Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 111 views

    People V Lopez

    Uploaded by

    Bianca Paloma
    The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless search of Larry Lopez was valid for the following reasons: 1. Lopez was lawfully arrested for selling shabu to a confidential agent during a buy-bust operation, which is a valid form of entrapment. 2. Under the rules of criminal procedure, a person lawfully arrested can be searched without a warrant to find dangerous weapons or evidence of a crime. 3. Since Lopez's arrest was lawful, the warrantless search of his person that resulted in the discovery of marijuana was also valid as it was conducted incident to his lawful arrest.

    Copyright:

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

    People V Lopez

    Uploaded by

    Bianca Paloma
    111 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless search of Larry Lopez was valid for the following reasons: 1. Lopez was lawfully arrested for selling shabu to a confidential agent during a buy-bust operation, which is a valid form of entrapment. 2. Under the rules of criminal procedure, a person lawfully arrested can be searched without a warrant to find dangerous weapons or evidence of a crime. 3. Since Lopez's arrest was lawful, the warrantless search of his person that resulted in the discovery of marijuana was also valid as it was conducted incident to his lawful arrest.

    Original Description:

    m

    Original Title

    m

    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 Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless search of Larry Lopez was valid for the following reasons: 1. Lopez was lawfully arrested for selling shabu to a confidential agent during a buy-bust operation, which is a valid form of entrapment. 2. Under the rules of criminal procedure, a person lawfully arrested can be searched without a warrant to find dangerous weapons or evidence of a crime. 3. Since Lopez's arrest was lawful, the warrantless search of his person that resulted in the discovery of marijuana was also valid as it was conducted incident to his lawful arrest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    111 views2 pages

    People V Lopez

    Uploaded by

    Bianca Paloma
    The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless search of Larry Lopez was valid for the following reasons: 1. Lopez was lawfully arrested for selling shabu to a confidential agent during a buy-bust operation, which is a valid form of entrapment. 2. Under the rules of criminal procedure, a person lawfully arrested can be searched without a warrant to find dangerous weapons or evidence of a crime. 3. Since Lopez's arrest was lawful, the warrantless search of his person that resulted in the discovery of marijuana was also valid as it was conducted incident to his lawful arrest.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    777 People v Lopez

    November 14, 2018 GR Number 181441 J. Carpio


    Art. III Section 2 warrantless search and Bianca Paloma
    seizure
    Petitioners: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Respondents: LARRY LOPEZ

    Doctrine: The period of imprisonment imposed on the accused should not be a straight
    penalty, but should be an indeterminate penalty.

    Facts:
    1. That on or about 11:00 o'clock in the morning of November 1, 2003 in Baler, Aurora
    and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and
    there, unlawfully, feloniously and willfully have in his possession and control three (3)
    pieces of marlboro cigarettes packs, containing 6.20 grams of marijuana leaves and
    fruiting tops without any permit or license from the authorities.
    2. The prosecution established that on 1 November 2003, at around 10:00 a.m., a
    certain barangay official went to the Baler Police Station reporting the peddling of
    illegal drugs by appellant. A buy-bust operation was planned where PO1 Romeo
    Miranda (PO1 Miranda) was assigned as poseur-buyer. PO1 Miranda accompanied a
    confidential agent in going to the residence of appellant to buy P500 worth of shabu.
    Appellant told them that he would deliver the shabu in front of Ditha's Hardware in
    half an hour.
    3. The members of the buy-bust team strategically stationed themselves near the place
    of the transaction. At around 11:05 a.m., the appellant, driving his tricycle, arrived
    and the confidential agent waved at him to stop. PO1 Miranda and the confidential
    agent approached appellant, they talked for a moment, and the exchange took place.
    The agent handed the marked money to appellant, who simultaneously handed the
    sachet of shabu. Immediately thereafter, the agent handed the shabu to PO1 Miranda
    who then held the appellant.
    4. The other members of the buy-bust team rushed to the crime scene and arrested
    appellant. After apprising appellant of the Miranda Rights, PO1 Sonny Guzman (PO1
    Guzman) searched appellant's body which yielded dried marijuana leaves wrapped in
    two Marlboro cigarette packs and one cigarette foil.

    Issue/s: Ruling:
    1. Whether or not the warrantless search on Lopez was valid?? 1. YES
    Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:
    1. Section 12 of Rule 126 expressly provides that "[a] person lawfully arrested may be
    searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the
    commission of an offense, without a search warrant." In this case, the arresting
    officers were justified in arresting appellant as he had just committed a crime when
    he sold shabu to the confidential agent. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment
    which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting drug offenders.
    Considering the legality of appellant's warrantless arrest, the subsequent warrantless
    search resulting in the recovery of marijuana found in appellant's body is also valid.

    You might also like