SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240360. April 3, 2019.]
DANDY MONTA y RAMOS, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 April 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240360 — Dandy Monta y Ramos versus People of the Philippines
After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated March 1, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated June 25, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39421, the Court resolves to DENY the same for lack of merit and AFFIRM the CA for failure to sufficiently show reversible error that would warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
At the outset, as pointedly stressed by the CA, the Court notes that petitioner had already waived his right to question the validity of his arrest. Based on the facts, petitioner never raised the supposed illegality of his arrest before his arraignment nor did he raise the same during the proceedings before the trial court. It is well-settled that the failure of an accused to question the regularity of his arrest before his arraignment amounts to a waiver of his right to question the same. 3
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court finds that the CA committed no reversible error in affirming petitioner's conviction. The conclusions reached are sufficiently supported by the evidence and are in accord with law and prevailing jurisprudence.
Petitioner's argument that no probable cause existed under the circumstances is misplaced. He appears to be invoking Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which requires the existence of probable cause in order to effect a valid warrantless arrest. However, under Section 5 (a) of the same Rule, a warrantless arrest is lawful when, in the presence of the arresting officer, the person to be arrested is actually committing an offense. Such are the circumstances in this case, as uniformly found by the CA and the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 122 (RTC). In this respect, the Court finds no cogent reason to overturn the concurrent factual findings of the CA and the RTC, which are accorded great weight and respect on appeal.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 29-46. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurring.
2.Id. at 49-50.
3. See Villanueva v. People, 747 Phil. 40, 46 (2014).