September 2017 - page 6

FACTS: After receiving a confidential report from their informant, a buy-bust operation was conducted by a team from the 13th Narcotics Regional Unit to catch the pusher/s. At the scene, it was the accused-appellant who first negotiated with the poseur-buyer. Appellant instructed his co-accused to give one aluminum foil of marijuana which the latter got from his pants’ pocket and delivered it to the buyer. After ascertaining that the authenticity of the marijuana, the agent gave signal. The two accused were arrested. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the arrest was valid. HELD: YES. While it is conceded that in a buy-bust…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Pursuant to the anti-smut campaign of the City of Manila, elements of the police force seized and confiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila sidewalks, magazines, publications and other reading materials believed to be obscene, pornographic and indecent and later burned the seized materials in public. Among the publications seized and later burned were magazines published and co-edited by petitioner. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the search and seizure was lawful. HELD: NO. Private respondents were not possessed of a lawful court order: (1) finding the said materials to be pornography, and (2) authorizing them to carry…

Keep Reading

FACTS: A team of operatives rushed inside appellant’s house to arrest him after a “buy-bust” operation and conducted a search of the premises in the presence of a barangay official, the house owner and appellant himself. The search yielded dried marijuana fruiting tops and seeds. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the arrest and search were valid. HELD: YES. Appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto in the act of selling and delivering marijuana to the poseur-buyers. The subsequent search of his house which immediately followed yielding other incriminating evidence, and which became the basis of his conviction for possession of a prohibited…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Due to persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs, a temporary checkpoint was set up for the checking of all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. During their inspection of a bus, one of the officers noticed a bulge, suspected to be a gun, on accused’s waist. The bulging object turned out to be a pouch bag and found therein hashish, a derivative of marijuana. Accused was carrying two travelling bags, each containing a teddy bear with bulges inside which did not feel like foam stuffing. The accused was arrested, tried and…

Keep Reading

FACTS: A group composed of policemen and barangay tanods requested a man, later identified as appellant, to open his red travelling bag. The man initially refused but later acceded to the request when the patrolmen identified themselves. Found inside the bag were approximately a kilo of marijuana leaves wrapped in a plastic wrapper. Appellant was taken to the police headquarters, tried and convicted for violation of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended). ISSUE(S): Whether or not the package of marijuana seized from appellant may be validly admitted in evidence. HELD: YES. Accused was caught in flagrante, since…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Pursuant to a report that somebody was selling marijuana, police officers proceeded to the location, spotted appellant and his co-accused acting suspiciously, and placed the two under arrest. A small packet containing marijuana was found inside appellant’s pocket. Only appellant was charged of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the arrest and seizure were valid. HELD: NO. The cardinal rule is that no person may be subjected by the police to a search of his house, body or personal belonging except by virtue of a search warrant or on the occasion of a lawful arrest. There…

Keep Reading

FACTS: While conducting a surveillance, the two policemen spotted petitioner carrying a “buri” bag and acting suspiciously. He attempted to flee when the policemen approached him and identified themselves but his attempt was thwarted. Found inside the “buri” bag were one (1) caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver, a smoke (tear gas) grenade, and two (2) rounds live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. Petitioner failed to show the necessary license or authority to possess firearms and ammunitions found in his possession. He was subsequently prosecuted for and found guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions ISSUE(S): Whether or…

Keep Reading

FACTS: A day after elements of the NARCOM team had conducted a surveillance and successful test buy on appellant pursuant to an information received that he is engaged in the sale of marijuana, a buy-bust operation was planned which resulted in appellant’s arrest. The team found a plastic bag containing dried marijuana. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the search and seizure was lawful. HELD: YES. The NARCOM agents searched the person of the appellant after arresting him in his house but found nothing. They then searched the entire house and, in the kitchen, found and seized a plastic bag hanging in…

Keep Reading

FACTS: While aboard a bus, two peace officers inspected appellant’s carton which the latter placed under his seat and found that it contained marijuana. Appellant was invited to the detachment for questioning as the suspect. The bus conductor was called to identify the owner after appellant denied his ownership. ISSUE(S): Whether or not appellant’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated. HELD: YES. There existed no circumstance which might reasonably have excited the suspicion of the two police officers riding in the same bus as appellant Barros. There was nothing to show that appellant Barros was then…

Keep Reading

FACTS: While conducting an intelligence patrol, the arresting officers met appellant who was drunk and wearing a camouflage uniform or a jungle suit. After introducing himself as PC, the police officer seized the dried coconut leaves which appellant was carrying and found wrapped in it a 49-inch long homemade firearm locally known as “latong.” The latter had no permission to possess the same. The firearm was confiscated and he was turned over to the custody of the Caibiran police who subsequently investigated him and charged him with illegal possession of firearm. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the trial court erred in…

Keep Reading