Professional Documents
Culture Documents
New Cases
New Cases
seizure
subject
Held: No.
The only link that can be made between
appellant and the subject hut is that it was
bought by his brother Leonardo a.k.a. Narding
Estella. We cannot sustain the OSGs supposition
that since it was being rented by the alleged livein partner of appellant, it follows that he was also
occupying it or was in full control of it. In the first
place, other than SPO1 Bulorons uncorroborated
testimony, no other evidence was presented by
the prosecution to prove that the person renting
the hut was indeed the live-in partner of
appellant if he indeed had any.
At most, the testimony shows that the subject hut
was bought by Narding Estella and rented by
someone named Eva. The attempt to make it
appear that appellant occupied it, or that it was
under his full control, is merely conjectural and
speculative. We have often ruled that courts do
not rely on evidence that arouses mere suspicion
or conjecture. To lead to conviction, evidence
must do more than raise the mere possibility or
even probability of guilt. It must engender moral
certainty.
Neither do we find merit in the OSGs argument
that appellant cannot deny ownership or control
of the hut, since he was found in front of it, sitting
on a rocking chair and drinking coffee. Indeed, to
uphold this proposition would be to stretch our
imagination to the extreme.
People vs Tangliben
Padilla vs CA
G.R. No. 121917. March 12, 1997
Facts:
High-powered
firearms
with
live
ammunitions were found in the possession of
petitioner Robin Padilla:
(1)
One .357 Caliber revolver, Smith and
Wesson, SN-32919 with six (6) live ammunitions;
(2)
One M-16 Baby Armalite rifle, SN-RP
131120 with four (4) long and one (1) short
magazine with ammunitions;
(3) One .380 Pietro Beretta, SN-A 35723 Y with
clip and eight (8) ammunitions; and
action
are
sanctioned
(4)
Six additional live double
ammunitions of .38 caliber revolver.
in
the
1.
warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of
the
Rules
of
Court
and
by
prevailing
jurisprudence,
2.
Seizure of evidence in plain view, the
elements of which are:
(a).
a prior valid intrusion based on the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b).
the evidence was inadvertently
discovered by the police who had the right to be
where they are;
(c).
the evidence must be immediately
apparent, and
(d).
plain view justified mere seizure of
evidence without further search.
3.
search of a moving vehicle. Highly
regulated by the government, the vehicles
inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy
especially when its transit in public thoroughfares
furnishes
a
highly
reasonable
suspicion
amounting to probable cause that the occupant
committed a criminal activity.
4.
5.
customs search.
In
conformity
with
respondent
courts
observation, it indeed appears that the
authorities stumbled upon petitioners firearms
and ammunitions without even undertaking any
active search which, as it is commonly
understood, is a prying into hidden places for that
which is concealed. The seizure of the Smith &
Wesson revolver and an M-16 rifle magazine was
justified for they came within plain view of the
policemen who inadvertently discovered the
revolver and magazine tucked in petitioners
waist and back pocket respectively, when he
raised his hands after alighting from his Pajero.
The same justification applies to the confiscation
of the M-16 armalite rifle which was immediately
apparent to the policemen as they took a casual
glance at the Pajero and saw said rifle lying
horizontally near the drivers seat. Thus it has
been held that:
(W)hen in pursuing an illegal action or in the
commission of a criminal offense, the . . . police
officers should happen to discover a criminal
offense being committed by any person, they are
not precluded from performing their duties as
police officers for the apprehension of the guilty
person and the taking of the corpus delicti.
Objects whose possession are prohibited by law
inadvertently found in plain view are subject to
seizure even without a warrant.
CASE
NO.
AND
0
PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION vs AGRAVA
November 4, 2014
PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION vs AGRAVA
G.R. No. L-12426
FACTS:
Herein petitioner filed for prohibition and
injunction against respondent Agrava, the
Director of Philippines Patent Office due to a
circular the latter issued scheduling an
examination for determining who are qualified to
practice as patent attorneys before the
Philippines Patent Office.
Petitioner contended that one who has passed
the bar examinations and is licensed by the
Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines
Yamashita vs Styer
November 4, 2014
Yamashita vs Styer
G.R. No. L-129 December 19, 1945
Facts:
Petitioner Tomoyuki Yamashita, the commanding
general of the 14th army group of the Japanese
Imperial Army in the Philippines, after his
surrender became a prisoner of war of the United
States of America but was later removed from
such status and placed in confinement as an
accused war criminal charged before an American
Military Commission constituted by respondent
Lieutenant General Styer, Commanding General
of the United States Army Forces, Western Pacific.
Issue/s:
Facts:
validly
having
November 4, 2014
Secretary of Justice vs Lantion and Mark Jimenez
(private respondent)