Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 469 views

    People V Nitcha: Petitioners: Respondents: Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    BB
    Florestan Nitcha was accused of shooting and killing May Sibuyan. He argued his arrest was illegal and there was no preliminary investigation. The court ruled that by posting bail and entering a not guilty plea, he forfeited the right to question the validity of his arrest. The court also ruled that posting bail is not an obstacle to incarceration after conviction of a felony punishable by reclusion perpetua, like the crime Nitcha was convicted of.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People V Nitcha: Petitioners: Respondents: Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    BB
    469 views2 pages
    Florestan Nitcha was accused of shooting and killing May Sibuyan. He argued his arrest was illegal and there was no preliminary investigation. The court ruled that by posting bail and entering a not guilty plea, he forfeited the right to question the validity of his arrest. The court also ruled that posting bail is not an obstacle to incarceration after conviction of a felony punishable by reclusion perpetua, like the crime Nitcha was convicted of.

    Original Title

    837_People v Nitcha_GR 113517

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Florestan Nitcha was accused of shooting and killing May Sibuyan. He argued his arrest was illegal and there was no preliminary investigation. The court ruled that by posting bail and entering a not guilty plea, he forfeited the right to question the validity of his arrest. The court also ruled that posting bail is not an obstacle to incarceration after conviction of a felony punishable by reclusion perpetua, like the crime Nitcha was convicted of.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    469 views2 pages

    People V Nitcha: Petitioners: Respondents: Doctrine

    Uploaded by

    BB
    Florestan Nitcha was accused of shooting and killing May Sibuyan. He argued his arrest was illegal and there was no preliminary investigation. The court ruled that by posting bail and entering a not guilty plea, he forfeited the right to question the validity of his arrest. The court also ruled that posting bail is not an obstacle to incarceration after conviction of a felony punishable by reclusion perpetua, like the crime Nitcha was convicted of.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    837 People v Nitcha

    January 19, 1995 G.R. No. 113517 J. Melo


    Article 3, Section 2 Sigrid B. Adarlo
    Petitioners: Respondents:
    People of the Philippines Pat. Florestan Nitcha y Dulay
    Doctrine:
    Posting a bail bond and entering into a plea forgoes the right of the accused to question the
    validity of his arrest.
    Facts:
    1. On October 1990 in the evening, Jojo Belmonte went to buy some cigarettes at a nearby
    store. Before he could buy the cigarettes, Doro Nitcha arrived and then started mauling
    him.
    2. May Villarica, Joselito, Agustin and Marcelina (all had the surname of Sibuyan) arrived
    at the store. May and Joselito tried to pacify Jojo and Doro, however their efforts were
    futile.
    3. The fighting stopped when Doro’s sister, Victoria Copuz, arrived. She dragged Doro
    away and brought him home. The others likewise went home.
    4. Not long after, Florestan Nitcha, the brother of Doro arrived at the store with a gun and
    shouted “Walang hiya kayo, putang ina ninyo, papatayin ko kayong lahat!”
    5. Florestan then fired his gun at the direction of the Sibuyans, which hit May at the back
    of her head. He also aimed for Joselito but missed.
    6. May died while she was being transferred from Eastern Pangasinan District Hospital to
    a hospital in Dagupan City.
    7. Florestan went to the police station and surrendered himself together with his service
    firearm.
    8. The trial court found him guilty on account of the positive identification made by the
    witnesses.
    9. He alleges, among others that his arrest and detention was illegal and there was no
    preliminary investigation conducted.

    Issue/s: Ruling:
    1. WON the accused was arrested illegally 1. NO
    2. WON the posting of bail is an obstacle to Nitcha’s incarceration 2. NO
    Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:
    1. The accused’s act of posting a bail bond and entering into a plea of not guilty precluded
    his right from questioning the validity of his arrest.

    2. The subsistence of a bail bond is not a legal obstacle to the accused’s immediate
    incarceration after the promulgation of a decision involving a felony punishable by
    reclusion perpetua.
    As previously decided in People v Fortes, bail is a matter of right or of discretion. It is a
    matter of right when the offense charged is punished by any penalty lower than
    reclusion perpetua. While it is a matter of discretion when the offense is punishable by
    reclusion perpetua. In which case, if the evidence of guilt is strong then it shall be
    denied.

    You might also like