoking their rights to question any irregularity, which might have accompanied their arrests,
they voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court and the judicial process. It is much
too late for appellants to raise the question of their warrantless arrests.
Furthermore, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment
rendered upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from error. The warrantless arrest, even if illegal,
cannot render void all other proceedings including those leading to the conviction of the appellants and
his co-accused, nor can the state be deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record
point to their culpability.
2. NO. The warrantless search in the house of a certain Jimmy, based on the confession of accused
Perez, Jr., is definitely questionable. PO3 Sevillano categorically stated that they were able to recover the
stolen items, i.e., the beach towel and the umbrella, because of the confession of Perez, Jr. whowas not
assisted by counsel when he confessed and eventually led the police to the whereabouts of the said items.
The use of evidence against the accused obtained by virtue of his testimony or admission without the
assistance of counsel while under custodial investigation is proscribed under Sections 12 and 17, Article
III of the Constitution.
Moreover, the Court find in order the search of the bag of Felicidad Macabare, at the time she
was visiting her husband who was a detainee. PO3 Sevillano testified, this search is part of police standard
operating procedure and is recognized as part of precautionary measures by the police to safeguard the
safety of the detainees as well as the over-all security of the jail premises. However, the weapons
confiscated from Felicidad Macabare, were not formally offered as evidence by the prosecution, hence
probatively valueless. With regards to the crime committed, appellants are guilty of two counts of
homicide and not robbery with homicide because only the facts and causes of deaths were established
with moral certainty.

People Vs Conde

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Conde

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Conde

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

1. Whether or not the appellants were illegally arrested.

2. Whether or not the items seized were admissible as evidence.

You might also like