Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 336 views

    People vs. Dequina

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Vale Cruz
    Nelida Dequina was charged with violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 after police officers witnessed her and two others carrying individual black bags that contained bricks of marijuana. Dequina claimed she only transported the drugs under threat to her daughter. The trial court convicted Dequina, which was affirmed on appeal. The issue is whether Dequina's warrantless arrest was valid. The Supreme Court held that the arrest was valid because Dequina was caught in flagrante delicto, or in the act of committing a crime, as she was transporting prohibited drugs at the time of her arrest. As the arrest was lawful, the subsequent warrantless search was also allowed as incidental to the lawful arrest

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Dequina

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Vale Cruz
    336 views1 page
    Nelida Dequina was charged with violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 after police officers witnessed her and two others carrying individual black bags that contained bricks of marijuana. Dequina claimed she only transported the drugs under threat to her daughter. The trial court convicted Dequina, which was affirmed on appeal. The issue is whether Dequina's warrantless arrest was valid. The Supreme Court held that the arrest was valid because Dequina was caught in flagrante delicto, or in the act of committing a crime, as she was transporting prohibited drugs at the time of her arrest. As the arrest was lawful, the subsequent warrantless search was also allowed as incidental to the lawful arrest

    Original Description:

    case 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?

    Nelida Dequina was charged with violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 after police officers witnessed her and two others carrying individual black bags that contained bricks of marijuana. Dequina claimed she only transported the drugs under threat to her daughter. The trial court convicted Dequina, which was affirmed on appeal. The issue is whether Dequina's warrantless arrest was valid. The Supreme Court held that the arrest was valid because Dequina was caught in flagrante delicto, or in the act of committing a crime, as she was transporting prohibited drugs at the time of her arrest. As the arrest was lawful, the subsequent warrantless search was also allowed as incidental to the lawful arrest

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Dequina

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Vale Cruz
    Nelida Dequina was charged with violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 after police officers witnessed her and two others carrying individual black bags that contained bricks of marijuana. Dequina claimed she only transported the drugs under threat to her daughter. The trial court convicted Dequina, which was affirmed on appeal. The issue is whether Dequina's warrantless arrest was valid. The Supreme Court held that the arrest was valid because Dequina was caught in flagrante delicto, or in the act of committing a crime, as she was transporting prohibited drugs at the time of her arrest. As the arrest was lawful, the subsequent warrantless search was also allowed as incidental to the lawful arrest

    Copyright:

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

    People vs Dequina

    Facts: Accused Nelida Dequina was charged for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, the
    pertinent facts of the case are as follows: P03 Masange along with two other companions were given a tip
    that a huge amount of marijuana will be delivered in the corner of Juan Luna and Rexabano Street in
    Tondo Manila. Being given the description of the purported carriers, P03 Masange et al. proceeded to the
    area and, a male and two females were seen getting off the taxi and carrying individual black bags. The
    officers went to the individuals and the three began to panic. One of them is accused Nelida Dequina who
    dropped the bag she was carrying, causing the zipper to open and revealed what seemed to be bricks of
    marijuana. The bags of her two other companion contained the same. Dequina raised as a defense that
    she only did what she did because she was under the gun, that her daughter was in the hands of the
    mastermind threatening her that something bad is to happen to her daughter if she would not complete
    what she is asked to do.

    The RTC convicted her party of the crime and was affirmed by the CA. Dequina and party 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. A
    search made without a warrant cannot be justified as an incident of arrest unless the arrest itself was
    lawful. 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: W/N the warrantless arrest of Dequina is valid.

    Held: Yes. The party of Dequina was in inflagrante delicto at the time of the arrest.

    Ratio: Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawful arrest without a warrant may be
    made by a peace officer or a private person under the following circumstances: 1. When the person to be
    arrested is in inflagrante delicto. 2. When the arresting officer is in hot pursuit. 3. When the person to be
    arrested is an escapee.

    Transport as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean to carry or convey from one
    place to another. 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 need not even open Dequinas 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.

    You might also like