This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-11-17 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements on when a warrantless search can be conducted. These searches include: (1) search of a moving vehicle; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs search; (4) waiver or consented search; (5) stop-and-frisk situation; (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest and (7) exigent and emergency circumstance.[19] | |||||
|
2014-11-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The probable cause to justify warrantless arrest ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged,[64] or an actual belief or reasonable ground of suspicion, based on actual facts.[65] | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| We find that petitioner never raised the alleged irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment and raises the issue only now before this tribunal; hence, he is deemed to have waived his right to question the validity of his arrest curing whatever defect may have attended his arrest.[26] However, "a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest."[27] | |||||
|
2013-06-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Anent their claim of unreasonable search and seizure, it is true that under the Constitution, "a search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding."[31] This proscription, however, admits of exceptions, one of which is a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest.[32] | |||||
|
2011-08-03 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| We have repeatedly held that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. However, this is not a hard and fast rule. We have reviewed such factual findings when there is a showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the case.[34] | |||||
|
2010-12-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he fails to raise such issue before arraignment.[5] However, this waiver is limited only to the arrest. The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.[6] | |||||
|
2010-12-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As has been noted previously by this Court, some lawmen, prosecutors and judges have glossed over illegal searches and seizures in cases where law enforcers are able to present the alleged evidence of the crime, regardless of the methods by which they were obtained. This attitude tramples on constitutionally-guaranteed rights in the name of law enforcement. It is ironic that such enforcement of the law fosters the breakdown of our system of justice and the eventual denigration of society. While 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.[24] | |||||