Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 93 views

    People v. Dequina

    Uploaded by

    Juan Tagadownload
    The accused were charged with illegally transporting marijuana after a tip led police officers to apprehend them near a pier with luggage containing marijuana. The accused argued their arrest and the search of their belongings were unlawful. However, the court found the arrest was valid as a crime was being committed in the officers' presence. Additionally, the search was permissible as incidental to the lawful arrest. Conspiracy between the accused was also found based on their joint travel itinerary and possession of marijuana at the time of arrest. The court upheld the conviction, finding the arrest and search were valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Dequina

    Uploaded by

    Juan Tagadownload
    93 views1 page
    The accused were charged with illegally transporting marijuana after a tip led police officers to apprehend them near a pier with luggage containing marijuana. The accused argued their arrest and the search of their belongings were unlawful. However, the court found the arrest was valid as a crime was being committed in the officers' presence. Additionally, the search was permissible as incidental to the lawful arrest. Conspiracy between the accused was also found based on their joint travel itinerary and possession of marijuana at the time of arrest. The court upheld the conviction, finding the arrest and search were valid.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The accused were charged with illegally transporting marijuana after a tip led police officers to apprehend them near a pier with luggage containing marijuana. The accused argued their arrest and the search of their belongings were unlawful. However, the court found the arrest was valid as a crime was being committed in the officers' presence. Additionally, the search was permissible as incidental to the lawful arrest. Conspiracy between the accused was also found based on their joint travel itinerary and possession of marijuana at the time of arrest. The court upheld the conviction, finding the arrest and search were valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    93 views1 page

    People v. Dequina

    Uploaded by

    Juan Tagadownload
    The accused were charged with illegally transporting marijuana after a tip led police officers to apprehend them near a pier with luggage containing marijuana. The accused argued their arrest and the search of their belongings were unlawful. However, the court found the arrest was valid as a crime was being committed in the officers' presence. Additionally, the search was permissible as incidental to the lawful arrest. Conspiracy between the accused was also found based on their joint travel itinerary and possession of marijuana at the time of arrest. The court upheld the conviction, finding the arrest and search were valid.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PEOPLE V.

    DEQUINA
    LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
    The accused-appellants were charged with and convicted of the offense of illegal transport of marijuana, defined and
    penalized under Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, which provides:
    FACTS: In this case, Chief Inspector Sapitula, in the early morning of September 29, 1999, received a tip that a huge
    amount of marijuana would be transported from Baguio City to the Manila pier, which will then be loaded on vessels bound
    for Iloilo. Acting on the information he received, Chief Inspector Sapitula dispatched PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco to
    the corner of Raxabago and Juan Luna Streets, where they were supposed to watch out for two females and one male.
    Dequina, dropped her traveling bag. The traveling bag fell open and inside, PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco saw dried
    leaves in transparent plastic bags. It was only then that the two police officers apprehended accused-appellants and their
    persons and belongings searched.

    ACCUSED: Accused-appellants assail their conviction, asserting that their arrests were illegal. They were not doing
    anything illegal that would have justified their warrantless arrest, much less a warrantless search of their persons and
    belongings.

    PEOPLE: The People counters that accused-appellants’ arrests were lawful as they were then actually committing a crime.
    Since accused-appellants were lawfully arrested, the resulting warrantless search of their persons and belongings was
    also valid. In addition, accused-appellants did not refute that they were indeed transporting prohibited drugs when they
    were arrested and, instead, alleged as defenses that Dequina acted under the impulse of uncontrollable fear, and Jundoc
    and Jingabo were merely accommodating a trusted childhood friend.

    ISSUE: ARREST AND SEARCH VALID? YES

    COURT:
    AS TO ARREST: THERE WAS A VALID IN FLAGRANTE ARREST.
    "Transport" as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean "to carry or convey from one place to
    another."16 The evidence in this case shows that at the time of their arrest, accused-appellants were caught in flagrante
    carrying/transporting dried marijuana leaves in their traveling bags. PO3 Masanggue and SPO1 Blanco need not even
    open Dequina’s traveling bag to determine its content because when the latter noticed the police officers’ presence, she
    walked briskly away and in her hurry, accidentally dropped her traveling bag, causing the zipper to open and exposed the
    dried marijuana bricks therein. Since a crime was then actually being committed by the accused-appellants, their
    warrantless arrest was legally justified, and the following warrantless search of their traveling bags was allowable as
    incidental to their lawful arrest.
    Besides, accused-appellants did not raise any protest when they, together with their bags containing marijuana,
    were brought to the police station for investigation and subsequent prosecution.

    AS TO SEARCH:
    The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures admits of certain legal and judicial exceptions,
    as follows: (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; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4) consented
    warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances. 15

    NOTE:
    Conspiracy can be inferred from and proven by acts of the accused themselves. This was shown when by their account,
    the three accused left Iloilo together, stayed in Manila for a while, left for Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga and returned to
    Manila thereafter. They were together when the apprehending police officers pounced on them near the pier premises on
    their way back to Iloilo, each of them carrying a travelling bag which contained marijuana. x x x 22

    You might also like