Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ELSIE BAGISTA Y BANGCO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 203335 2014-02-18	JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ABAD, J.
In specific instances involving computer data, there may be analogies with searches of moving or movable vehicles. People v. Bagista[281] is one of many that explains this exception:The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been upheld in cases of a moving vehicle, and the seizure of evidence in plain view.
	GR No. 186529 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. JACK RACHO Y RAQUERO NACHURA, J.
Maspil, Jr.,[31] People v. Bagista,[32] People v. Balingan,[33] People v. Lising,[34] People v. Montilla,[35] People v. Valdez,[36] and People v. Gonzales.[37] In these cases, the Court sustained the validity of the warrantless searches notwithstanding the absence of overt acts or suspicious circumstances that would indicate that the accused had committed, was actually committing, or attempting to commit a crime. But as aptly observed by the Court, except in Valdez and Gonzales, they were covered by the other exceptions to the rule against warrantless searches.[38]
	GR No. 188611 2010-06-16	PEOPLE v. BELEN MARIACOS NACHURA, J.
In People v. Bagista,[16] the Court said: The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain exceptions. Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been upheld in cases of a moving vehicle, and the seizure of evidence in plain view.
	GR No. 185379 2009-11-27	PEOPLE v. VS.ZENAIDA QUEBRAL Y MATEO ABAD, J.
This Court held in People v. Bagista[6] that the NARCOM officers had probable cause to stop and search all vehicles coming from the north at Acop, Tublay, Benguet, in view of the confidential information they received from their regular informant that a woman fitting the description of the accused would be bringing marijuana from up north.They likewise had probable cause to search her belongings since she fitted the given description.In such a case, the warrantless search was valid and, consequently, any evidence obtained from it is admissible against the accused.
	GR NO. 175783 2007-09-03	PEOPLE v. BERNARDO TUAZON Y NICOLAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
When a vehicle is flagged down and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search has been held to be valid as long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe prior to the search that they would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched.[35]
	GR No. 144037 2003-09-26	PEOPLE v. NOEL TUDTUD Y PAYPA TINGA, J.
Exigent and emergency circumstances.[62] The RTC justified the warrantless search of appellants' belongings under the first exception, as a search incident to a lawful arrest. It cited as authorities this Court's rulings in People v. Claudio,[63] People v. Tangliben,[64] People v. Montilla,[65] and People v. Valdez.[66] The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in arguing for the affirmance of the appealed decision, invokes the cases of People v. Maspil, Jr.,[67] People v. Malmstedt,[68] and People v. Bagista.[69]