PEOPLE VS RODRIGUEZA

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DON RODRIGUEZA

G.R. No. 95902           February 4, 1992

Facts:
            CIC Taduran et al was in their headquarters at the office of the Narcotics Regional Unit at Camp Bagong Ibalon, Legaspi City when a confidential informer arrived and told them that there was an ongoing illegal traffic of prohibited drugs. They form a team to conduct a buy bust operation. The money with ultra violet powder was given to Tadura who acted as the poseur buyer. He was told to look for a certain Don, The alleged seller of prohibited drug. Tudara went to Tagas alone, and while along the road he met Samuel Segovia. He asked Segovia where he could find Don and where he could buy marijuana. Segovia left for a while when he return he was accompanied by Don.
            Don gave Tudaran “a certain object wrapped in a plastic which was later identified as marijuana and received payment thereof. Thereafter Taduran return to the headquarter and made a report.
            In the evening they arrested appellant however they ae not armed with warrant of arrest.
            Then they conducted a raid in the house of Jovencio Rodriqueza, father of appellant. During the raid they were able to confiscate dried marijuana leaves and a plastic syringe. The search however was not authorized by any search warrant.

Ruling:
A search warrant to be valid, must generally be authorized by search warrant duly issued by proper government authority. The court has allowed government authorities to conduct searches and seizure even without search warrant. Thus, when the search is incidental to a lawful arrest, when it is made on vessels, aircraft for violation of custom laws, when it made to automobile for the purpose of preventing violation of smuggling or immigration laws, when it involves prohibited article in plain view or in case of inspection of building and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulation.
In the case at bar the raid conducted was not authorized by search warrant and it does not appear that the situation falls any of the aforementioned cases.

            Buy bust – must be in flagrante delicto = requires that the suspected dealer must be caught red handed in the act of selling marijuana or any prohibited drugs.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 22, Cabagan, Isabela; ELVINO AGGABAO and VILLA SURATOS G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. HENEDINO P. EDUARTE, in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 22, Cabagan, Isabela; ELVINO AGGABAO and VILLA SURATOS G.R. No. 88232 February 26, 1990 Facts: Alma T. Aggabao filed  with the RTC, an information against private respondents Elvino Aggabao and Villa Suratos for the crime of concubinage. Upon being arraigned, private respondents entered a plea of not guilty. During the trial, private respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.  They argued that concubinage, under Art. 334 of the RPC is punishable with prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, which is equivalent to imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months, well within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court, and not of the RTC The prosecution filed an opposition to the motion contending that the RTC has jurisdiction over the crime of concubinage...
Read more

DE PEREZ vs. GARCHITORENA

CARMEN G. DE PEREZ vs. MARIANO GARCHITORENA, and JOSE CASIMIRO G.R. No. L-31703 February 13, 1930 ROMUALDEZ, J.: Facts: The question here raised is confined to the scope and meaning of the institution of heirs made in the will of the late Ana Maria Alcantara already admitted to probate, and whose legal force and effect is not in dispute. The clauses of said will relevant to the points in dispute, between the parties are the ninth, tenth, and eleventh, quoted below: Ninth. Being single and without any forced heir, to show my gratitude to my niece-in-law, Carmen Garchitorena, of age, married to my nephew, Joaquin Perez Alcantara, and living in this same house with me, I institute her as my sole and universal heiress to the remainder of my estate after the payment of my debts and legacies, so that upon my death and after probate of this will, and after the report of the committee on claims and appraisal has been rendered and approved, she will receive from my executrix and...
Read more

J.L.T. AGRO, INC., VS. ANTONIO BALANSAG

J.L.T. AGRO, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, JULIAN L. TEVES VS. ANTONIO BALANSAG AND HILARIA CADAYDAY G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005 TINGA, J.: Facts: Don Julian L. Teves contracted two marriages, first with Antonia Baena, and after her death, with Milagros Donio Teves. Don Julian had two children with Antonia, namely: Josefa Teves Escaño and Emilio Teves. He had also four (4) children with Milagros Donio, namely: Maria Evelyn Donio Teves, Jose Catalino Donio Teves, Milagros Reyes Teves and Pedro Reyes Teves. The present controversy involves a parcel of land. When Antonia died, the land was among the properties involved in an action for partition and damages, the second wife of Don Julian, participated as an intervenor. Thereafter, the parties to the case entered into a Compromise Agreement which embodied the partition of all the properties of Don Julian. Paragraph 13 of the Compromise Agreement, at the heart of the present dispute, lays down the effect of the eventual ...
Read more