Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 101 views

    Manalili v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Deborah Micah Perez
    This document summarizes a court case, Manalili v. Court of Appeals. The police conducted surveillance after receiving a tip that drug users were in an area. They encountered the petitioner who appeared intoxicated. When asked what was in his hands, the petitioner allowed the officer to examine his wallet, where crushed marijuana residue was found. The court ruled the search was valid under the exception of a search incident to a lawful arrest, as the police had probable cause to suspect the petitioner of drug use based on his appearance and behavior.

    Copyright:

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

    Manalili v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Deborah Micah Perez
    101 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case, Manalili v. Court of Appeals. The police conducted surveillance after receiving a tip that drug users were in an area. They encountered the petitioner who appeared intoxicated. When asked what was in his hands, the petitioner allowed the officer to examine his wallet, where crushed marijuana residue was found. The court ruled the search was valid under the exception of a search incident to a lawful arrest, as the police had probable cause to suspect the petitioner of drug use based on his appearance and behavior.

    Original Title

    23.-Manalili-v.-CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case, Manalili v. Court of Appeals. The police conducted surveillance after receiving a tip that drug users were in an area. They encountered the petitioner who appeared intoxicated. When asked what was in his hands, the petitioner allowed the officer to examine his wallet, where crushed marijuana residue was found. The court ruled the search was valid under the exception of a search incident to a lawful arrest, as the police had probable cause to suspect the petitioner of drug use based on his appearance and behavior.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    101 views3 pages

    Manalili v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Deborah Micah Perez
    This document summarizes a court case, Manalili v. Court of Appeals. The police conducted surveillance after receiving a tip that drug users were in an area. They encountered the petitioner who appeared intoxicated. When asked what was in his hands, the petitioner allowed the officer to examine his wallet, where crushed marijuana residue was found. The court ruled the search was valid under the exception of a search incident to a lawful arrest, as the police had probable cause to suspect the petitioner of drug use based on his appearance and behavior.

    Copyright:

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

    23. Manalili v.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 113447
    October 9, 1997

    Facts:

    At about 2:10 PM on April 11, 1988, Police Anti-Narcotics Unit of Kalookan City
    conducted surveillance along A. Mabini Street, in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. This was
    done after receiving information that drug addicts were roaming around said area.

    Upon reaching the cemetery, the policemen chanced upon a male person, the petitioner,
    in front of the cemetery who appeared high on drugs. The petitioner had reddish eyes and was
    walking in a swaying manner.

    Petitioner was trying to avoid the policemen, but the officers were able to introduce
    themselves and asked him what he was holding in his hands. Petitioner resisted. Policeman
    Espiritu asked him if he could see what the petitioner had in his hands. The petitioner showed his
    wallet and allowed the officer to examine it. Policeman Espiritu found suspected crushed
    marijuana residue inside. He kept the wallet and its marijuana contents and took petitioner to
    headquarters to be further investigated.

    The suspected marijuana was sent to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section for analysis.

    Issue: Was the search conducted illegal?

    Ruling:

    No, the search was valid. The general rule is a search and seizure must be validated by a
    previously secured judicial warrant; otherwise, such a search and seizure is unconstitutional and
    subject to challenge. Any evidence obtained in violation of this constitutionally guaranteed right
    is legally inadmissible in any proceeding.

    The exceptions to the rule are: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of
    moving vehicles, (3) seizure in plain view, (4) customs search, and (5) waiver by the accused of
    their right against unreasonable search and seizure. In these cases, the search and seizure may be
    made only with probable cause. Probable cause being at best defined as a reasonable ground of
    suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious
    man in the belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged; or the
    existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
    man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s)
    sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by is in the place to
    be searched.

    Additionally, stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another exception to the general
    rule against a search without a warrant. Stop-and-frisk is defined as the vernacular designation
    of the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for
    weapon.

    You might also like