Case Name: Borlongan v.

Pea
G.R. No. 143591 Date: May 5, 2010
Ponente: Justice Perez
Petitioner: Teodoro Borlongan et. al
Respondent: Atty. Magdaleno Pea
Crime charged: Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents
Place: Negros Occidental, Bago City
Lower court decision: Denied petitioners
Court of Appeals decision: Dismissed Petitioners
Supreme Court decision: petition GRANTED

Facts:
Respondent Atty. Pea instituted a civil case for recovery of agents compensation & expenses, damages and
atty.s fees against Urban Bank and herein petitioners with RTC. The Petitioners filed a Motion to dismiss that
they never appointed the respondent as agent or counsel by presenting documents as evidence. Atty. Pea
claimed the same documents as falsified regarding the signatures and so the City Prosecutor found probable
cause for 4 counts of the crime of Introducing Falsified Documents. After the filing of info., warrants for arrest
were issued.

Petitioners filed Omnibus Motion to Quash, Recall Warrants of Arrest and/or For Reinvestigation arguing that
they were not afforded the right to submit their counter-affidavit and that one of the accused Ben Lim Jr. is not
even a director of Urban Bank. They also wanted to suspend the criminal case because it is a prejudicial
question to the civil case. The MTCC denied the petitioners upholding the warrant of arrest. So when elevated
to the Court of Appeals, they were dismissed because their bail was considered as waiver of their right to assail
the validity of warrants of arrest.

Issue: Whether or not petitioners already waived their right to assail the validity of the warrants of arrest by
posting bail.

Ruling: NO.

The ruling before that posting of bail constitutes a waiver of any irregularity in the issuance of warrant of arrest
has already been superseded by SECTION 26, RULE 114 of the Revised Rule of Criminal Procedure. The
principle that the accused is precluded from questioning the legality of the arrest after arraignment is true only
if he voluntarily enters his plea and participates during trial, without previously invoking his objections
thereto.
Petitioners filed the Omnibus Motion to Quash, Recall Warrants of Arrest and/or For Reinvestigation on the
same day that they posted bail. Their bail bonds expressly contained a stipulation that they were NOT
WAIVING their right to question the validity of their arrest. They refused to enter plea so the court entered a
plea of not guilty for them. There was no valid waiver of their right to preclude them from raising the same
with the CA or SC. The posting of bail bond should not be deemed as a waiver of their right to assail their
arrest.
CA erred in affirming findings of prosecutor as well as the court a quo as to the existence of probable cause.
Criminal complaint should be dismissed.