Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SUSAN ESQUILLO Y ROMINES v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 200334 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA LEONEN, J.
However, there are instances when searches are reasonable even when warrantless.[59] In the Rules of Court, searches incidental to lawful arrests are allowed even without a separate warrant.[60] This court has taken into account the "uniqueness of circumstances involved including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured."[61] The known jurisprudential instances of reasonable warrantless searches and seizures are: Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest . . . ;
	GR No. 200334 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA LEONEN, J.
One of these jurisprudential exceptions to search warrants is "stop and frisk". "Stop and frisk" searches are often confused with searches incidental to lawful arrests under the Rules of Court.[63] Searches incidental to a lawful arrest require that a crime be committed in flagrante delicto, and the search conducted within the vicinity and within reach by the person arrested is done to ensure that there are no weapons, as well as to preserve the evidence.[64]
	GR No. 200334 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA LEONEN, J.
In his dissent for Esquillo v. People,[94] Justice Bersamin reminds us that police officers must not rely on a single suspicious circumstance.[95] There should be "presence of more than one seemingly innocent activity, which, taken together, warranted a reasonable inference of criminal activity."[96] The Constitution prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures."[97] Certainly, reliance on only one suspicious circumstance or none at all will not result in a reasonable search.[98]
	GR No. 207392 2014-07-02	PEOPLE v. RAMIE ORTEGA Y KALBI PEREZ, J.
[25] January 2010,611 SCRA 118, 133 further citing People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 448; People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 421,437.
	GR No. 185719 2013-06-17	PEOPLE v. MARCELINO COLLADO Y CUNANAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Moreover, assuming that irregularities indeed attended the arrest of appellants, they can no longer question the validity thereof as there is no showing that they objected to the same before their arraignment. Neither did they take steps to quash the Informations on such ground.[29] They only raised this issue upon their appeal to the appellate court. By this omission, any objections on the legality of their arrest are deemed to have been waived by them.[30]
	GR No. 199219 2013-04-03	PEOPLE v. GERRY OCTAVIO Y FLORENDO PEREZ, J.
[25] January 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 133 further citing People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 448; People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 437.
	GR No. 203766 2013-04-02	ATONG PAGLAUM v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
In cancelling the registration of SENIOR CITIZENS,[99] the COMELEC explained that, first, its nominees during the May 2010 elections had agreed on a term-sharing agreement, which circumvented Section 7, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution that mandates a three-year term for members of the House of Representatives. The term-sharing agreement was also declared contrary to public policy since a given term of public office cannot be made subject to any agreement of the parties; it is not a commodity that can be shared, apportioned or be made subject of any private agreement. The Commission further cited Section 7, Rule 4 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9366, and emphasized that a violation or failure to comply with laws, rules and regulations relating to elections is, pursuant to Section 6 (5) of RA 7941, a ground for the cancellation of a party's registration.
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
Yet, on top of our other assumptions, let us further assume that upon transmittal to the Senate, the process will be abbreviated by a certification from the President to dispense with the requirements of the reading of the bill in separate days[70] so that the bill is approved by the Upper House in the same month of September 2012. Assuming that no bicameral committee is created, the approved bill is then transmitted for the President's signature. Hence, the bill may become law at the end of the month. After the required publication,[71] the special appropriations act increasing the budget for the automation of the 2013 elections could be effective October 2012.[72]