90. People vs.

Galleno

TITLE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOERAL

GALLENO, accused-appellant.

GR NUMBER G.R. No. 123546.

DATE July 2, 1998.

PONENTE Per Curiam

NATURE/ Statutory Rape; Judicial Proceedings

KEYWORDS

FACTS Joeral Galleno was found guilty of the crime of rape and was imposed by
the trial court the penalty of death. The information provides that Galleno
raped his neighbor, Evelyn Obligar who, at the time, was only 5 years old.
Galleno banks on mere denial stating that the cause of the vaginal
bleeding was the insertion of his left ring finger while he cajoled the victim
bring her up and down. He claims that the trial court manifested bias
against him by discounting his testimony and by actually participating in
the cross-examination thereby depriving him the right to a fair and
impartial trial and that the said court failed to give full weight and
credence to the testimony of the medical doctors who stood witness when
it failed to conclusively establish that the cause of the laceration in the
offended party’s vagina was indeed a penis in full erection and that there
was no presence of spermatozoa in the genital part of the victim.

Moreover, he claims that the trial court erred in not declaring the
warrantless arrest of the accused as unjustified.

ISSUE(S) 1. Whether or not Galleno was deprived of fair and impartial trial
2. Whether or not Galleno’s arrest is valid

RULING(S) NO. It is a well established rule that the judge may properly
intervene in the presentation of evidence to expedite and prevent
unnecessary waste of time and clarify obscure and incomplete
details after the witness has given direct testimony. The transcripts
show that Judge Gubaton did intervene however the questions he
propounded was done for clarification purposed and not to build the
case for one of the parties.
The Court held that it is a settled jurisprudence that any objection
involving a warrant of arrest or procedure must be made BEFORE
he enters his plea otherwise the objection is deemed waived. There
is no showing that the respondent contended the validity of his
arrest before entering his plea of not guilty hence he is estopped
from questioning any defect of his arrest.