Alan was charged with the crime of murder and frustrated murder in connection with the shooting to death of Gerry and the serious wounding of Nardy. The shooting happened one evening after Gerry and Nardy had just come out of a hotel where they had "one for the road". Nardy came out first and waited at the side of the road in front of the hotel. While there, he noticed two persons standing by the hotel’s driveway while a third one was talking to the security guard. Five minutes later, Gerry also came out of the hotel. As Gerry was walking towards Nardy, he was shot by one of the two men standing by the driveway, with a short firearm. In a matter of seconds the gunman also shot Nardy. Then the person talking to the security guard shouted "sibat na" while the assailant’s companion at the other side of the driveway said "you are just drunk while we are high". Afterwards the three men escaped.
The wounded Nardy got a good look at the assailant as they passed by him while fleeing. He was slit eyed with dark complexion and curly hair, wearing a white T-shirt and maong pants. Before he lost consciousness, he saw the three running towards the bridge. The responding policemen who were in the vicinity were apprised by bystan-ders that the assailant went towards the bridge. Acting on this information, the policemen went to the bridge accompanied by a bystander. The bystander led the police to a nipa hut under the bridge where the assailant allegedly hid himself. After some hesitation the women in the house allowed the police to search the place. And sure enough they found the assailant hiding in one of the rooms with a homemade caliber .22 tucked on his waist. He was immediately arrested and was later identified as Alan.
Trial on the merits ensued after proper charges were filed. The evidence pre-sented by both parties clearly pointed to the culpability of Alan as the assailant of Gerry who died and Nardy who was seriously wounded. So Alan was convicted of murder and frustrated murder. On automatic review by the Supreme Court, Alan contended among others that his arrest was illegal. He said that the policemen who arrested him did not have personal knowledge of the facts indicating that he committed the crime as to come under the exceptions of a warrant-less arrest. The police merely acted on the information of a bystander but the bystander was not even presented on the witness stand to identify him as the assailant to corroborate the testimony of the arresting policemen, Alan argued.
Was Alan correct?
No. Alan failed to move to quash the information on the grounds that he was subjected to illegal arrest. Trial on the merits ensued without any objection on his part. Hence, he was deemed to have waived his right to challenge the alleged irregularity of his arrest. His failure to move to quash information, his active participation in the trial and the presentation of evidence in his behalf put him in estoppel to make such challenge. Alan therefore submitted himself completely to the jurisdiction of the Court.
The legality of arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. Consequently, if objection on such ground is waived, the illegality of the arrest is not sufficient reason for setting aside an otherwise valid judgment rendered after trial, free from error. The technicality cannot render the subsequent proceedings void and deprive the State its right to convict the guilty when the facts point to his culpability (People of the Philippines vs. Bustamante G.R. No. 140724-26 February 12, 2003 397 SCRA 326).