4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly learned about the suspects from Apollo Romero and certain unnamed informants. The third circumstance is patently not present. The lapse of five days gave the police more than enough time to conduct surveillance of the appellants and apply for a warrant of arrest. Clearly, appellants' rights provided in Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution[28] were violated. Unfortunately, appellants did not assert their constitutional rights prior to their arraignment. This is fatal to their case. An accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he failed to move for the quashing of the Information against him before his arraignment.[29] When the appellants entered their pleas on arraignment without invoking their rights to question any irregularity, which might have accompanied their arrests, they voluntarily submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court and the judicial process.[30] Any objection, defect, or irregularity attending their arrests should had been made before they entered their pleas.[31] It is much too late for appellants to raise the question of their warrantless arrests. Their pleas to the information upon arraignment constitute clear waives of their rights against unlawful restraint of liberty.[32] Furthermore, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after trial free from error.[33] The warrantless arrest, even if illegal, cannot render void all other proceedings including those leading to the conviction of the appellants and his coaccused, nor can the state be deprived of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to their culpability.[34] As for the stolen objects presented in evidence, their seizure is assailed by appellants. We agree that the warrantless search in the house of a certain Jimmy, based on the confession of accused Alejandro Perez, Jr.,[35] is definitely questionable. PO3 Rodencio Sevillano categorically stated that they were able to recover the stolen items, i.e., the beach towel and the umbrella, because of the confession of Alejandro Perez, Jr. who was not assisted by counsel when he confessed and eventually led the police to the whereabouts of the said items.[36] The use of evidence against the accused obtained by virtue of his testimony or admission without the assistance of counsel while under custodial investigation if proscribed under Sections 12 and 17, Article III of the Constitution.[37] Under the libertarian exclusionary rule known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree", evidence illegally obtained by the state should not be used to gain other evidence because the illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.[38] Simply put, the objects confiscated at said house are inadmissible as evidence. Without the stolen objects as evidence, we are left with only the testimony of Apollo Romero that he saw Allan Atis take the beach towel and the umbrella.[39] a reading of the said testimony will indicate that such was not categorical and straightforward, to wit: Q: A: Q: A: And can you tell us, Mr. Witness, more or less what did Allan Atis did (sic)? Yes, mam. What? He stabbed one of the Indian Nationals at the back. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52087 6/10