This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-03-18 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| For the warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 to operate, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.[19] On the other hand, paragraph (b) of Section 5 requires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant had committed it.[20] | |||||
|
2011-01-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The CA debunked accused-appellant Hwan's arguments in seriatim. First, the CA ruled that People v. Cuizon [4] was not applicable to the instant case, as, unlike in Cuizon, the apprehending officers immediately acted on the information they had received about an ongoing shipment of drugs. | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Neither was the search incidental to a lawful arrest since appellant was not yet arrested at the time of the search. To be considered a search incidental to a lawful arrest, the law requires that there must be a lawful arrest before the search can be made.[16] | |||||
|
2003-09-26 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| ... the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication that he called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the furtive finger that triggered his arrest. The identification by the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officers (and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him.[78] Thus, notwithstanding tips from confidential informants and regardless of the fact that the search yielded contraband, the mere act of looking from side to side while holding one's abdomen,[79] or of standing on a corner with one's eyes moving very fast, looking at every person who came near,[80] does not justify a warrantless arrest under said Section 5 (a). Neither does putting something in one's pocket,[81] handing over one's baggage,[82] riding a motorcycle,[83] nor does holding a bag on board a trisikad[84]sanction State intrusion. The same rule applies to crossing the street per se.[85] | |||||