FACTS:
Accused-appellant was charged and convicted
of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa. She contends that her
conviction was erroneous because the court never acquired jurisdiction over her
person, as her arrest was illegal, and that the prosecution failed to establish
estafa.
ISSUE:
Whether the lower court erred in not
dismissing this case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on its part over the
person of the accused-appellant by reason of the fact that the warrantless
arrest of the accused-appellant was illegal.
HELD:
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused
is acquired either by arrest or voluntary appearance in court. Hence,
granting arguendo that accused-appellant’s arrest was defective, such is deemed
cured upon her voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. It should
be stressed that the question of legality of an arrest affects only the
jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. Consequently, if
objections based on this ground are waived, the fact that the arrest was
illegal is not sufficient cause for setting aside an otherwise valid judgment.
The technicality cannot render the subsequent proceedings void and deprive the
State of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to
the culpability of the accused.
Estafa is committed by any person who
defrauds another by using a fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess
power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. The offended party must have
relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means of the
accused-appellant and as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damages.
No comments:
Post a Comment