Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People Vs Chi Chan Liu

    Uploaded by

    Alexa Torrillo
    760 views2 pages
    - Police officers in the Philippines received a tip about a suspicious boat and spotted two boats transferring plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance later identified as 46.6 kg of shabu. The appellants were apprehended as they tried to bribe the officers. - The court ruled the arrest was valid as it was done in flagrante delicto, or during the actual commission of a crime. The warrantless search and seizure of the bags in plain view was also valid under the plain view doctrine. - The plain view doctrine allows seizure of evidence in open view if the officer has a right to be in that position and discovery is inadvertent. This applied as officers saw the transfer while investigating a tip and discovery of

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    [8] People vs Chi Chan Liu

    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
    - Police officers in the Philippines received a tip about a suspicious boat and spotted two boats transferring plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance later identified as 46.6 kg of shabu. The appellants were apprehended as they tried to bribe the officers. - The court ruled the arrest was valid as it was done in flagrante delicto, or during the actual commission of a crime. The warrantless search and seizure of the bags in plain view was also valid under the plain view doctrine. - The plain view doctrine allows seizure of evidence in open view if the officer has a right to be in that position and discovery is inadvertent. This applied as officers saw the transfer while investigating a tip and discovery of

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    760 views2 pages

    People Vs Chi Chan Liu

    Uploaded by

    Alexa Torrillo
    - Police officers in the Philippines received a tip about a suspicious boat and spotted two boats transferring plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance later identified as 46.6 kg of shabu. The appellants were apprehended as they tried to bribe the officers. - The court ruled the arrest was valid as it was done in flagrante delicto, or during the actual commission of a crime. The warrantless search and seizure of the bags in plain view was also valid under the plain view doctrine. - The plain view doctrine allows seizure of evidence in open view if the officer has a right to be in that position and discovery is inadvertent. This applied as officers saw the transfer while investigating a tip and discovery of

    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 2

    PEOPLE vs.

    CHI CHAN LIU


    G.R. No. 189272, January 21, 2015

    FACTS:

    Police Officers Lazaro Paglicawan and Isagani Yuzon received a radio message from the Barangay
    Captain of Ambil Island that a suspicious looking boat was seen somewhere within the vicinity of said
    island. Immediately the police officers headed towards the specified location wherein they spotted 2
    boats anchored side by side transferring transparent plastic bags containing a white, crystalline
    substance later positively identified as 46.6 kilograms of shabu. The appellants were apprehended and
    tried to bribe the arresting officers. After investigation, appellants and the drugs were later turned over
    to the proper authorities. Due to the language barrier, an interpreter was given them to inform and
    explain their rights under Philippine laws inclusive of the right to remain silent, the right to counsel, as
    well as the right to be informed of the charges against them, and the consequences thereof .Appellants
    pleaded not guilty. The trial court found appellants guilty. On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the
    Decision of the RTC.

    ISSUE:
    Whether there was a violation of respondents’ constitutionjal right on unreasonable search and if the
    warrantless arrest and search and seizure of their persons and possession was unjustified so as to make the
    confiscated bags inadmissible as evidence against them?

    RULING:
    NO. There was no violation of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. In
    this case, appellants were actually committing a crime and were caught by the apprehending officers in
    flagrante delicto. Records reveal that on the date of their arrest, the apprehending officers, while acting
    upon a report from the Barangay Captain, spotted appellants transferring cargo from one boat to
    another. The police officers found them with the illegal drugs plainly exposed to the view of the officers.
    These circumstances are judicially recognized exceptions to the requirement of obtaining a search
    warrant.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    -In this case, appellants were actually committing a crime and were caught by the apprehending officers
    in flagrante delicto. As previously stated, the records reveal that on the date of their arrest, the
    apprehending officers, while acting upon a report from the Barangay Captain, spotted appellants
    transferring cargo from one boat to another. However, one of the boats hastily sped away when they
    drew closer to the appellants, naturally arousing the suspicion of the officers. Soon after, the police
    officers found them with the illegal drugs plainly exposed to the view of the officers. When they
    requested appellants to show proper documentation as to their identity as well as their purpose for
    being there, appellants refused to show them anything much less respond to any of their questions. In
    fact, when the officers were transporting appellants and the illegal drugs to the shore, the appellant Chi
    Chan Liu even repeatedly offered the arresting officers “big, big amount of money.” Hence, the
    circumstances prior to and surrounding the arrest of appellants clearly show that they were arrested
    when they were actually committing a crime within the view of the arresting officers, who had
    reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed.

    -In addition, this Court does not find the consequent warrantless search and seizure conducted on
    appellants unreasonable in view of the fact that the bags containing the regulated drugs were in plain
    view of the arresting officers, one of the judicially recognized exceptions to the requirement of obtaining
    a search warrant.

    Summary:
    -Arrest was valid because it was done in flagrante delicto which falls under Sec5 rule 113
    -Search and seizure of plastic bags containing shabu was valid due to the plain view doctrine.

    Plain View Doctrine- objects falling in the plain view of an officer, who has a right to be in the
    position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.45 It applies when the
    following requisites concur:
    (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a
    position from which he can view a particular area;
    (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and
    (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
    contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.
    The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a
    position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came
    inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The
    object must be open to eye and hand, and its discovery inadvertent.
    Rule 113, Sec 5
    Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.·A peace officer of 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.
    This Court has ruled that for an arrest to fall under the above exception, two (2) elements must be present:
    (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating
    that he 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.

    You might also like