This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-09-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. It is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by that person's voluntary submission to the custody of the one making the arrest. Neither the application of actual force, manual touching of the body, or physical restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough that there be an intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other, and that there be an intent on the part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression that submission is necessary.[27] | |||||
|
2015-04-20 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors.[19] The appeal confers upon the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.[20] Proceeding from the foregoing, the Court deems it appropriate to modify accused-appellants' conviction from Simple Rape to Qualified Rape, as will be explained hereunder. | |||||
|
2014-11-17 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Consent must also be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal search; that is, the consent must be unequivocal, specific, intelligently given, and uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.[21] In this case, petitioner was merely "ordered" to take out the contents of his pocket. The testimony of the police officer on the matter is clear: Q: And what did you do when you frisked a small plastic sachet? | |||||
|
2014-09-22 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The purposes of the safeguards prescribed by Miranda are to ensure that the police do not coerce or trick captive suspects into confessing, to relieve the "inherently compelling pressures" "generated by the custodial setting itself," "which work to undermine the individual's will to resist," and as much as possible to free courts from the task of scrutinizing individual cases to try to determine, after the fact, whether particular confessions were voluntary. Those purposes are implicated as much by in-custody questioning of persons suspected of misdemeanours as they are by questioning of persons suspected of felonies.[95] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||