This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-07-22 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In this relation, the Court finds respondent's assertion that there was a valid "stop and frisk" search made on Comerciante untenable. In People v. Cogaed,[34] the Court had an opportunity to exhaustively explain "stop and frisk" searches:"Stop and frisk" searches (sometimes referred to as Terry searches) are necessary for law enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses. However, this should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. | |||||
|
2014-11-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of People v. Cogaed,[33] where not a single suspicious circumstance preceded the search on the accused, the Court ruled that the questioned act of the police officer did not constitute a valid stop-and-frisk operation. Cogaed was a mere passenger carrying a blue bag and a sack and travelling aboard a jeepney. He did not exhibit any unusual or suspicious behavior sufficient to justify the law enforcer in believing that he was engaged in a criminal activity. Worse, the assessment of suspicion was made not by the police officer but by the jeepney driver, who signaled to the police officer that Cogaed was "suspicious." In view of the illegality of the search and seizure, the 12,337.6 grams of marijuana confiscated from the accused was held as inadmissible. | |||||
|
2014-11-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised[29] of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land, We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.[30] [Emphasis supplied] | |||||