Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 101 views

    People vs. Aminnudin

    Uploaded by

    AlphaZulu
    The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless arrest of Idel Aminnudin was not valid. Police officers arrested Aminnudin after receiving a tip that he would be carrying marijuana, but they did not obtain a warrant despite having two days to do so. Without a valid warrant, the arrest and subsequent search of Aminnudin's bag violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. As the marijuana evidence was obtained illegally, it should not have been admitted at trial. The Court overturned Aminnudin's conviction and ruled the warrantless arrest did not fall under any exceptions that would have made it legal.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Aminnudin

    Uploaded by

    AlphaZulu
    101 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless arrest of Idel Aminnudin was not valid. Police officers arrested Aminnudin after receiving a tip that he would be carrying marijuana, but they did not obtain a warrant despite having two days to do so. Without a valid warrant, the arrest and subsequent search of Aminnudin's bag violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. As the marijuana evidence was obtained illegally, it should not have been admitted at trial. The Court overturned Aminnudin's conviction and ruled the warrantless arrest did not fall under any exceptions that would have made it legal.

    Original Title

    PEOPLE VS. AMINNUDIN

    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 arrest of Idel Aminnudin was not valid. Police officers arrested Aminnudin after receiving a tip that he would be carrying marijuana, but they did not obtain a warrant despite having two days to do so. Without a valid warrant, the arrest and subsequent search of Aminnudin's bag violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. As the marijuana evidence was obtained illegally, it should not have been admitted at trial. The Court overturned Aminnudin's conviction and ruled the warrantless arrest did not fall under any exceptions that would have made it legal.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Aminnudin

    Uploaded by

    AlphaZulu
    The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless arrest of Idel Aminnudin was not valid. Police officers arrested Aminnudin after receiving a tip that he would be carrying marijuana, but they did not obtain a warrant despite having two days to do so. Without a valid warrant, the arrest and subsequent search of Aminnudin's bag violated his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. As the marijuana evidence was obtained illegally, it should not have been admitted at trial. The Court overturned Aminnudin's conviction and ruled the warrantless arrest did not fall under any exceptions that would have made it legal.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE VS.

    AMINNUDIN

    G.R. No. L-74869

    July 6,1988

    NATURE OF THE CASE: Warrantless arrest

    Cruz, J.:

    FACTS:

    On June 23, 1984, the PC officers of Iloilo City had received a tip from one of their informers that
    Idel Aminnudin will be carrying marijuana on board M/V Wilcon 9 that will be bound for Iloilo on June
    25, 1984. Acting on this tip, the PC Officers waited on Idel Aminnudin’s arrival. He was arrested shortly
    after the vessel has disembarked in Iloilo City. His bag was searched and the officers found what
    appeared to look like marijuana leaves which prompted them to take Aminnudin to their headquarters
    for investigation. The NBI had confirmed that what was in Aminnudin’s bag was marijuana leaves.
    Consequently, an information was filed against accused-appellant for the violation of the Dangerous
    Drugs Act. In accused-appellant’s defense, Aminnudin disclaimed the marijuana and averred that he was
    arbitrarily arrested and that his bag was searched without a warrant by the PC officers. He also alleged
    that he was manhandled by said PC officers to force him to admit that he was carrying marijuana. The
    trial court was unconvinced with accused-appellant’s allegations and was convicted. The Solicitor
    General dismissed accused-appellant’s allegation that he was arrested and searched without a warrant
    because it came under the purview of Rule 113, Section 6(b) of the Rules of Court on warrantless
    arrests, which made the search valid as it was incidental to a lawful arrest. Thus, this petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Aminnudin was within the purview
    of Rule 113, Section 6(b) of the Rules of Court.

    RULING:

    No, the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Aminnudin was not within the purview of Rule
    113, Section 6(b) of the Rules of Court.

    According to Section 2 of the Bill of Rights, "Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
    persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and
    for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
    probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
    the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
    and the persons or things to be seized."

    In the present case, there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant issued by a judge after
    personal determination by him of the existence of probable cause. Contrary to the averments of the
    government, the accused-appellant was not caught in flagrante nor was a crime about to be committed
    or had just been committed to justify the warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the Rules of
    Court. 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. Yet they did nothing. No effort was made to comply with the law.

    Without the evidence of the marijuana allegedly seized from Aminnudin, the case of the
    prosecution must fall. That evidence cannot be admitted, and should never have been considered by the
    trial court for the simple fact is that the marijuana was seized illegally. It is the fruit of the poisonous
    tree, to use Justice Holmes' felicitous phrase. The search was not an incident of a lawful arrest because
    there was no warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest did not come under the exceptions allowed by
    the Rules of Court. Hence, the warrantless search was also illegal and the evidence obtained thereby
    was inadmissible.

    You might also like