Sanchez v.
Demetriou
Cruz, J. | November 9, 1993 | Arrest (generally)
SUMMARY: Mayor Sanchez was accused of being involved in the crimes of rape and killing. An invitation to the preliminary
investigation was served on him, and it is by virtue of that invitation that he was taken to Camp Vicente Lim for questioning, and it
was found out that he was the perpetrator of the act. Formal charges were subsequently filed. Petitioner assails validity of arrest in
the form of invitation. Court held that original arrest (invitation) was illegal, but subsequent issuance of warrant cures its defect.
DOCTRINE: Filing of charges and the issuance of corresponding warrant of arrest against a person invalidly detained will cure
defect of detention
FACTS:
On July 28, 1993, pursuant to the request of the Presidential
Anti-Crime Commission, the Panel of State Prosecutors of the
Department of Justice conducted a preliminary investigation
with regard to the charges to be filed against several persons,
including petitioner Mayor Antonio Sanchez. Petitioner, along
with others, was alleged to be involved in the killing of one
Allan Gomez and the rape-slay of Mary Eileen Sarmienta.
Petitioner was not present during the preliminary investigation
but was represented by his counsel, instead.
Thereafter, he was served an invitation on August 13, 1993 to
the investigation in Camp Vicente in Laguna. At the
confrontation, he was identified by Aurelio Centeno, and SPO
III Vivencio Malabanan, who both executed confessions
implicating him as a principal in the rape-slay of Sarmenta and
the killing of Gomez. He was then put on “arrest status” and
was taken to DOJ. Following the hearing, warrant of arrest
was issued by Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas in connection with
the cases for violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 1, of
R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees) Sanchez was forthwith taken
to the CIS Detention Center, Camp Crame. Respondent
prosecutors filed complaint in RTC Manila for the crime of
special complex crime of rape with homicide for the rape and
killing of Sarmienta, aggravated with the killing of Gomez.
Subsequently, warrant of arrest was served to six other
accused.
ISSUE/S:
WON the arrest of Mayor Sanchez was valid – YES
RULING/RATIO:
August 13, 1993 illegal detention (invitation constituted an
invalid arrest) was cured by subsequent issuance of a valid
warrant of arrest.
Section 1, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court defines arrest as the
taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound
to answer for the commission of an offense. Under Section 2
of the same Rule, an arrest is effected by an actual restraint of
the person to be arrested or by his voluntary submission to the
custody of the person making the arrest.
Application of actual force, manual touching of the body,
physical restraint or a formal declaration of arrest is not,
required. It is enough that there be an intent on the part of
one of the parties to arrest the other and an intent onthe
part of the other to submit, under the belief and
impression that submission is necessary. “Invitation” came
from a high-ranking military official and the investigation of
Sanchez was to be made at a military camp. Command or an
order of arrest that the petitioner could hardly he expected to
defy. In fact, apparently cowed by the "invitation," he went
without protest (and in informal clothes and slippers only)
with the officers who had come to fetch him. Note that under
R.A. No. 7438, the requisites of a "custodial investigation"
are applicable even to a person not formally arrested but
merely "invited" for questioning.
Petitioner was right when he contended that such arrest was
not under those included in valid warrantless arrest under
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court because only the
testimonies were relied upon regarding the identifcation of
petitioner, so that arresting officer had no personal knowledge
nor were present during the commision of the crime. Neither it
has just been committed because arrest took place 46 days
after the crime was perpetrated. However, even if the original
arrest was illegal, the RTC later on acquired jurisidticon
on his person by virtue of the warrant issued to him and
co-accused. Even on the assumption that no warrant was
issued at all, the trial court still lawfully acquired jurisdiction
over the person of the petitioner. Filing of charges, and the
issuance of the corresponding warrant of arrest, against a
person invalidly detained will cure the defect of that
detention or at least deny him the right to be released
because of such defect.
Other points:
1. There were seven informations charging seven separate
homicides because the homicide committed on the occasion or
by reason of each rape, must be deemed as a constituent of the
special complex crime of rape with homicide. Therefore, there
will be as many crimes of rape with homicide as there are
rapes committed.
2.
Petitioner’s contention that he wa not accorded roght to
present counter-affidavit was negated by the fact that his
counsel manifested that his client was waiving the
presentation of a counter-affidavit. And despite the reminder
reminder from the court that he could still present such, he still
did not do so.