Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    People V Racho Digest

    Uploaded by

    Sharon G. Balingit
    The police received information about a drug deal and arranged a meeting with the appellant through cellular phone calls. When the appellant arrived by bus in Baler, Aurora, police approached him as he was about to get into a tricycle. A small packet of shabu drug fell from his pocket. He was charged with drug possession and delivery. The Supreme Court ruled the evidence was inadmissible because the warrantless arrest was not valid, lacking probable cause beyond just reliable information. It was an instance of illegally obtaining, or the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The Constitution requires judicial warrants for searches and seizures, except in certain enumerated exceptions like consent or exigent circumstances, which did not apply in this case.

    Copyright:

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

    People V Racho Digest

    Uploaded by

    Sharon G. Balingit
    3K views1 page
    The police received information about a drug deal and arranged a meeting with the appellant through cellular phone calls. When the appellant arrived by bus in Baler, Aurora, police approached him as he was about to get into a tricycle. A small packet of shabu drug fell from his pocket. He was charged with drug possession and delivery. The Supreme Court ruled the evidence was inadmissible because the warrantless arrest was not valid, lacking probable cause beyond just reliable information. It was an instance of illegally obtaining, or the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The Constitution requires judicial warrants for searches and seizures, except in certain enumerated exceptions like consent or exigent circumstances, which did not apply in this case.

    Original Description:

    Crim Pro case

    Original Title

    People v Racho Digest

    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 police received information about a drug deal and arranged a meeting with the appellant through cellular phone calls. When the appellant arrived by bus in Baler, Aurora, police approached him as he was about to get into a tricycle. A small packet of shabu drug fell from his pocket. He was charged with drug possession and delivery. The Supreme Court ruled the evidence was inadmissible because the warrantless arrest was not valid, lacking probable cause beyond just reliable information. It was an instance of illegally obtaining, or the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The Constitution requires judicial warrants for searches and seizures, except in certain enumerated exceptions like consent or exigent circumstances, which did not apply in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    3K views1 page

    People V Racho Digest

    Uploaded by

    Sharon G. Balingit
    The police received information about a drug deal and arranged a meeting with the appellant through cellular phone calls. When the appellant arrived by bus in Baler, Aurora, police approached him as he was about to get into a tricycle. A small packet of shabu drug fell from his pocket. He was charged with drug possession and delivery. The Supreme Court ruled the evidence was inadmissible because the warrantless arrest was not valid, lacking probable cause beyond just reliable information. It was an instance of illegally obtaining, or the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The Constitution requires judicial warrants for searches and seizures, except in certain enumerated exceptions like consent or exigent circumstances, which did not apply in this case.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No.

    186529

    August 3, 2010

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,


    vs.
    JACK RACHO y RAQUERO, Appellant.
    A confidential agent of the police transacted through cellular phone with appellant for the purchase
    of shabu. Appellant called up the agent and informed him that he was on board a Genesis bus and
    would arrive in Baler, Aurora. Having alighted from the bus, appellant was about to board a tricycle
    when the team of police authorities approached him and invited him to the police station. As he
    pulled out his hands from his pants pocket, a white envelope slipped therefrom which, when
    opened, yielded a small sachet containing the suspected drug.5
    Appellant was charged in two separate Informations, one for violation of Section 5 of R.A.
    9165, for transporting or delivering; and the second, of Section 11 of the same law for possessing,
    dangerous drugs.
    ISSUE: (1) WON the warrant of arrest was violated.
    (2) WON the evidence was admissible in evidence.
    RULING: (1) No. Reliable information alone is not sufficient probable cause to effect a valid
    warrantless arrest. The SC required the showing of some overt act indicative of the criminal design.
    (2) No. This is an instance of seizure of the fruit of the poisonous tree. Hence, the
    confiscated item is inadmissible in evidence.
    The 1987 Constitution states that a search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a
    judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be
    inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.17 Said proscription, however, admits of exceptions,
    namely:
    1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
    2. Search 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.18

    You might also like