PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

CODILLA, LUCAAS, PUTULIN (JUNE 30,

1993)
Facts:
On May 24, 1990 at about 3:00 oclock in the early morning at Brgy. Concepcion,
Ormoc City, Helen and her sister Leticia Pepito were awakened from their sleep. When
they opened their eyes they were surprised to see two men carrying bolos and
flashlights. One of the men asked if they had money; when Helen replied that they have
none, she was ordered to go down the kitchen while her sister was brought to the sala
by and there Helen was allegedly raped by Rolando Codilla and while her siste was
raped by Marcelo Putulin.
Also on November 27, 1990 at 3:00 o clock in the morning, Margarita Alpos was
sexually abused by two men who she identified as Rolando Codilla and German
Lucanas. At around 2:30 of the same date, Sgt. Romeo Penarada together PFC
Mamento Sarcol Jr, PFC Diosdado Tagalog, Pat. Eduardo Bituin and CVO Manuel
Pepito proceeded to the place where the alleged rape suspects were hiding and thus
the police were able to apprehend the suspects and brought them to the Ormoc City
Police Station. The RTC convicted the appellants for the crime of rape and as well as to
indemnify the victims for damages.
The accused-appellants then filed a petition to review and reverse the decision.
However, during the pendency of the appeal, Roland Codilla escaped from jail on July
27, 1991 while German Lucanas whereabouts remains unknown after a flashflood hit
their cells. As such only the appeal of Putulin was the only petition the court has
resolved.
Issue:
Whether or not the nature and circumstances surrounding their arrest is violative of their
constitutional right against illegal warrantless arrest.
Ruling:
The appellant started his defense by challenging his warrantless arrest and detention
for two days without any charges being filed against him. However, this argument must
be rejected by the court for the simple reason that he is estopped from questioning the
legality of his arrest. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure in the
acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made
before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived. Besides, this issue
is being raised for the first time by the appellant before this court. He did not move for
the quashal of the information before the trial court. Hence, any irregularity for his

arrest, if any was cured when he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
trial court by entering a plea of not guilty and participating in the trial.
Wherefore, the assailed judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs against the
petitioners.