People of the Philippines vs.

Trestiza
GR 193833 November 16, 2011
Facts: On Nov. 7, 2002 at about 1:00 AM, Irma Navarro and her boyfriend
Lawrence Yu were at a party in Makati. She went out ahead of Lawrence. She
was about to open the door of Lawrences Honda car when 3 armed men
emerged from a van and hit her on the nape. She recognized one of the
three as accused Pineda. The other two were policemen Manrique and
Trestiza. She was made to enter the Honda car. Lawrence, on the other hand,
was also accosted and was brought inside the van. Later on, they were
brought together. Their valuables were taken with threats that their families
will be in danger. They were also told that they should call their friends to get
the money the accused asked of them. Two of their friends raised 180 000.
They were then released. Later on, as accused Pineda kept on calling them
for the alleged balance, an entrapment operation was planned. Pineda was
arrested. The other two accused, Manrique and Trestiza, were arrested later.
The trial court found the three accused guilty of the crime of Kidnapping for
Ransom. The CA affirmed. Only Trestiza appealed.
Issues: 1. Whether or not Trestizas warrantless arrest was lawful.
2. Whether or not Trestiza is guilty of Kidnapping with Ransom.
Ruling: 1. No. It is clear that Trestizas warrantless arrest does not fall under
any of the circumstances mentioned in Section 5, Rule 113. However, any
objection to the procedure followed in the matter of the acquisition by a
court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be opportunely
raised before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
Trestiza failed to make a valid objection to his warrantless arrest and is
deemed to have waived any objection thereto.
2. Yes. It is quite clear that in abducting and taking away the victim,
appellants did so neither in furtherance of official functions nor in the pursuit
of authority vested in them. Conspiracy may be implied if it is proved that
two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the
same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though
apparently independent of each other, were, in fact, connected and
cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment.
Trestiza was positively identified by the victim Lawrence Yu stating that he
was sandwiched by 2 persons while a man was holding a gun in front of
him. One of those two persons was Trestiza. It was also him who was driving
the vehicle. The accused got their valuables and arranged to get 180 000
from the victims friends as ransom.