Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • T2 19 People v. Encinada

    Uploaded by

    Li Mar
    69 views1 page
    1) Appellant Roel Encinada was convicted of illegally transporting marijuana from Surigao City to Cebu based on a tip received by police that he would be arriving on a ship carrying marijuana. 2) Police followed Encinada after he disembarked and discovered marijuana packaged between two plastic chairs he was carrying. 3) The Supreme Court acquitted Encinada, ruling that the search was invalid because police did not have a valid search warrant, Encinada was not committing a crime in their presence, and the raw intelligence tip alone was not sufficient grounds for the warrantless arrest and search.

    Original Description:

    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
    1) Appellant Roel Encinada was convicted of illegally transporting marijuana from Surigao City to Cebu based on a tip received by police that he would be arriving on a ship carrying marijuana. 2) Police followed Encinada after he disembarked and discovered marijuana packaged between two plastic chairs he was carrying. 3) The Supreme Court acquitted Encinada, ruling that the search was invalid because police did not have a valid search warrant, Encinada was not committing a crime in their presence, and the raw intelligence tip alone was not sufficient grounds for the warrantless arrest and search.

    Copyright:

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

    T2 19 People v. Encinada

    Uploaded by

    Li Mar
    1) Appellant Roel Encinada was convicted of illegally transporting marijuana from Surigao City to Cebu based on a tip received by police that he would be arriving on a ship carrying marijuana. 2) Police followed Encinada after he disembarked and discovered marijuana packaged between two plastic chairs he was carrying. 3) The Supreme Court acquitted Encinada, ruling that the search was invalid because police did not have a valid search warrant, Encinada was not committing a crime in their presence, and the raw intelligence tip alone was not sufficient grounds for the warrantless arrest and search.

    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

    T2 19 People v.

    Encinada
    G.R. No. 116720, October 2, 1997, 280 SCRA 72

    FACTS: Appeal from a decision of the RTC convicting appellant Roel Encinada of Illegal
    Transpotation of prohibited drugs from Surigao City to Cebu, under Sec. 4 of R.A. 6425 as
    amended by BP 179.
    SPO4 Bolonia received a tip from an informant (4:00pm) that the appellant Encinada
    would be arriving in the morning of May 21, 1992 on board the M/V Sweet Pearl bringing with
    him “marijuana”. They were not able to secure warrant of arrest because the office was already
    closed. However, they still decided to pursue the apprehension of the appellant.
    Morning of May 21,1992, when M/V Sweet Pearl docked SPO4 Bolonia with his team
    followed the appellant carrying two small colored plastic chairs and boarded a tricycle. The
    appellant was chased and ordered the driver to stop, they inspect the plastic chairs and
    discovered that a package was place between; tearing the package they were convinced that it
    is marijuana because of the smell. They apprehended the appellant brought him to the police
    station and in the presence of a member of the local media, they opened the package and saw
    that indeed it contains dried leaves of marijuana.

    ISSUE: a) WON the evidence sufficiently shows the possession of marijuana by appellant.
    b) WON the search on the person and belongings of the appellant valid.

    HOLDING: SC ruled that proof of ownership of the marijuana is not necessary in the prosecution
    of Illegal drug case; it is sufficient that such drug is found in appellant’s possession.
    The court ruled acquitting the appellant, it reiterates the constitutional proscription
    that evidence seized without a valid search warrant is inadmissible in any proceeding. A guild of
    incriminating evidence will not legitimize an illegal search. Indeed, the end never justifies the
    means.
    In this case, appellant was not committing a crime in the presence of the policemen.
    Moreover, the Lawmen did not have personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person
    to be arrested had committed an offense. The search cannot be said to be merely incidental to
    a lawful arrest. Raw intelligence information is not sufficient ground for a warrantless arrest.

    You might also like