Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALAIN MANALILI Y DIZON v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 200334 2014-07-30	PEOPLE v. VICTOR COGAED Y ROMANA LEONEN, J.
On the other hand, "stop and frisk" searches are conducted to prevent the occurrence of a crime. For instance, the search in Posadas v. Court of Appeals[65] was similar "to a 'stop and frisk' situation whose object is either to determine the identity of a suspicious individual or to maintain the status quo momentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain more information."[66] This court stated that the "stop and frisk" search should be used "[w]hen dealing with a rapidly unfolding and potentially criminal situation in the city streets where unarguably there is no time to secure . . . a search warrant."[67]
	GR No. 173474 2012-08-29	PEOPLE v. REYNALDO BELOCURA Y PEREZ BERSAMIN, J.
The elements of illegal possession of marijuana under Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, are that: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be marijuana, a prohibited drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[24] What must be proved beyond reasonable doubt is the fact of possession of the prohibited drug itself. This may be done by presenting the police officer who actually recovered the prohibited drugs as a witness, being the person who has the direct knowledge of the possession.
	GR No. 182010 2010-08-25	SUSAN ESQUILLO Y ROMINES v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
By Decision[13] of July 28, 2003, the trial court found petitioner guilty of illegal possession of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, disposing as follows:
	GR No. 174373 2007-10-15	EMELINDA V. ABEDES v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, this Court finds no reason to delve into the merits of the Decision of the Court of Appeals with regard to the propriety of the levy in execution of the property covered by TCT No. 292139 for the support of Danielle Ann. Petitioner does not raise the issue in her pleadings. That matter has been laid to rest, and is outside the scope of the instant Petition. Issues not raised in the pleadings, as opposed to ordinary appeal of criminal cases where the whole case is opened for review,[59] are deemed waived or abandoned.[60]
	GR No. 148597 2003-10-24	GRACE F. MUNSAYAC-DE VILLA v. CA PANGANIBAN, J.
In a petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court -- as distinguished from an ordinary appeal of a criminal case in which the whole case is opened for review -- the appeal is limited to the errors assigned by petitioner.[14] Since respondents did not contest the Decision of the CA, no affirmative relief can be sought by or given to them.[15] Thus, not all the issues raised before the appellate court need to be considered by this Court. The sole issue in the present Petition is the question of inhibition of respondent judge.
	GR No. 144037 2003-09-26	PEOPLE v. NOEL TUDTUD Y PAYPA TINGA, J.
Suddenly, a man who identified himself as a police officer approached him, pointing a .38 caliber revolver.[38] The man told him not to run.[39] Tudtud raised his arms and asked, "Sir, what is this about?"[40] The man answered that he would like to inspect the plastic bag Tudtud was carrying, and instructed Tudtud to open the bag, which revealed several pairs of Levi's pants.[41]