People v. Encinada 
G.R. No. 116720, October 2, 1997, 280 SCRA 72

FACTS: Appeal from a decision of the RTC convicting appellant Roel Encinada of Illegal Transpotation of prohibited drugs from Surigao City to Cebu, under Sec. 4 of R.A. 6425 as amended by BP 179.
               SPO4 Bolonia received a tip from an informant (4:00pm) that the appellant Encinada would be arriving in the morning of May 21, 1992 on board the M/V Sweet Pearl bringing with him “marijuana”. They were not able to secure warrant of arrest because the office was already closed. However, they still decided to pursue the apprehension of the appellant.
               Morning of May 21,1992, when M/V Sweet Pearl docked SPO4 Bolonia with his team followed the appellant carrying two small colored plastic chairs and boarded a tricycle. The appellant was chased and ordered the driver to stop, they inspect the plastic chairs and discovered that a package was place between; tearing the package they were convinced that it is marijuana because of the smell. They apprehended the appellant brought him to the police station and in the presence of a member of the local media, they opened the package and saw that indeed it contains dried leaves of marijuana.

ISSUE: a) WON the evidence sufficiently shows the possession of marijuana by appellant.
               b) WON the search on the person and belongings of the appellant valid.

HOLDING: SC ruled that proof of ownership of the marijuana is not necessary in the prosecution of Illegal drug case; it is sufficient that such drug is found in appellant’s possession.
               The court ruled acquitting the appellant, it reiterates the constitutional proscription that evidence seized without a valid search warrant is inadmissible in any proceeding. A guild of incriminating evidence will not legitimize an illegal search. Indeed, the end never justifies the means.
               In this case, appellant was not committing a crime in the presence of the policemen. Moreover, the Lawmen did not have personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested had committed an offense. The search cannot be said to be merely incidental to a lawful arrest. Raw intelligence information is not sufficient ground for a warrantless arrest. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

US v. Serapio [23 P 584]

FACTS: Defendant was charged with the crime of libel. Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned. Upon arraignment the defendant, by his attorneys, presented the following demurrer:I. The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a crime. II. It appears from the allegation in the complaint that if there were a crime it has prescribed. With reference to the second ground, counsel for the defense maintains that the crime has prescribed under the provisions of the laws in force in the Islands and supports such conclusion by asserting that in the absence of a definite provision in Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, which fixes the time during which the penal action arising from the crime of libel may be exercised, the time which article 131 of the Penal Code fixes for the prescription of the crimes of calumny and insults is strictly applicable. Against this contention of the defense, the Attorney-General and the private prosecutor maint...
Read more

People v Macatanda [109 S 35]

FACTS: Charged with and convicted on a plea of guilty, in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV in Iligan City, for the crime of cattle rustling, Saglala Macatanda. From the judgment of conviction, Saglala Macatanda (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed direct to this Court. The Solicitor General comes up with a reply that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to penalties prescribed by special laws. He considers P.D. 533, otherwise known as "Anti- Cattle Rustling Law of 1974" as a special law, and in accordance with existing rulings, 8 the penalty should not be governed by the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether the contention of the Solicitor-General is valid. RULING: The court do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribe...
Read more