People v. Mahusay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants Samuel Mahusay and Cristituto Paspos, along with others, were charged with robbery with rape and physical injuries. The information alleged that on April 19, 1988, six armed men entered the Bughao residence, extinguished the lights, tied the occupants, ransacked the house, stole valuables amounting to P12,900.00, and raped Marilou Bughao. The victim, Marilou Bughao, testified that she was able to see one of her assailants due to a flashlight focused on her face. Esmarlita Paspos, sister of appellant Paspos, identified her brother, Mahusay, and Mendio as among the perpetrators. The police recovered some of the stolen items and arrested the suspects. Appellants claimed they were in Cebu and Leyte for unrelated reasons and were arrested without cause. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court of Naval, Leyte, found appellants Samuel Mahusay, Alfredo Mendio, and Cristituto Paspos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with rape and sentenced them to suffer reclusion perpetua. Accused Felomino Galo was acquitted. The trial court ordered the return of some stolen items to the victims. Only Mahusay and Paspos appealed. The Petition: Appellants contended that the trial court erred in ruling that their apprehension was valid and that their guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the warrantless arrest of the appellants was valid. Whether the guilt of the appellants for the crime of robbery with rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The appeal is DISMISSED, and the decision of the trial court finding appellants Samuel Mahusay and Cristituto Paspos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with rape is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellants shall each suffer three (3) terms of reclusion perpetua. Appellants are ordered to indemnify Maria Luisa Bughao in the amount of P50,000.00 each as indemnity.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the warrantless arrest: The Court acknowledged that the arrest was made without a warrant and not in hot pursuit, thus violating Section 5(b) of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. However, the Court held that any objection to the legality of the arrest must be made before entering a plea. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty, participated in the trial, and presented evidence without moving to quash the information on the ground of illegal arrest, they are deemed to have waived their right to question the validity of their arrest. Their voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the trial court cured any irregularity in their arrest. The Court reiterated the ruling in People v. Codilla and People v. Rivera that such objections are deemed waived if not raised before arraignment. On the guilt of the appellants for robbery with rape: The Court found that the prosecution had credible witnesses to support the conviction. The testimony of Troadio Bughao, imputing the crime to the appellants, was buttressed by the fact that there was no plausible reason for the victims to falsely accuse them. Esmarlita Paspos' positive identification of her brother Cristituto, Mahusay, and Mendio as some of the malefactors was given credence due to her opportunity to observe them closely while serving them food. Despite Paspos wearing a mask, Troadio Bughao recognized him as his neighbor and tenant's son, a fact corroborated by Esmarlita. The Court emphasized that denial of culpability cannot outweigh positive identification by a credible witness, citing People v. Lopez, Jr. and People v. Villanueva. Maria Luisa Bughao's testimony regarding the rape and the physical injuries inflicted upon her was also considered. The Court affirmed the conviction based on the theory of conspiracy, where the concerted acts of the appellants, including their arrival together, simultaneous ransacking, and the assault on Maria Luisa, indicated a common criminal intent and joint purpose, making the act of one the act of all, as per Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code and jurisprudence from People v. Quinao and People v. Cordero.
Main Doctrine
The failure to question the legality of an arrest before entering a plea constitutes a waiver of the right to object to such irregularity, thereby submitting to the jurisdiction of the court.