Prosecution witnesses testified that on 15 August 2009, accused Cromwell Torres fatally shot Kenneth Palumbarit. The accused, however, vehemently denied this accusation. He said that he was nowhere near the crime scene but did hear the gunshot. He was allegedly on his way to his father's house in a nearby city. He also testified that the next day, police arrested him at his father's house and boarded him in a van. Inside the van, he was forced to admit to the crime, but he denied the claimed involvement. He was punched and locked up in jail.

Both the prosecution and the defense presented their respective evidence. The accused was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, including in the arraignment where the accused pleaded not guilty. After hearing both sides, the trial court convicted Torres of murder. Naturally, he brought the issue to the Court of Appeals. He questioned the legality of his arrest, among others, to convince the said court to reverse the findings against him. The Court of Appeals, however, did not grant his request. Instead, it upheld the findings of the trial court against him.

Undaunted, the accused sought refuge in the Supreme Court.

Again, he asserted the illegality of his arrest to warrant the dismissal of the case. The Supreme Court, in answer to the issue, said that "procedurally, appellant assails the legality of his arrest and insists that the manner by which he was apprehended does not fall under any of the permissible warrantless arrests pursuant to Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Both the prosecution and the defense did not narrate with particularity the details of the appellant's arrest.

Nonetheless, the issue regarding the validity of the arrest has been put to rest when the appellant appeared at his arraignment and, with the assistance of counsel de officio, Atty. Brend Virgilio S. Vergara of the Public Attorney's Office and in the presence of Public Prosecutor Gerardo Barot, entered a not guilty plea."

"The Court's pronouncement in People v. Alunday echoed in Lapi v. People is illuminating. The Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving the warrant of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.

We have also ruled that the accused may be estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information against him before his arraignment.

And since the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, any defect in the arrest of the accused may be deemed cured when he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

We have also held that in a number of cases, the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error."

"Such an arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused… Appellant admitted the court's jurisdiction over his person during the pre-trial conference.

He pleaded not guilty to the charge sans any objection surrounding his arrest.

He did not move to quash the information on the ground of lack of jurisdiction before he entered his plea. In fact, he actively participated during the trial, presented evidence before the court and challenged the validity of his arrest only for the first time on appeal.

All these taken together clearly allude that the appellant has waived any irregularity, if any, attendant to his arrest.

Hence, the appellant is now precluded from questioning the legality of his arrest following his voluntary and unconditional submission to the jurisdiction of the court."

As I have written before, there are rules to be followed in litigation.

The court acquires jurisdiction over an accused upon his arrest. If he does not object to its illegality at the earliest opportunity, he is deemed to have waived this technical infirmity. So while this ground can warrant the dismissal of a case, it must be invoked at the time allowed by the rules. As the Supreme Court pointed out, it should be via a motion to quash prior to arraignment. In simpler terms, the accused must ask the court at the beginning of the proceedings, even before being asked to plead, whether guilty or not, to dismiss the case based on an illegal arrest. Failure to do so, no matter how improper the arrest may have been, the court will hold the accused to have slept on his right to question such.

The facts and quoted provision are taken from People of the Philippines v. Cromwell Torres (G.R. 241012 promulgated on 28 August 2019).