Right against self-incrimination, ConstiFull description
Crim2 Digest of People v. Tomio KidnappingFull description
for Evidence class of Prof. Rowena Daroy-Morales
People v. Almazan Digest
Digest for Tarapen v. People
case
Full description
Digest for the case of Cabugao vs People
Issue on whether or not warrantless arrest is justified in the case.Full description
Constitutional law 2 Rights of the accusedFull description
Digest
Full description
SPL
Search and Seizures, Search Warrant can be severed.Full description
digest
Criminal Procedure digest
People v. Beronilla DigestFull description
People v. Sandiganbayan Case Digest
Crim 2 caseFull description
sa
Full description
G.R. No. 186529
August 3, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JAC RACHO ! RA"#ERO, Appellant. RA"#ERO, Appellant. A confidential confidential agent agent of the police police transacted transacted through through cellular cellular phone with appellant appellant for the the purchase purchase of shabu. Appellant called up the agent and informed him that he was on board a Genesis bus and would arrive in Baler, Aurora. Having alighted from the bus, appellant was about to board a tricycle when the team of police authorities approached him and invited him to the police station. As he pulled out his hands from his pants’ pocket, a white envelope slipped therefrom which, when opened, yielded a small sachet containing the suspected drug. 5 Appellant was charged in two separate nformations, nformations, one for violation of !ection 5 of ".A. #$%5, for transporting or delivering& and the second, of !ection $$ of the same law for possessing, dangerous drugs. !!'() *$+ - the warrant of arrest was violated. */+ - the evidence was admissible in evidence. "'0G) *$+ o. 1"eliable information2 alone is not sufficient probable cause to effect a valid warrantless arrest. 3he !4 reuired the showing of some overt act indicative of the criminal design. */+ o. 3his is an instance of sei6ure of the 1fruit of the poisonous tree.2 Hence, the confiscated item is inadmissible in evidence. 3he $#78 4onstitution states that a search and conseuent sei6ure must be carried out with a 9udicial warrant& warrant& otherwise, otherwise, it becomes becomes unreasonab unreasonable le and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be $8 inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. !aid proscription, however, admits of e:ceptions, namely) $. arrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest& /. !earch of evidence in ;plain view&; <. !earch of a moving vehicle& =. 4onsented warrantless search& 5. 4ustoms search& %. !top and >risk& and 8. (:igent and emergency circumstances. $7