Right to question irregularity of ARREST must be seasonably exercised

It is too late for appellant to question any irregularity in his arrest. He is deemed to have abandoned this right the moment he submitted himself upon arraignment to the jurisdiction of the court. As we held in People vs. Lozano - Accused-appellant Lozano's allegation in his first assigned error that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction in trying his case and that the decision rendered by him (sic) should be declared null and void, does not merit any consideration. The record shows that the issue of jurisdiction in the trial court was not raised by the accused-appellant Lozano, so much so that if the issue be raised at his point in time it would be useless and futile because the question of jurisdiction over the person which was not raised in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. (Vda. de Alberto v. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 436 [1989]). Besides, a party is estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of a court a quo after voluntarily submitting himself to its jurisdiction. (Tejones v. Geronella, 159 SCRA 100 [1988]). Accused-appellant Lozano's appearance in the arraignment and pleading not guilty to the crime charged, is a sign that he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court, so that jurisdiction has been acquired by the court over his person and continues until the termination of his case. [G.R. Nos. 112716-17. December 16, 1996]

Popular Posts