Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ABRAHAM MICLAT v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 189272 2015-01-21	PEOPLE v. CHI CHAN LIU PERALTA, J.
This Court has ruled that for an arrest to fall under the above exception, two (2) elements must be present: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.[44]
	GR No. 205015 2014-11-19	MA. MIMIE CRESCENCIO v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
The Constitution recognizes the right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.[23] Nonetheless, the constitutional prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions, one of which is seizure of evidence in plain view. Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the "plain view" of an officer, who has a right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.[24]
	GR No. 200598 2014-06-18	PEOPLE v. DENNIS E. TANCINCO PEREZ, J.
The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, and the corresponding testimony of the arresting officers on the buy-bust transaction, can only be overcome through clear and convincing evidence showing either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive. In the face of the straightforward and direct testimony of the police officers, and absent any improper motive on their part to frame up Tancinco, stacked against the bare and thin self-serving testimony of Tancinco, we find no reason to overturn the lower courts' findings.[9]
	GR No. 198389 2013-12-11	VIVENCIO ROALLOS Y TRILLANES v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
Second, Roallos' claim that he was denied due process since he was arrested without any warrant of arrest and that he was not afforded a preliminary investigation is likewise untenable. In Miclat, Jr. v. People,[20] the Court emphasized that the accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity attending his arrest should he fail to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground prior to arraignment, viz:At the outset, it is apparent that petitioner raised no objection to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. Considering this and his active participation in the trial of the case, jurisprudence dictates that petitioner is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest. An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.[21] (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)
	GR No. 190318 2013-11-27	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO VELASCO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Jurisprudence tells us that an accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment, thus, any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction of the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.[16]
	GR No. 194253 2013-02-27	PEOPLE v. MAGSALIN DIWA Y GUTIERREZ PEREZ, J.
The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, and the corresponding testimony of the arresting officers on the buy-bust transaction, can only be overcome through clear and convincing evidence showing either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.[15] In the face of the straightforward and direct testimony of the police officers, and absent any improper motive on their part to frame up Diwa, stacked against the bare and thin self-serving testimony of Diwa, we find no reason to overturn the lower courts' findings.