The Study of Law is 99 Percent Precedents and ...

"For many years that I have been 
creating databases 
for lawyers and judges

plus 

doing legal researches for them, 

this is my conclusion ... 

The Study of Law 

is 99% Precedents 
AND
Judgment will be based on
Analogical Reasoning."

- Alex A. Valdez, Author -

What is "stop and frisk" search?

A "stop and frisk" search is defined in People v. Chua[107] as "the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband."[108] Thus, the allowable scope of a "stop and frisk" search is limited to a "protective search of outer clothing for weapons."[109]

Precedents/Link/Source: 
[107] 444 Phil. 757 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
[108] Id. at 773-774.
[109] Malacat v. Court of Appeals, 347 Phil. 462, 480 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Jr., En Banc].

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

"... the search ... was considered valid ... with routine security measures in ports"

On the other hand, there are reasonable searches because of heightened security. 

In Dela Cruz v. People,[172] the search conducted on the accused was considered valid because it was done in accordance with routine security measures in ports.[173] This case, however, should not be construed to apply to border searches. Border searches are not unreasonable per se;[174] there is a "reasonable reduced expectation of privacy" when travellers pass through or stop at airports or other ports of travel.[175]

Precedents/Link/Source: 
[172] G.R. No. 209387, January 11, 2016 < http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/january2016/209387.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
[173] Id. at 22.
[174] Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 209387, January 11, 2016 16 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
[175] Id. at 17.
[174] Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 209387, January 11, 2016 16 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
[175] Id.

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

There are different hybrids of reasonable warrantless searches. There are searches based on reasonable suspicion ...

There are different hybrids of reasonable warrantless searches. There are searches based on reasonable suspicion as in Posadas v. Court of Appeals[170] where this Court justified the warrantless search of the accused who attempted to flee with a buri bag after the police officers identified themselves.[171]

Precedents/Link/Source: 
[170] 266 Phil. 306 (1990) [Per J. Gancayo, First Division].
[171] Id. at 307-312.

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

Failure to comply with the overt act test renders an 'in flagrante delicto' arrest constitutionally infirm.

Failure to comply with the overt act test renders an in flagrante delicto arrest constitutionally infirm. In Cogaed, the warrantless arrest was invalidated as an in flagrante delicto arrest because the accused did not exhibit an overt act within the view of the police officers suggesting that he was in possession of illegal drugs at the time he was apprehended.[81]

Precedents/Link/Source: 
Citing People v. Chua 444 Phil. 757 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

https://www.flickr.com/photos/imagensevangelicas/13960757915/in/photolist-ngEwWF-i4ECpZ-bxBMj1-bxBMjA-bxBMjC-5TZ2uS-wx2NVr-ficaQD-rWU4SC-4MmCWw-acJJZW-2Bh4Zc-7fJY74-p3VSK8-6Mjm6g-azEJ1F-7hDWRe-cMGw8U-4vdnhR-9RZFBe-wYoxV-ejviNg-bvYRK3-gPy47D-4zaxCh-dqyp6X-4pPQyh-ppTadb-FqEG9-ngoeWM-xvBxit-xvuTfN-xvuSjQ-xvuU5U-dYN2SV-wR6Hy1-ppT9Yo-pardKi-dspSf8-wR6H4d-qMF7Tg-6JzBfG-7UjdV4-pardEP-8ibN7n-ceYb9U-psM4nv-9vd9SE-7JUQFr-5EoEmv

What two elements must concur for a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be affected?

[F]or a warrantless arrest of in flagrante delicto to be affected, "two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he [or she] has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer."[80]

Precedents/Link/Source: 
[80] Id. citing People v. Chua 444 Phil. 757 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

There are three (3) grounds that will justify a warrantless arrest.

There are three (3) grounds that will justify a warrantless arrest. Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 5. Arrest Without Warrant; When Lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

The first kind of warrantless arrest is known as an in flagrante delicto arrest. The validity of this warrantless arrest requires compliance with the overt act test[79] as explained in Cogaed:

Precedents/Link/Source: 
[79] See People v. Cogaed, 740 Phil. 212, 238 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

"... there must first be a lawful arrest before a search is made.:"

A search incidental to a lawful arrest requires that there must first be a lawful arrest before a search is made. Otherwise stated, a lawful arrest must precede the search; "the process cannot be reversed."[78] For there to be a lawful arrest, law enforcers must be armed with a valid warrant. Nevertheless, an arrest may also be effected without a warrant.

Precedents/Link/Source: 
[78] People v. Racho, 640 Phil. 669, 676 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division].

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

There is no hard and fast rule in determining when a search and seizure is reasonable.

There is no hard and fast rule in determining when a search and seizure is reasonable. In any given situation, "[w]hat constitutes a reasonable . . . search . . . is purely a judicial question," the resolution of which depends upon the unique and distinct factual circumstances.[75] 

Precedents/Link/Source: 
[75] Valmonte v. De Villa, 258 Phil. 838, 843 (1989) [Per J. Padilla, En Banc].

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

WHAT are recognized instances of permissible warrantless searches laid down in jurisprudence?

The following are recognized instances of permissible warrantless searches laid down in jurisprudence: (1) a "warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest,"[73] (2) search of "evidence in 'plain view,'" (3) "search of a moving vehicle," (4) "consented warrantless search[es]," (5) "customs search," (6) "stop and frisk," and (7) "exigent and emergency circumstances."[74]

Precedents/Link/Source: 
[73] The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. RULES OF COURT, Rule 126, sec. 13 provides:
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything that may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
[74] People v. Cogaed, 740 Phil. 212, 228 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division], citing People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868, 879-880 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division].

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

"Searches and seizures are normally unreasonable unless ..."

In People v. Aruta,[68] this Court explained that the language of the Constitution implies that "searches and seizures are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest."[69] 

Precedents/Link/Source: 
[68] 351 Phil. 868 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Second Division].
[69] Id. at 878.

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

Reasonable searches and seizures fall outside the scope of the prohibition and are not forbidden.

"Conversely, reasonable searches and seizures fall outside the scope of the prohibition and are not forbidden."[67]

Precedents/Link/Source: 
[67] Valmonte v. De Villa, 258 Phil. 838, 843 (1989) [Per J. Padilla, En Banc].

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

The Constitutional guarantee does not prohibit all forms of searches and seizures.

The Constitutional guarantee does not prohibit all forms of searches and seizures.[65] 

Precedents/Link/Source: 
[65] People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868, 878 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Second Division].

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

"... failure to timely object to the illegality of an arrest ..." Q: What happened to the "admissibility of evidence seized"?

Nevertheless, failure to timely object to the illegality of an arrest does not preclude an accused from questioning the admissibility of evidence seized.[61] 

The inadmissibility of the evidence is not affected when an accused fails to question the court's jurisdiction over his or her person in a timely manner. Jurisdiction over the person of an accused and the constitutional inadmissibility of evidence are separate and mutually exclusive consequences of an illegal arrest.

Precedents/Link/Source: 
[61] Homar v. People, G.R. No. 182534, September 2, 2015 9 [Per J. Brion, Second Division]; Sindac v. People, G.R. No. 220732, September 6, 2016 10-11 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division]; People v. Racho, 640 Phil. 669, 681 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Second Division]; People v. Martinez y Angeles, 652 Phil. 347, 359 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division]. See Antiquera y Codes v. People, 723 Phil. 425, 432 (2013) [Per J. Abad, Third Division].

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

... the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused

"... the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused."

Precedents/Link/Source: 
People v. Escordial, 424 Phil. 627, 651-652 (2002) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc] citing People v. Timon, 346 Phil. 572 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

The voluntary submission ... active participation during trial cures any defect or irregularity ...

The voluntary submission of an accused to the jurisdiction of the court and his or her active participation during trial cures any defect or irregularity that may have attended an arrest.[59] 

Precedents/Link/Source: 
[59] People v. Lapitaje, 445 Phil. 729, 748 (2003) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, En Banc]; Rebellion v. People, 637 Phil. 339, 345 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

Lack of jurisdiction ... must be raised through a motion to quash before an accused enters his/her plea.

Lack of jurisdiction over the person of an accused as a result of an invalid arrest must be raised through a motion to quash before an accused enters his or her plea. Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived and an accused is "estopped from questioning the legality of his [or her] arrest."[58]


Precedents/Link/Source: 
[58] People v. Lopez, Jr. y Mancilla, 315 Phil. 59, 71-72 (1995) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division]. See Filoteo, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 331 Phil. 531, 578 (1996) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]; Rebellion v. People, 637 Phil. 339, 345 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V331] Veridiano vs PP

RA 9165 Free Download

Click >>> Download RA 9165 Free

Republic Act 9165 is also known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002". It is a Special Law in the Philippines.

Click >>> Download RA 9165 Free

After you successfully downloaded the file, uncompress it then run "RA-9165-Free-Version.exe"

If you are using Windows 10, you may experience this message,

click "More info" to bring you to this message box,

click "Run anyway".

If you have a virus scanner installed, its will start scanning for viruses.

Most of their results are "false positive" meaning they will claim that they have found a virus BUT their is NONE.

Most of these virus scanners are NAGPAPAPANSIN. If you downloaded our products directly using the link we suggested here then it is safe.

You may ignore your virus scanner or disable it. 

Click >>> Download RA 9165 Free

Before you install:

You should understand that "Anti-viruses software sucks"

There are thousands of anti-virus in the market today.

99.9% of these suck.

Small software developers like us are their victims with their "false positive" notifications.

Our software is clean BUT they will falsely notify you that our software has virus/malware.

However, these Anti-viruses Software could NOT specifically identify if it is a virus OR a malware.

If their notification has a scientific basis then WHY it can not identify the Name or Type of viruses?

*Anti-viruses software really suck.*

Click >>> Download RA 9165 Free








[exp20190101]

The presumption of regularity will never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

"The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties in favor of the police officers will not save the prosecution's case, given the foregoing lapses and gaps in the chain of custody. The presumption stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance, the presumption of regularity will never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused."

PRECEDENTS:
Link/Source: People of the Philippines v. Larry Mendoza y Estrada, G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014.

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V416] PP vs Rommel Diputado

Chain of Custody is the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs ...

"Chain of Custody is the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping and the presentation in court for identification and destruction."

PRECEDENTS:
Link/Source: People of the Philippines v. Sonny Sabdula y Amanda, G.R. No. 184758, April 21, 2014.

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V416] PP vs Rommel Diputado

Illegal drug's unique characteristic ... not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution...

"The identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise."

PRECEDENTS:
Link/Source: Lito Lopez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188653, January 29, 2014.

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V416] PP vs Rommel Diputado

floating free

https://www.flickr.com/photos/67194724@N03/21914662664/

It is essential that the illegal drugs seized from the suspect is the very same substance offered in evidence in court...

"The duty of the prosecution is not merely to present in evidence the seized illegal drugs. It is essential that the illegal drugs seized from the suspect is the very same substance offered in evidence in court as the identity of the drug must be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt."

PRECEDENTS:
Link/Source: People of the Philippines v. Vivian Bulotano y Amante, G.R. No. 190177, June 11, 2014.

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V416] PP vs Rommel Diputado

https://www.flickr.com/photos/imagensevangelicas/13960757915/in/photolist-ngEwWF-i4ECpZ-bxBMj1-bxBMjA-bxBMjC-5TZ2uS-wx2NVr-ficaQD-rWU4SC-4MmCWw-acJJZW-2Bh4Zc-7fJY74-p3VSK8-6Mjm6g-azEJ1F-7hDWRe-cMGw8U-4vdnhR-9RZFBe-wYoxV-ejviNg-bvYRK3-gPy47D-4zaxCh-dqyp6X-4pPQyh-ppTadb-FqEG9-ngoeWM-xvBxit-xvuTfN-xvuSjQ-xvuU5U-dYN2SV-wR6Hy1-ppT9Yo-pardKi-dspSf8-wR6H4d-qMF7Tg-6JzBfG-7UjdV4-pardEP-8ibN7n-ceYb9U-psM4nv-9vd9SE-7JUQFr-5EoEmv

It is however not enough that the prosecution merely establish the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

"It is however not enough that the prosecution merely establish the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It is well-settled that in the prosecution of cases involving the illegal sale or illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the evidence of the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug itself, must be independently established beyond reasonable doubt."

PRECEDENTS:
Link/Source: People of the Philippines v. Joselito Beran y Zapanta @ "Jose", G.R No. 203028, January 15, 2014.

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V416] PP vs Rommel Diputado

What is material ... is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, ... presentation in court of the corpus delicti.

"In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti."

PRECEDENTS:
Link/Source: People of the Philippines v. Glenn Salvadoy y Bal Verde, G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014.

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V416] PP vs Rommel Diputado

Appeal in criminal cases throws the whole open for review

"At the outset, appeal in criminal cases throws the whole open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned."

PRECEDENTS:
Link/Source: People of the Philippines v. Ramil Doria Dahil and Rommel Castro y Carlos, G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015.

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.
[2017V416] PP vs Rommel Diputado

In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review ... correct errors ... reverse the trial court's decision

"In criminal cases, "an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law."


PRECEDENTS:

Link/Source: See People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 225608, March 13, 2017, citing People v. Comboy, G.R. No. 218399, March 2, 2016, 785 SCRA 512, 521.


2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.

[2017V499] JEFFREY MIGUEL Y REMEGIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Bantay Bayan ... in the nature of watch groups ... have the color of a state-related function

"In this light, the Court is convinced that the acts of the Bantay Bayan or any barangay-based or other volunteer organizations in the nature of watch groups - relating to the preservation of peace and order in their respective areas have the color of a state-related function. As such, they should be deemed as law enforcement authorities for the purpose of applying the Bill of Rights under Article III of the 1987 Constitution to them."


PRECEDENTS:

See People v. Lauga, supra note 23, at 529-531.


2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.

[2017V499] JEFFREY MIGUEL Y REMEGIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Illegal search on the person ... must necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability.

Frisk and Kiss
source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterburge/14468828181/in/photolist-o3ywwR-7NMLj1-8dftJa-4sW9gb-aBCgj5-9oXC9q-6YEXZE-9SxHJL-9SxHZf-8dftwi-9KrskL-dCQ2qs-cgahTG-abyXu5-9SuQqx-cgaeeb-6f5oQQ-cgagXU-e4SG7F-4LjHBw-o5WvtQ-cgajJw-bqzZnR-cgamPJ-CQv39C-e4V6Eq-4dMW6-cgRjXA-cgSc2E-cgSdt9-5z71si-KiGrC-cgSaHo-5z724Z-oBXuxA-iYrTvM-cgakGN-cgag45-cgRk9y-e4PtrZ-d6fQo-71Vhpk-dRmPEo-cganm5-ojejmw-8KH7iG-KiQxD-qDhBuh-dnzEso-KiG3d

"All told, the Bantay Bayan operatives conducted an illegal search on the person of petitioner. Consequently, the marijuana purportedly seized from him on account of such search is rendered inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule under Section 3 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Since the confiscated marijuana is the very corpus delicti of the crime charged, petitioner must necessarily be acquitted and exonerated from criminal liability."

PRECEDENTS:

See People v. Manago, supra note 29, citing Comerciante v. People, supra note 31, at 641.

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.

[2017V499] JEFFREY MIGUEL Y REMEGIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Jurisprudence described Bantay Bayan as ... an accredited auxiliary of the PNP

"Particularly, jurisprudence described the nature of Bantay Bayan as "a group of male residents living in [the] area organized for the purpose of keeping peace in their community[, which is] an accredited auxiliary of the x x x PNP."

PRECEDENTS:

People v. Lauga, 629 Phil. 522,530 (2010), citing People v. Buendia, 432 Phil. 471, 476 (2002).

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.

[2017V499] JEFFREY MIGUEL Y REMEGIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence

"Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause, absent which, such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the meaning of said constitutional provision. To protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 3 (2),[28] Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. In other words, evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree."

PRECEDENTS:

See Sindac v. People, G.R. No. 220732, September 6, 2016, citing People v. Manago, August 17, 2016, G.R. No. 212340.

2017 Latest Application. READ Full Text.

[2017V499] JEFFREY MIGUEL Y REMEGIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.