WAIVER OF OBJECTION ON THE IRREGULARITY OF ARREST
(Rule 113, Rules of Court, Philippines)

1. Foundational Principles

Arrest and Jurisdiction
- An arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.
- Jurisdiction over the offense is conferred by law and jurisdiction over the person is acquired either by voluntary appearance of the accused in court or by a valid arrest.
- Even if an arrest is alleged to be illegal or irregular, it generally does not divest the court of its jurisdiction over the person of the accused once the accused submits to the court’s authority (e.g., by entering a plea, participating in trial).
Right to Question Irregularity
- An accused who believes they were illegally or irregularly arrested has the right to object by timely challenging the manner of their arrest.
- This challenge is typically raised before arraignment or in a motion to quash the Information/complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the person, or as part of a motion to dismiss grounded on an invalid arrest.

2. Rule on Waiver of Objection

General Rule
- Failure to object to an irregularity in arrest before entering a plea (that is, before arraignment or at least before participating in trial without qualification) constitutes a waiver of that objection.
Legal Basis
- The settled doctrine in Philippine jurisprudence is that “any objection based on the manner or legality of the arrest … must be made before the accused enters a plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.”
- This is anchored on:
  - The Rules of Court (particularly on motions to quash for lack of jurisdiction over the person).
  - A long line of Supreme Court decisions holding that once the accused voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court by entering a plea and participating in the proceedings, all objections pertaining to defects in the arrest are deemed foreclosed.
Effect of Waiver
- If the accused does not raise the issue of invalid arrest at the earliest opportunity, the court treats the defect as cured.
- The court retains and continues to exercise valid jurisdiction over the accused’s person.
- The accused cannot later claim that the court has no jurisdiction over them on the ground of an allegedly irregular arrest once the case progresses.

3. Policy Considerations and Rationale

Ensuring Order in Judicial Proceedings
- Courts require timely objections to procedural irregularities so that issues may be promptly resolved.
- If an irregularity in the arrest is raised immediately, the court can either:
  - Order the release of the accused if the arrest is clearly unlawful, or
  - Correct the defect (if correctible), or
  - Sustain the arrest if found valid.
Preventing Delay Tactics
- The rule avoids a scenario where the accused fully participates in the trial only to raise “illegal arrest” for the first time on appeal or late in the proceedings, which could unduly delay the administration of justice.
Distinction Between Illegal Arrest and Lack of Jurisdiction
- A flawed or “illegal” arrest does not automatically deprive the court of jurisdiction if the accused voluntarily appears and participates in the proceedings.
- Jurisdiction over the person can be acquired in ways other than a perfectly valid arrest—most commonly by the accused’s voluntary submission (e.g., entering a plea, filing pleadings, etc.).
- By contrast, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (the offense) is never cured by waiver or silence because it is conferred by law and not by the parties’ actions.

4. Procedure When Questioning Illegal Arrest

Before Arraignment
- File a Motion to Quash the Information (Rule 117 of the Rules of Court) on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused due to an invalid/illegal arrest.
- Alternatively, file a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of invalid arrest or a motion specifically challenging the court’s jurisdiction over the accused.
During Arraignment
- The accused (through counsel) may enter a conditional plea or raise the objection in open court prior to a “not guilty” plea, thereby preserving the issue for resolution.
After Arraignment
- If the accused fails to raise the irregularity before or at arraignment and instead pleads to the charge (guilty or not guilty) without protest, participates in the trial, and allows the proceedings to continue, the accused will be deemed to have waived any objection to the defect in the arrest.
Implications of Proper Timing
- When raised timely, the court will hold a summary hearing to determine the validity of the arrest or may look into the infirmity claimed (e.g., absence of lawful warrant, no probable cause for warrantless arrest, violations of rights in custodial investigation, etc.).
- If found irregular, the court can order the appropriate remedy. However, if the deficiency is merely technical and does not necessarily affect probable cause or if the accused is validly charged, the criminal proceedings typically continue with the accused’s release (if the arrest was unconstitutional) but re-arrest or re-service of a valid warrant may ensue.

5. Leading Jurisprudence

Philippine courts, through numerous decisions, have consistently upheld the rule on waiver.

People v. Edgardo B. Cabiles – Affirmed that the voluntary submission of an accused to the court’s jurisdiction bars a later challenge to alleged illegal arrest.
People v. Enoja – Emphasized that an objection to arrest must be raised before plea; otherwise, it is deemed waived.
People v. Mapa – Clarified that “illegality of the arrest” alone does not divest the court of jurisdiction once the accused appears and fails to object at the earliest opportunity.
People v. Maspil – Reiterated that alleged violation of the accused’s rights arising from an unlawful arrest is waived if not raised prior to arraignment.

6. Key Takeaways

Timeliness is Crucial
- The accused must promptly challenge irregularities in the arrest.
- Any objection on this ground is deemed waived if not raised before plea or if the accused proceeds to trial without objection.
Court Still Acquires Jurisdiction
- An irregular arrest does not strip the court of jurisdiction once the accused is in its custody and does not timely protest.
- Voluntary appearance and active participation in court proceedings perfect the jurisdiction over the person of the accused, despite any flaw in the initial arrest.
Remedy for Illegal Arrest
- Immediate filing of a motion to quash, or challenging the arrest at or before arraignment, is the proper remedy if the accused wishes to contest the manner of the arrest.
- Failure to do so is fatal to the objection, subject to very rare exceptions (e.g., fundamental violations of constitutional rights that go beyond mere irregularities in arrest).
Protecting Constitutional Rights
- While the Rules encourage timely objection, they also do not condone lawless arrest.
- The principle ensures that constitutional rights remain enforceable, but demands diligence from the defense to raise such issues promptly.

Conclusion

Under Philippine criminal procedure, any question concerning the irregularity or illegality of an arrest must be raised before the accused enters a plea. Once the accused is arraigned, participates in the trial without objecting to the legality of the arrest, or otherwise voluntarily submits to the court’s authority, all defects in the arrest are deemed waived. This rule underscores both the protection of constitutional rights and the orderly administration of justice, ensuring that defects in arrest procedures are challenged and remedied promptly.