Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ZENAIDA BOLASA Y NAKOBOAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 197788 2012-02-29	RODEL LUZ Y ONG v. PEOPLE SERENO, J.
The following are the instances when a warrantless search is allowed: (i) a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in "plain view;" (iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) a "stop and frisk" search; and (vii) exigent and emergency circumstances.[15] None of the above-mentioned instances, especially a search incident to a lawful arrest, are applicable to this case.
	GR No. 191366 2010-12-13	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES MENDOZA, J.
This constitutional guarantee, however, is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures without warrant. Arrests and seizures in the following instances are allowed even in the absence of a warrant -- (i) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;[11] (ii) search of evidence in "plain view;" (iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) stop and frisk; and (vii) exigent and emergency circumstances.[12]
	GR No. 169364 2009-09-18	PEOPLE v. EVANGELINE SITON Y SACIL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The State cannot in a cavalier fashion intrude into the persons of its citizens as well as into their houses, papers and effects. The constitutional provision sheathes the private individual with an impenetrable armor against unreasonable searches and seizures. It protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself against unlawful arrests and other forms of restraint, and prevents him from being irreversibly cut off from that domestic security which renders the lives of the most unhappy in some measure agreeable.[27]
	GR No. 144037 2003-09-26	PEOPLE v. NOEL TUDTUD Y PAYPA TINGA, J.
Exigent and emergency circumstances.[62] The RTC justified the warrantless search of appellants' belongings under the first exception, as a search incident to a lawful arrest. It cited as authorities this Court's rulings in People v. Claudio,[63] People v. Tangliben,[64] People v. Montilla,[65] and People v. Valdez.[66] The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in arguing for the affirmance of the appealed decision, invokes the cases of People v. Maspil, Jr.,[67] People v. Malmstedt,[68] and People v. Bagista.[69]