Practice question
An accused entered a plea without preserving an arrest-related personal-jurisdiction objection, but properly challenges seized evidence on constitutional search grounds. The prosecution says waiver of the arrest objection necessarily defeats suppression. Is that correct?
- Yes, arraignment validates every search.
- No; Patotoy distinguishes personal-jurisdiction waiver from inadmissibility, so the separate search objection must be assessed under its applicable requirements.
- Yes, all evidence becomes conclusive after plea.
- No; every challenged item is automatically excluded without inquiry.
- Yes, a search warrant can never be challenged in a criminal action.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/rc_110-127_crim.html — Rule 126 section 14: forum for warrant quashal and evidence suppression.
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/pdf/journals/Collation_and_Codification_of_SC_Issuance_DIGITAL.pdf — A.M. 21-06-08-SC, Rule 3 sections 7–8: unjustified unrecorded searches and suppression remedy, PDF page 706.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/mar2025/gr_257910_2025.html — Patotoy v. People, G.R. 257910, March 4, 2025, main opinion: personal-jurisdiction waiver and admissibility are distinct.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.