Nevertheless, failure to timely object to the illegality of an arrest does not preclude an accused from questioning the admissibility of evidence seized.[61]
The inadmissibility of the evidence is not affected when an accused fails to question the court's jurisdiction over his or her person in a timely manner. Jurisdiction over the person of an accused and the constitutional inadmissibility of evidence are separate and mutually exclusive consequences of an illegal arrest.
Precedents/Link/Source:
[61] Homar v. People, G.R. No. 182534, September 2, 2015 9 [Per J. Brion, Second Division]; Sindac v. People, G.R. No. 220732, September 6, 2016 10-11 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division]; People v. Racho, 640 Phil. 669, 681 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division]; People v. Martinez y Angeles, 652 Phil. 347, 359 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division]. See Antiquera y Codes v. People, 723 Phil. 425, 432 (2013) [Per J. Abad, Third Division].
2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP
No comments:
Post a Comment