This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-02-13 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Commonly known as the "exclusionary rule," the above-cited proscription is not, however, an absolute and rigid one.[7]As found in jurisprudence, the traditional exceptions are customs searches,[8] searches of moving vehicles,[9] seizure of evidence in plain view,[10] consented searches,[11] "stop and frisk" measures[12] and searches incidental to a lawful arrest.[13] This last-mentioned exception is of particular significance to this case and thus, necessitates further disquisition. | |||||
|
2003-09-26 |
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] | |||||
|
2003-09-26 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Noel Tudtud and his companion, Dindo Bulong, were subsequently charged[31] before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City with illegal possession of prohibited drugs.[32] Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty.[33] The defense, however, reserved their right to question the validity of their arrest and the seizure of the evidence against them.[34] | |||||
|
2000-09-20 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| From the facts spread on record we conclude that the guilt of accused-appellant for illegal sale and delivery of marijuana punished under RA 6425 on 24 September 1996 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, despite the well-argued ponencia, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty and at the same time failed to impose fine on accused-appellant. As amended by RA 7659,[19] Sec. 20, Art. IV, of RA 6425 now provides inter alia that the penalty imposed in its Sec. 4, Art. II, shall be applied if the dangerous drugs (either prohibited or regulated) is, with respect to marijuana, 750 grams or more. Here, the marijuana involved weighed 9.660 kilograms. As now provided in Sec. 4, the sale and delivery of prohibited drugs, marijuana being one of them, carries with it the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand (P500,000.00) pesos to ten million (P10,000,000.00) pesos. Inasmuch as the law prescribes two (2) indivisible penalties, a resort to Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code is necessary.[20] There being no mitigating nor aggravating circumstance that attended the commission of the offense, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed. Moreover, the fine of P650,000.00 imposed by the trial court on David Banawor alone should likewise be imposed on accused-appellant in solidum. | |||||