Case Digest: So v. Republic (G.R. No. 170603)

So v. Republic | G.R. No. 170603 | 29 Jan 2007 | Callejo, Sr. J. | Art IV (Section 1, Par 4) | Petitioners: Edison So Respondents: Republic of the Philippines Recit Ready Summary Herein Petitioner So filed for a Petition for Naturalization under CA No. 473 aka the Revised Naturalization Law.He presented 2 witnesses à fam business lawyer Atty. Adasa & UST classmate Mark Salcedo. RTC granted So’s petition. Respondent Republic of the Phil through OSG said not so fast! Coz SolGen claims na the 2 witnesses So presented did not know him (So) well enough and that they only gave general statements upon being asked about the character and moral conduct of So. CA set aside RTC’s decision. Hence, this present petition. The issue is W/N So qualifies for Philippines Citizenship and the Court said NO. It was wrong for So to claim that that RA 9139 should apply to his case instead of CA No. 473. This is because the latter applied to ALL ALIENS regardless of class while the former applies to nati...
Post a Comment

Case Digest: People v. Aminnudin (G.R. No. L-74869) including Separate Opinion

People v. Aminnudin | G.R. No. L-74869 | 6 July 1988 | Cruz, J. | Article III, Section 2 (Warrantless Arrests) |

Recit Ready Summary:
Philippine Constabulary officers were tipped off by a regular informant about Respondent Aminnudin arriving Iloilo via a ship, and bringing with him MARIJUANA. As Aminudin was disembarking the ship, PC officers met him and inspected his bag. True enough, there was marijuana inside. He was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. An information was filed against him and the trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Hence, this present petition.

The issue is W/N the warrantless arrest and search on Aminnudin is valid and the answer is NO.

First, at the time of his arrest, Aminnudin didn’t commit a crime, wasn’t committing a crime, nor was he about to do so. Second, there was no existing urgency in the present case which could excuse the PC officers for not obtaining a warrant. Also, the marijuana CANNOT be admitted as evidence given na the search and arrest was invalid.

FACTS:

  • Philippine Constabulary (PC) officers received a tip from an informer that herein Respondent Aminnudin was on board a ship bound for Iloilo carrying MARIJUANA. 
  • When Aminnudin disembarked from the ship, the PC officers inspected his bag. 
  • True enough, there was marijuana inside (this was proven by NBI when they examined the substance). 
  • He was charged with violating the Dangerous Drugs Act, and so an information was filed against him. 
  • Respondent AMINNUDIN argues: 
    • he wasn’t carrying marijuana at all, the PC officers tried to force him to admit it ○ He was actually in the business of selling WATCHES 
    • He was manhandled daw (^Trial Court wasn’t convinced though because he came to Iloilo bringing only 2 watches so why would he come all the way and spend 107 pesos for a ticket just to sell 2 watches lang naman? Also, Aminnudin didn’t get to prove the supposed injuries he sustained from manhandling) 
  • SOLGEN (in behalf of the government) argues: 
    • Arrest valid because it came under Rule 113, Section 6(b) of Rules of Court on warrantless arrests. it was a valid arrest as it was incidental to a lawful arrest daw. 
  • PC officers who arrested Aminnudin argue: 
    • “A search warrant is not necessary” 
  • The trial court admitted the marijuana as evidence, found Aminnudin guilty, and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus fine of 20k pesos.

ISSUE: W/N the warrantless arrest and search of Aminnudin is justified? NO.

HELD: In this case, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause.
1. A. Aminnudin 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.

  • In many cases where this Court has sustained the warrantless arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act, it has always been shown that they were caught red-handed, as a result of what are popularly called “buy-bust” operations of the narcotics agents. 
  • BUT that ^ does not apply in this PRESENT case! Because Aminnudin was merely going down from the ship. (He wasn’t being suspicious or anything). He was just innocently disembarking the vessel. If it wasn’t for the informer who pointed him out, he wouldn’t have been arrested. It was the informer’s furtive finger that triggered his arrest. B. There was NO URGENCY in the present case that would excuse the PC officers for not obtaining a warrant muna. 
  • The PC officers had at least 2 days within which they could have obtained a search and arrest warrant. 
  • After all, Aminudin’s name was known, also the ship was known, and also his date and time of arrival. With all this info, they could have persuaded the judge to find probable cause for issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. While this is not to say that Aminnudin is innocent (for indeed it was clear that he was lying) that fact alone na he was lying does not justify a finding that he is guilty. The constitutional presumption is that he is innocent, and he will be considered innocent if the defense is weak and the prosecution is not strong enough to convict him. Also, the marijuana evidence CANNOT BE ADMITTED because it was seized ILLEGALLY. (Recall the fruit of poisonous tree doctrine of Justice Holmes).

DISPOSITION: Decision of trial court REVERSED. Accused-appellant ACQUITTED.

Aquino, J. (Separate Opinion)

  • He claims that Aminnudin was in fact caught in flagrante or in the act of committing a crime because he was carrying marijuana leaves in his bag at the moment of his arrest. And hence, he cannot be considered to be “innocently disembarking the vessel.” 
  • The unauthorized transportaion of marijuana, a prohibited drug, is a crime. 
  • Hence, since he was committing a crime, his arrest could be lawfully effected without a warrant!
  • Hence, the search of his bag without a warrant could also be lawful.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No 237428) w/ Summary of Separate Opinions

Republic v. Sereno (including Summary of Separate Opinions) | G.R. No. 237428 | May 11, 2018 | Tijam, J. |  Topic: Art. VIII, Sec 5 (other topics included in the full digest) | SUMMARY:   A petition for quo warranto was filed by the OSG assailing the appointment of CJ Sereno as Chief Justice on the ground that she failed to prove her integrity during the nomination process as she failed to comply with the SALN requirements of the JBC. Several groups and individuals filed Motions for Leave to Intervene, among them Senators De Lima and Trillanes. CJ Sereno filed a Motion to Inhibit against six Justices. The Republic argues that (1) quo warranto is the proper remedy, as the Constitution does not make impeachment the exclusive mode of unseating an impeachable officer; (2) the petition is not time barred as prescription cannot run against the States; and, (3) that, at the time of her appointment, CJ Sereno was not of “proven integrity” she not having filed the required SALNs a...
Read more

Case Digest: Gloria Dy v. People (G.R. No 189081)

Gloria Dy v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 189081 | August 10, 2016 | Topic: Liability ex delicto / ex contractu FACTS: Dy, as the General Manager of Mandy Commodities Company, Inc. (MCCI) proposed to William Mandy (President of MCCI) to purchase a property for the company. To facilitate the purchase, the president obtained a loan from International China Bank of Commerce (bank), which was granted to the company in the amount of P20 million.   As security, MCCI executed a chattel mortgage over their warehouses. The president entrusted Dy to manage the payment of the loan. Later on, MCCI received a notice of foreclosure over the mortgaged property due to its default in paying.   In order to prevent the foreclosure, the president delivered to Dy, P21,706,281 worth of checks issued by MCCI, with the instruction that Dy shall use the checks to pay the loan. However, the president later discovered that the checks weren’t paid to the bank when the bank foreclosed the mortg...
Read more

Case Digest: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906)

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo |  G.R. No. 180906 | October 7, 2008 |  Puno. C.J. Doctrine and Concepts: The Writ of Amparo offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof due to the nature of swiftness required to resolve these cases The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence or administrative responsibility requiring full and exhaustive proceedings. Facts The case at bar is an appeal via Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo , seeking to reverse and set aside , the Decision promulgated by Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. AMPARO No. 00001. The original case was filed by ...
Read more