Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JESUS NUEVAS Y GARCIA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 204589 2014-11-19	RIZALDY SANCHEZ Y CAJILI v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Pros. Villarin: Q: On March 19, 2003 at around 2:50 p.m., can you recall where were you? A: Yes, Mam. Q: Where were you? A: We were in Brgy. Alapan 1-B, Imus, Cavite. Q: What were you doing at Alapan 1-B, Imus, Cavite? A: We were conducting an operation against illegal drugs. Q: Who were with you? A: CSU Edmundo Hernandez, CSU Jose Tagle, Jr. and CSU Samuel Monzon. Q: Was the operation upon the instruction of your Superior? A: Our superior gave us the information that there were tricycle drivers buying drugs from "Intang" or Jacinta Marciano. Q: What did you do after that? A: We waited for a tricycle who will go to the house of Jacinta Marciano. Q: After that what did you do? A: A tricycle with a passenger went to the house of "Intang" and when the passenger boarded the tricycle, we chase[d] them. Q: After that, what happened next? A: When we were able to catch the tricycle, the tricycle driver and the passenger alighted from the tricycle. Q: What did you do after they alighted from the tricycle? A: I saw the passenger holding a match box. Q: What did you do after you saw the passenger holding a match box? A: I asked him if I can see the contents of the match box. Q: Did he allow you? A: Yes, mam. He handed to me voluntarily the match box. Court: Q: Who, the driver or the passenger? A: The passenger, sir. Pros. Villarin: Q: After that what did you find out? A: I opened the match box and I found out that it contained a small transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.[23] A search as an incident to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules of Court.[24] It bears emphasis that the law requires that the search be incidental to a lawful arrest. Therefore it is beyond cavil that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person and his belongings; the process cannot be reversed.[25]
	GR No. 199042 2014-11-17	DANILO VILLANUEVA Y ALCARAZ v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
As a final word, we reiterate that "[wjhile this Court appreciates and encourages the efforts of law enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the peace and security of society, we nevertheless admonish them to act with deliberate care and within the parameters set by the Constitution and the law. Truly, the end never justifies the means."[24]
	GR No. 176077 2011-08-31	ABRAHAM MICLAT v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.[19]
	GR No. 182178 2011-08-15	STEPHEN SY Y TIBAGONG v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.[15]
	GR No. 182010 2010-08-25	SUSAN ESQUILLO Y ROMINES v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
In the instances where a warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search or seizure, the determination of what constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure is purely a judicial question, taking into account, among other things, the uniqueness of the circumstances involved including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.[21]
	GR No. 186529 2010-08-03	PEOPLE v. JACK RACHO Y RAQUERO NACHURA, J.
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.[18]
	GR No. 188611 2010-06-16	PEOPLE v. BELEN MARIACOS NACHURA, J.
Be that as it may, we have held that a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police has probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.[25]