Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BINAD SY CHUA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 197788 2012-02-29	RODEL LUZ Y ONG v. PEOPLE SERENO, J.
Neither does the search qualify under the "stop and frisk" rule. While the rule normally applies when a police officer observes suspicious or unusual conduct, which may lead him to believe that a criminal act may be afoot, the stop and frisk is merely a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons.[20]
	GR No. 182010 2010-08-25	SUSAN ESQUILLO Y ROMINES v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
In its challenged Decision affirming petitioner's conviction, the appellate court, citing People v. Chua,[15] held that the police officers had probable cause to search petitioner under the "stop-and-frisk" concept, a recognized exception to the general rule prohibiting warrantless searches.[16]
	GR No. 182010 2010-08-25	SUSAN ESQUILLO Y ROMINES v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
(1) consented searches; (2) as an incident to a lawful arrest; (3) searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs, and drug laws; (4) searches of moving vehicles; (5) searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders; (6) where the prohibited articles are in "plain view;" (7) searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations; and (8) "stop and frisk" operations.[20] (emphasis underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 128587 2007-03-16	PEOPLE GARCIA, J.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the present case did not manifest any suspicious behavior on the part of private respondent Lawrence Wang that would reasonably invite the attention of the police. He was merely walking from the Maria Orosa Apartment and was about to enter the parked BMW car when the police operatives arrested him, frisked and searched his person and commanded him to open the compartment of the car, which was later on found to be owned by his friend, David Lee. He was not committing any visible offense then. Therefore, there can be no valid warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto under paragraph (a) of Section 5. It is settled that "reliable information" alone, absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest. [30]
	GR No. 144037 2003-09-26	PEOPLE v. NOEL TUDTUD Y PAYPA TINGA, J.
Personal knowledge was also required in the case of People v. Doria.[86] Recently, in People v. Binad Sy Chua,[87] this Court declared invalid the arrest of the accused, who was walking towards a hotel clutching a sealed Zest-O juice box. For the exception in Section 5 (a), Rule 113 to apply, this Court ruled, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating 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. Reliable information alone is insufficient.