Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
from
unnamed
sources.
These
abovementioned
circumstances clearly belie a lawful warrantless arrest.
Considering that the arrest of accused-appellant
herein was unlawful, any search conducted on his person or
place of arrest which is an incident thereof, was also
unlawful. Perforce, any evidence recovered during the
unlawful search, being made without a warrant, becomes
inadmissible in evidence against accused-appellant and the
shotgun which was allegedly the fatal weapon cannot be
presented against him.
People v. Gerente: Where the police officer has seen the
dead body, and there was a witness who testified that he
saw the killing incident and they proceeded to the scene of
the crime, and the witness accompanied the police to the
residence of the accused person, such officer has probable
cause based on the knowledge of facts and circumstance
which would validate the warrantless arrest. Since there
was a valid warrantless arrest, the defendant may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be
used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a
search warrant.
People v. Acol: Where the police team was formed and
dispatched to look for the persons responsible for the
crime on account of the information related by Percival Tan
and Rene Araneta that they had just been robbed, Section
5(b) of Rule 113 is applicable. Thus, accused-appellant's
arrest was lawful, it follows that the search made
incidental thereto was valid.
Joseph C. Cerezo v. People of the Philippines: Wellentrenched is the rule that once a case is filed with the
court, any disposition of it rests on the sound discretion of
the court. In thus resolving a motion to dismiss a case or to
withdraw an Information, the trial court should not rely
solely and merely on the findings of the public prosecutor
or the Secretary of Justice. It is the courts bounden
duty to assess independently the merits of the motion, and
this assessment must be embodied in a written order
disposing of the motion. While the recommendation of the
prosecutor or the ruling of the Secretary of Justice is
persuasive, it is not binding on courts.
Even the most intelligent person may not have the skill in
law, especially the rules of procedure, hence, the accused
may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he
may not know how to establish his innocence.
People v. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1986): The 1973
Constitution now allows trial in absentia. The prisoner
cannot by simply escaping thwart his continued prosecution
and possibly eventual conviction provided only that: a) he
has been arraigned; b) he has been duly notified of the
trial; and c) his failure to appear is unjustified. Escape is a
waiver of the notice and constitutes unjustified failure to
appear at the trial. Trial will continue even in his absence
and most likely result in his conviction. The right to be
Baseco v. PCGG, GR. No. 75885: The right against selfincrimination is not applicable to juridical persons. An
individual may refuse to answer questions incriminating him
unless there is an immunity statute granted to him. This
does not apply to a corporation vested with privileges or
franchises, for it may not refuse to show its hands when
charged with abuse of its privileges. In fact, an officer of
the company cannot refuse to produce its records in its
possession, upon plea of self-incrimination, either of
himself or the company.
Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners, 28 SCRA 344:
The
right
against
self-incrimination
applies
to
administrative
People v. Olvis: The rule against self-incriminations does
not apply to mechanical acts because it is made to execute,
not meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain
physical attributes determinable by simple observations.
This include requiring the accused to submit to a test to
extract virus from the body, or compelling him to
expectorate morphine from his mouth, making her submit
to a pregnancy test, or requiring him to take part in police
line-up in certain cases. In each case, the accused does not
speak his guilt. It is not a pre-requisite in such instance
that he be provided with the guiding hand of counsel.
Villaflor v. Summers: Where a woman charged with
adultery, she can be compelled to undergo physical