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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 439 views

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. Vs OMAWENG

    Uploaded by

    Charles Roger Raya
    The police set up a checkpoint and stopped Conway Omaweng's vehicle. When they asked to inspect the vehicle, Omaweng consented. Upon finding a bag under the passenger seat, Omaweng again consented to the police opening it. The bag contained 41 plastic packets of marijuana. Omaweng was charged with transporting prohibited drugs. The Supreme Court held that Omaweng was not subject to an unreasonable search because he consented twice to the police searches of his vehicle and bag. By consenting, Omaweng waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. Vs OMAWENG

    Uploaded by

    Charles Roger Raya
    439 views1 page
    The police set up a checkpoint and stopped Conway Omaweng's vehicle. When they asked to inspect the vehicle, Omaweng consented. Upon finding a bag under the passenger seat, Omaweng again consented to the police opening it. The bag contained 41 plastic packets of marijuana. Omaweng was charged with transporting prohibited drugs. The Supreme Court held that Omaweng was not subject to an unreasonable search because he consented twice to the police searches of his vehicle and bag. By consenting, Omaweng waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    Original Description:

    .

    Original Title

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs OMAWENG

    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 set up a checkpoint and stopped Conway Omaweng's vehicle. When they asked to inspect the vehicle, Omaweng consented. Upon finding a bag under the passenger seat, Omaweng again consented to the police opening it. The bag contained 41 plastic packets of marijuana. Omaweng was charged with transporting prohibited drugs. The Supreme Court held that Omaweng was not subject to an unreasonable search because he consented twice to the police searches of his vehicle and bag. By consenting, Omaweng waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. Vs OMAWENG

    Uploaded by

    Charles Roger Raya
    The police set up a checkpoint and stopped Conway Omaweng's vehicle. When they asked to inspect the vehicle, Omaweng consented. Upon finding a bag under the passenger seat, Omaweng again consented to the police opening it. The bag contained 41 plastic packets of marijuana. Omaweng was charged with transporting prohibited drugs. The Supreme Court held that Omaweng was not subject to an unreasonable search because he consented twice to the police searches of his vehicle and bag. By consenting, Omaweng waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

    Copyright:

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

    People vsOmaweng

    213 SCRA 462

    Facts: In the morning of 12 September 1988, PC constables with the Mt. Province PC Command put up a
    checkpoint at the junction of the roads, one going to Sagada and the other to Bontoc.They stopped and
    checked all vehicles that went through the checkpoint. At 9:15 a.m., theyflagged down a cream-colored
    Ford Fiera (ABT-634) coming from the BontocPoblacion andheaded towards Baguio. The vehicle was
    driven by Conway Omaweng and had no passengers.The Constables (Layong, et.al.) asked permission to
    inspect the vehicle to which Omawengacceded to. When they peered into the rear of the vehicle, they
    saw a travelling bag which was partially covered by the rim of a spare tire under the passenger seat on
    the right side of thevehicle. They asked permission to see the contents of the bag to which Omaweng
    consented to.When they opened the bag, they found that it contained 41 plastic packets of different
    sizescontaining pulverized substances. The constable gave a packet to his team leader, who, after
    sniffing the stuff concluded that it was marijuana. The Constables thereafter boarded the vehiclesand
    proceeded to the Bontocpoblacion to report the incident to the PC Headquarters. The prohibited drugs
    were surrendered to the evidence custodian. The PC Forensic Chemist at CampDangwa, La Trinidad,
    Benguet conducted 2 chemistry examinations of the substance containedin the plastic packets taken
    from appellant and found them to be positive for hashish or marijuana. Omaweng was indicted for the
    violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended, in a criminal
    complaint filed with the MTCBontoc, Mountain Province on 12 September 1988. Upon his failure to
    submit counter-affidavitsdespite the granting of an extension of time to do so, the court declared that
    he had waived hisright to a preliminary investigation and, finding probable cause against Omaweng,
    ordered theelevation of the case to the proper court. On 14 November 1988, the Office of the
    ProvincialFiscal of Mountain Province filed an Information charging Omaweng with the violation of
    Section 47 Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended (Crim Case 713). After his motion
    for reinvestigation was denied by the Provincial Fiscal, Omaweng entered a plea of not guilty during his
    arraignment on 20 June 1989. During the trial on the merits, the prosecution presented 4 witnesses.
    Omaweng did not present any evidence other than portions of the JointClarificatory Sworn Statement,
    dated 23 December 1988, of prosecution witnesses JosephLayong and David Fomocod. On 21 March
    1991, the trial court promulgated its Judgmentconvicting Omaweng of the crime of transporting
    prohibited drugs (Section 4, Article II of RA6425, as amended). Omaweng appealed to the Supreme
    Court.

    Issue: Whether Omaweng was subjected to search which violates his Constitutional right
    againstunreasonable searches and seizures.

    Held: Omaweng was not subjected to any search which may be stigmatized as a violation of
    hisConstitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. He willingly gave prior consentto the
    search and voluntarily agreed to have it conducted on his vehicle and travelling bag. Thetestimony of
    the PC Constable (Layung) was not dented on cross-examination or rebutted byOmaweng for he chose
    not to testify on his own behalf. Omaweng waived his right againstunreasonable searches and seizures
    when he voluntarily submitted to a search or consents to haveit made in his person or premises. He is
    precluded from later complaining thereof right to besecure from unreasonable search may, like every
    right, be waived and such waiver may be madeeither expressly or impliedly. Since in the course of the
    valid search 41 packages of drugs werefound, it behooved the officers to seize the same; no warrant was
    necessary for such seizure.

    You might also like