google search for chanrobles.comSearch for


1 Sec. 15. Sale, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of Regulated Drugs. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred pesos to ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, distribute, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug. . .

2 Entitled An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, As Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes.

3 Exhibit C.

4 Exhibit F. It was completed on the same day of the arrest and search.

5 184 SCRA 220 [1990].

6 Rollo, 127. Per Judge Adolfo F. Alacar.

7 Article III, Section 2, Constitution. This constitutional guarantee covers the right against unlawful arrests and other forms of restraint on physical liberty. See 1 Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., The Constitution of the Philippines, A Commentary 85 (1st ed. 1987)[hereafter 1 BERNAS].

8 Art. III, Sec. 3, Constitution.

9 See Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211, 216 [1989].

10 See People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557, 565 [1994].

11 See Carroll v. United States, 267 US 132 [1925]; Harris v. United States, 390 US 234 [1968]; Chimel v. California, 395 US 752 [1969]; Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 US 443 [1971]; Moreno v. Ago Chi, 12 Phil. 439 [1909]; People v. Veloso, 48 Phil. 168 [1925]; People v. Kagui Malasagui, 63 Phil. 221 [1963]; Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 [1968]; See also the recent cases of People v. Encinada, 280 SCRA 72, [1997]; People v. Lacerna, 278 SCRA 561 [1997]; People v. Fernandez, 239 SCRA 174 [1994].

12 Terry v. Ohio, 20 L Ed 2d, 896 adopted in Posadas v. Court of Appeals, 188 SCRA 288 [1990]; See also People v. Ramos, 222 SCRA 557 [1993].

13 Rule 113, Sec. 5 provides: Sec. 5. -- Arrest, without a warrant; when lawful -- A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

14 See People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 [1986].

15 People v. Encinada, supra note 11 at 85; People v. Montilla, 285 SCRA 703 [1998] People v. Claudio, 160 SCRA 646 [1988]; People v. Maspil, Jr., 188 SCRA 751 [1988]; People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122 [1991]; People v. Tangliben, supra note 5; Posadas v. Court of Appeals, supra note 12; People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401 [1991].

16 People v. Encinada, supra note 11 at 85-86.

17 1 BERNAS 87. As applied to searches, probable cause refers to the existence of facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the items, articles or objects sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched.

18 Supra note 15.

19 People v. Montilla, supra note 15 at 720-721.

20 People v. Claudio, supra note 15; See also People v. Lacerna, supra note 11.

21 People v. Maspil, Jr., supra note 15; People v. Lo Ho Wing, supra note 15.

22 People v. Tangliben, supra note 5; Posadas v. Court of Appeals, supra note 12.

23 People v. Malmstedt, supra note 15.

24 TSN, 6 March 1996, 12-13.

25 TSN, 22 February 1996, 19 -20.

26 See Preston v. US, 11 L Ed. 2d at 780-781; 376 at 367 [1964].

27 Malacat v. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 159, 175 [1997].

28 See People v. Aminnudin, 163 SCRA 402, 410 [1988].

29 See People v. Burgos, supra note 14 at 16 [1986] citing Pasion Vda. de Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil 689 [1938].

30 TSN, 22 February 1996, pp. 19-22.

31 In People v. Montilla, supra note 15 at 722, the accused was asked about the contents of the bag and he replied that they contained personal effects. The officers then asked him to open the traveling bag and he voluntary submitted to the search. In People v. Lacerna, supra note 11 at 575-576 [1997], the accused expressly gave his permission to have his luggage searched. . In People v. Omaweng, 213 SCRA 462, 470 [1992] the accused replied to the polices query for a search with "[y]ou can see the contents of the bag but those are only clothings." In People v. Ramos, supra note 12, the testimony of police officers that accused "voluntarily allowed himself to be frisked and that he gave the gun to the officer" remained unrebutted. In People v. Cuizon, 256 SCRA 325, 354 [1996], the Court validated the consented warrantless search against accused-appellant Pua who gave written permission to the search of his luggage, taking careful note that Pua understood both English and Tagalog and that he had resided in Vito Cruz, Manila. In People v. Fernandez, supra note 11 at 83, "the accused-appellant came out of the house and gave himself up to the police, the owner of the house turned over his luggage to said police authorities. With the acquiescence of accused-appellant, his suitcase was searched and it yielded the subject firearm and ammunition. He then signed and acknowledged a Receipt certifying one homemade shotgun with one (1) live ammunition and one (1) empty shell was confiscated from him. In People v. Kagui Malasugui, supra note 11, Kagui voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities a couple of bracelets belonging to the deceased victim. When asked if he had anything else to surrendered, he, in a quaking voice answered in the negative. The police then conducted a body search which he did not objected to which search resulted in the production of additional personal effects belonging to the victim. In the last two cases cited, the accused therein unequivocally consented to the search.

32 See People v. Cuizon, supra note 31 at 339; People v. Rodriquez, 232 SCRA 498 [1994]; See also the concurring and dissenting separate opinion of Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa in People v. Malmstedt, supra note 15 at 422.

33 Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, 659 [1961].

34 Dans, Jr. v. People, 285 SCRA 504, 533 [1998]; See also People v. Hilario, 284 SCRA 344, 454 [1998].

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :