This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-03-16 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became a suspect and so subject to apprehension. It was the fugitive finger that triggered his arrest. The identification of the informer was the probable cause as determined by the officer (and not a judge) that authorized them to pounce upon Aminnudin and immediately arrest him. The People's contention that Wang waived his right against unreasonable search and seizure has no factual basis. While we agree in principle that consent will validate an otherwise illegal search, however, based on the evidence on record, Wang resisted his arrest and the search on his person and belongings.[32] The implied acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee. [33] Moreover, the continuing objection to the validity of the warrantless arrest made of record during the arraignment bolsters Wang's claim that he resisted the warrantless arrest and search. | |||||
|
2003-09-26 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Q - What did you do? A - So I proceeded to open for fear of being shot.[121] Appellants' implied acquiescence, if at all, could not have been more than mere passive conformity given under coercive or intimidating circumstances and is, thus, considered no consent at all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.[122] Consequently, appellants' lack of objection to the search and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary submission to the warrantless search and seizure.[123] | |||||
|
2002-10-15 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| right.[33] How could Appellant Formento have consented to a warrantless search when, in the first place, he did not understand what was happening at that moment? The prosecution witnesses themselves testified that there was no interpreter to assist him -- a deaf-mute -- during the arrest, search and seizure. Naturally, it would seem that he indeed consented to the warrantless search, as the prosecution would want this Court to believe. As early as 1938, Justice Jose P. Laurel pointed out in Pasion vda. de Garcia v. Locsin: | |||||