Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People V. Valdez G.R. No. 129296 September 25, 2000 Facts of The Case

    Uploaded by

    Antonio Salvador
    26 views1 page
    The petitioner was charged with cultivating marijuana under the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced to death by lethal injection. Police received a tip about marijuana plants near the petitioner's hut. A team went to investigate and found 7 flowering marijuana plants near the petitioner's hut on public land. The petitioner admitted to cultivating the plants. However, the court ruled the arrest and search were illegal because the police failed to obtain a search warrant, despite having time to do so, and having sufficient evidence to convince a judge. As the search was illegal, the marijuana plants could not be admitted as evidence against the petitioner.

    Original Description:

    oblicon

    Original Title

    793 People v. Valdez [Salvador, A.]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioner was charged with cultivating marijuana under the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced to death by lethal injection. Police received a tip about marijuana plants near the petitioner's hut. A team went to investigate and found 7 flowering marijuana plants near the petitioner's hut on public land. The petitioner admitted to cultivating the plants. However, the court ruled the arrest and search were illegal because the police failed to obtain a search warrant, despite having time to do so, and having sufficient evidence to convince a judge. As the search was illegal, the marijuana plants could not be admitted as evidence against the petitioner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    26 views1 page

    People V. Valdez G.R. No. 129296 September 25, 2000 Facts of The Case

    Uploaded by

    Antonio Salvador
    The petitioner was charged with cultivating marijuana under the Dangerous Drugs Act and sentenced to death by lethal injection. Police received a tip about marijuana plants near the petitioner's hut. A team went to investigate and found 7 flowering marijuana plants near the petitioner's hut on public land. The petitioner admitted to cultivating the plants. However, the court ruled the arrest and search were illegal because the police failed to obtain a search warrant, despite having time to do so, and having sufficient evidence to convince a judge. As the search was illegal, the marijuana plants could not be admitted as evidence against the petitioner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Case No.

    793

    PEOPLE v. VALDEZ
    G.R. No. 129296
    September 25, 2000

    FACTS OF THE CASE

    Petitioner was charged with Section 9 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, and was sentenced to death
    penalty by lethal injection. The facts of the case are as follows:

    On September 1996, police officer Tipay was tipped by an informer about the presence of a marijuana
    plantation allegedly owned by petitioner Valdez in Nueva Vizcaya. The plants were allegedly near the
    petitioners hut. The chief of police of the province formed a reaction to team to uproot the plants and
    arrest the cultivator of the same. On the next day, they trekked to the place where the plants were being
    grown. Upon arrival, their informant pointed to the petitioner who was inside his nipa hut. They started to
    look around the area and saw seven (7) five-foot high flowering marijuana plants. The petitioner later
    admitted to the same. The police uprooted the plants and sent it to the Crime Laboratory for analysis.
    Upon identification as a prohibited drug, the appellant was taken into custody. It was also found out that
    the land where the plants were being cultivated is part of the public domain. Identified by the Department
    of Environment and Natural Resources.

    Petitioner contends that the search was unlawful and that there was no warrant of arrest or search warrant
    presented during the apprehension. On the other hand, the Solicitor General argues that there was no
    search and that the marijuana plants were in plain view of the police officers.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not the arrest and search were illegal

    HELD/RATIO
    As the Court ruled, there was no search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination of the
    existence of probable cause. From the declarations of the police officers themselves, it is clear that they
    had at least one (1) day to obtain a warrant to search appellant's farm. There was also enough evidence
    for them to convince the judge to grant them a search warrant. Therefore, the marijuana plants, as
    products of the illegal search and seizure, cannot be admitted as evidence.

    Prepared by: Antonio Dominic G. Salvador

    You might also like