This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-08-03 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Maspil, Jr.,[31] People v. Bagista,[32] People v. Balingan,[33] People v. Lising,[34] People v. Montilla,[35] People v. Valdez,[36] and People v. Gonzales.[37] In these cases, the Court sustained the validity of the warrantless searches notwithstanding the absence of overt acts or suspicious circumstances that would indicate that the accused had committed, was actually committing, or attempting to commit a crime. But as aptly observed by the Court, except in Valdez and Gonzales, they were covered by the other exceptions to the rule against warrantless searches.[38] | |||||
|
2003-09-26 |
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] | |||||