Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SAMMY MALACAT Y MANDAR v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 205926 2015-07-22	ALVIN COMERCIANTE Y GONZALES v. PEOPLE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The exclusionary rule is not, however, an absolute and rigid proscription. One of the recognized exceptions established by jurisprudence is a search incident to a lawful arrest.[24] In this instance, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made the process cannot be reversed.[25] Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure lays down the rules on lawful warrantless arrests, as follows:SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
	GR No. 182601 2014-11-10	JOEY M. PESTILOS v. MORENO GENEROSO BRION, J.
A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section 5(a) above has been denominated as one "in flagrante delicto," while that under Section S(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit" arrest.[44]
	GR No. 200334 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA LEONEN, J.
It is the police officer who should observe facts that would lead to a reasonable degree of suspicion of a person. The police officer should not adopt the suspicion initiated by another person. This is necessary to justify that the person suspected be stopped and reasonably searched.[85] Anything less than this would be an infringement upon one's basic right to security of one's person and effects.
	GR No. 200334 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA LEONEN, J.
[A] "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.[99] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 182010 2010-08-25	SUSAN ESQUILLO Y ROMINES v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
What is, therefore, essential is that a genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person who manifests unusual suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband concealed about him. Such a "stop-and-frisk" practice serves a dual purpose: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.[23]
	GR No. 182010 2010-08-25	SUSAN ESQUILLO Y ROMINES v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
After apprising petitioner of her constitutional rights, PO1 Cruzin confiscated the plastic sachet[7] on which he marked her initials "SRE." With the seized item, petitioner was brought for investigation to a Pasay City Police Station where P/Insp. Aquilino E. Almanza, Chief of the Drug Enforcement Unit, prepared a memorandum[8] dated December 10, 2002 addressed to the Chief Forensic Chemist of the NBI in Manila requesting for: 1) a laboratory examination of the substance contained in the plastic sachet to determine the presence of shabu, and 2) the conduct of a drug test on the person of petitioner. PO1 Cruzin and PO2 Aguas soon executed a Joint Affidavit of Apprehension[9] recounting the details of their intended surveillance and the circumstances leading to petitioner's arrest.
	GR No. 128587 2007-03-16	PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
There are actually two (2) acts involved in this case, namely, the warrantless arrest and the warrantless search. There is no question that warrantless search may be conducted as an incident to a valid warrantless arrest. The law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a search can be made; the process cannot be reversed.[26] However, if there are valid reasons to conduct lawful search and seizure which thereafter shows that the accused is currently committing a crime, the accused may be lawfully arrested in flagrante delicto[27] without need for a warrant of arrest. Finding that the warrantless arrest preceded the warrantless search in the case at bar, the trial court granted private respondent's demurrer to evidence and acquitted him of all the three charges for lack of evidence, because the unlawful arrest resulted in the inadmissibility of the evidence gathered from an invalid warrantless search. The trial court's ratiocination is quoted as follows:The threshold issue raised by the accused in his Demurrer to Evidence is whether his warrantless arrest and search were lawful as argued by the prosecution, or unlawful as asserted by the defense.
	GR No. 144037 2003-09-26	PEOPLE v. NOEL TUDTUD Y PAYPA TINGA, J.
... the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication that he called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger that triggered his arrest. The identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers (and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.[78] Thus, notwithstanding tips from confidential informants and regardless of the fact that the search yielded contraband, the mere act of looking from side to side while holding one's abdomen,[79] or of standing on a corner with one's eyes moving very fast, looking at every person who came near,[80] does not justify a warrantless arrest under said Section 5 (a). Neither does putting something in one's pocket,[81] handing over one's baggage,[82] riding a motorcycle,[83] nor does holding a bag on board a trisikad[84]sanction State intrusion. The same rule applies to crossing the street per se.[85]
	GR No. 123137 2001-10-17	PEOPLE v. PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL QUISUMBING, J.
There are eight (8) instances where a warrantless search and seizure is valid. They are: (1) consented searches;[57] (2) as an incident to a lawful arrest;[58] (3) searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs, and drug laws;[59] (4) searches of moving vehicles;[60] (5) searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders; (6) where the prohibited articles are in "plain view;"[61] (7) searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations; and (8) "stop and frisk" operations.[62]