Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 155 views

    People Vs Amminudin

    Uploaded by

    Maria Cherrylen Castor Quijada
    This document summarizes two court cases related to warrantless arrests and searches. In the first case, People vs. Burgos, the court ruled the arrest and subsequent search invalid because the arresting officers did not have direct knowledge or observe the alleged crime being committed. They relied solely on an informant's tip. In the second case, People vs. Aminnudin, the court also ruled the arrest and search invalid. Though police received a tip two days prior, they failed to obtain a warrant and the defendant was not caught in the act of committing a crime at the time of arrest. Both cases found warrantless arrests and searches unreasonable without direct observation of a crime or exigent circumstances.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Amminudin

    Uploaded by

    Maria Cherrylen Castor Quijada
    155 views3 pages
    This document summarizes two court cases related to warrantless arrests and searches. In the first case, People vs. Burgos, the court ruled the arrest and subsequent search invalid because the arresting officers did not have direct knowledge or observe the alleged crime being committed. They relied solely on an informant's tip. In the second case, People vs. Aminnudin, the court also ruled the arrest and search invalid. Though police received a tip two days prior, they failed to obtain a warrant and the defendant was not caught in the act of committing a crime at the time of arrest. Both cases found warrantless arrests and searches unreasonable without direct observation of a crime or exigent circumstances.

    Original Description:

    People vs Amminudin

    Original Title

    People vs Amminudin

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes two court cases related to warrantless arrests and searches. In the first case, People vs. Burgos, the court ruled the arrest and subsequent search invalid because the arresting officers did not have direct knowledge or observe the alleged crime being committed. They relied solely on an informant's tip. In the second case, People vs. Aminnudin, the court also ruled the arrest and search invalid. Though police received a tip two days prior, they failed to obtain a warrant and the defendant was not caught in the act of committing a crime at the time of arrest. Both cases found warrantless arrests and searches unreasonable without direct observation of a crime or exigent circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    155 views3 pages

    People Vs Amminudin

    Uploaded by

    Maria Cherrylen Castor Quijada
    This document summarizes two court cases related to warrantless arrests and searches. In the first case, People vs. Burgos, the court ruled the arrest and subsequent search invalid because the arresting officers did not have direct knowledge or observe the alleged crime being committed. They relied solely on an informant's tip. In the second case, People vs. Aminnudin, the court also ruled the arrest and search invalid. Though police received a tip two days prior, they failed to obtain a warrant and the defendant was not caught in the act of committing a crime at the time of arrest. Both cases found warrantless arrests and searches unreasonable without direct observation of a crime or exigent circumstances.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as odt, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    People vs.

    Burgos
    The State vs. Suspect NPA Rebel
    GR L-68955, September 4, 1986 (144 SCRA 1)

    Summary: An informant identified a certain person as a member of a subversive group


    who forcibly recruited him and based on this information, the police went to arrest the
    suspect. At the time of the arrest, the suspect was merely plowing his field.

    Rule of Law: In a warrantless arrest, the officer arresting a person who has just
    committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal
    knowledge of that fact.

    Facts: Cesar Masamlok personally and voluntarily surrendered to the authorities stating
    that he was forcibly recruited by accused Ruben Burgos (D) as member of the NPA,
    threatening him with the use of firearm against his life, if he refused. Pursuant to this
    information, PC-INP members went to the house of the Burgos (D) and saw him plowing
    his field when they arrived. One of the arresting offices called Burgos (D) and asked him
    about the firearm. At first, Burgos (D) denied having any firearm, but later, Burgos's (D)
    wife pointed to a place below their house where a gun was buried in the ground.
    After recovery of said firearm, Burgos (D) pointed to a stock pile of cogon where the
    officers recovered alleged subversive documents. Burgos (D) further admitted that the
    firearm was issued to him by Nestor Jimenez, team leader of sparrow unit.

    Issues: Is the warrantless arrest valid? Is the warrantless search valid?

    Ruling: No. Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113, the officer arresting a person who has just
    committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal
    knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be committed in his presence or within his
    view. (Sayo vs. Chief of Police, 80 Phil. 859).

    There is no such personal knowledge in this case. Whatever knowledge was possessed by
    the arresting officers, it came in its entirety from the information furnished by Cesar
    Masamlok. The location of the firearm was given by the wife of Burgos (D).

    In arrests without a warrant under Section 6(b), however, it is not enough that there is
    reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. A
    crime must in fact or actually have been committed first. That a crime has actually been
    committed is an essential precondition. It is not enough to suspect that a crime may have
    been committed. The fact of the commission of the offense must be undisputed. The test
    of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator.

    In this case, the Burgos (D) was arrested on the sole basis of Masamlok's verbal report.
    Masamlok led the authorities to suspect that the accused had committed a crime. They
    were still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet ascertained. The subsequent recovery of
    the subject firearm on the basis of information from the lips of a frightened wife cannot
    make the arrest lawful. If an arrest without warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made,
    generally nothing that happened or is discovered afterward can make it lawful. The fruit
    of a poisoned tree is necessarily also tainted.

    PEOPLE VS. AMMINUDIN


    SUBJECT: M/V Wilcon; marijuana not caught in flagrante delicto; search was
    unreasonable; evidence inadmissible

    FACTS:
    The police agents in Iloilo City received a tip from a reliable informer that theaccused,
    Aminnudin, was on a vessel bound for Iloilo and is carrying with
    himmarijuana. The said vessel was to arrive few days after such tip.
    On the day of the arrival, the agents then waited at the port for the vessel. Uponarrival of
    the vessel and when the suspect disembarked, they immediately frisked himand
    searched his bag which contained the marijuana.
    Subsequently, the Aminnudinwas arrested. During the trial, the accused alleged
    that he was arbitrarily arrested and immediately handcuffed and that his bag was
    confiscated without a search warrant.
    ISSUE: Is the marijuana found in the accused bag admissible evidence?

    HELD: No. The police agents had enough time to secure a warrant to arrest and search
    the accused but did not do so. In addition to this, the arrest did not fall into any of the
    exceptions of a valid warrantless arrest because the accused-appellant was not,at the
    moment of his arrest, committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about todo so or

    that he had just done so.


    (COMPREHENSIVE EXPLANATION OF THE RULING)
    Tip they received from the informant was alleged to be 2 days prior the arrest. The
    present case presented no such urgency. From the conflicting declarations of the PC
    witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days within which they could have
    obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V
    Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was Identified. The date of its arrival was
    certain. And from the information they had received, they could have persuaded a judge
    that there was probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did
    nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law. The Bill of Rights was ignored
    altogether because the PC lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team, had
    determined on his own authority that a "search warrant was not necessary.
    In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was not, at the moment of his arrest,
    committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done
    so. What he was doing was descending the gangplank of the M/V Wilcon 9 and there was
    no outward indication that called for his arrest. To all appearances, he was like any of the
    other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It was only when the informer
    pointed to him as the carrier of the marijuana that he suddenly became suspect and so
    subject to apprehension. This is not inflagrante delicto.
    ACQUITTED.

    You might also like