Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Rodolfo Espano vs. Court of Appeals and People of The Philippines (G.r. No. 120431 April 1, 1998)

    Uploaded by

    Ei Bin
    78 views1 page
    Police officers received reports of drug pushing in Manila and witnessed the petitioner selling something to another person. When they approached, they found two plastic bags of marijuana on the petitioner. The petitioner then told the officers there was more marijuana in his house. At his house, the officers found ten more plastic bags of marijuana. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's arrest was lawful under the rules allowing arrest without a warrant when a crime is committed in an officer's presence. Therefore, the evidence of the marijuana found on the petitioner and in his house was admissible.

    Original Description:

    Constitutional Law 2 Case digest

    Original Title

    Rodolfo Espano vs. Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines [g.r. No. 120431 April 1, 1998]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Police officers received reports of drug pushing in Manila and witnessed the petitioner selling something to another person. When they approached, they found two plastic bags of marijuana on the petitioner. The petitioner then told the officers there was more marijuana in his house. At his house, the officers found ten more plastic bags of marijuana. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's arrest was lawful under the rules allowing arrest without a warrant when a crime is committed in an officer's presence. Therefore, the evidence of the marijuana found on the petitioner and in his house was admissible.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    78 views1 page

    Rodolfo Espano vs. Court of Appeals and People of The Philippines (G.r. No. 120431 April 1, 1998)

    Uploaded by

    Ei Bin
    Police officers received reports of drug pushing in Manila and witnessed the petitioner selling something to another person. When they approached, they found two plastic bags of marijuana on the petitioner. The petitioner then told the officers there was more marijuana in his house. At his house, the officers found ten more plastic bags of marijuana. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's arrest was lawful under the rules allowing arrest without a warrant when a crime is committed in an officer's presence. Therefore, the evidence of the marijuana found on the petitioner and in his house was admissible.

    Copyright:

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

    RODOLFO ESPANO vs.

    COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE


    PHILIPPINES [G.R. No. 120431 April 1, 1998]

    Facts: Pat. Pagilagan together with other police officers went to Zamora
    and Pandacan Streets, Manila to confirm reports of drug pushing in the
    area. They saw petitioner selling something to another person. After the
    alleged buyer left, they approached petitioner, identified themselves as
    policemen, and frisked him. The search yielded two plastic cellophane tea
    bags of marijuana. When asked if he had more marijuana, he replied that
    there was more in his house. The policemen went to his residence where
    they found ten more cellophane tea bags of marijuana. Petitioner was
    brought to the police headquarters where he was charged of possession
    of prohibited drugs.

    Issue: Whether or not the pieces of evidence were inadmissible

    Held: The Supreme Court held that Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of
    Court provides:

    Arrest without warrant; when lawful a peace officer or a private person


    may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

    When, in the presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is


    actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense . . .

    Petitioners arrest falls squarely under the aforecited rule. He was


    caught in flagrante as a result of a buy bust operation conducted by police
    officers on the basis of information received regarding the illegal trade of
    drugs within the area. The police officer saw petitioner handling over
    something to an alleged buyer. After the buyer left, they searched him and
    discovered two cellophane of marijuana. His arrest was, therefore, lawful
    and the two cellophane bag of marijuana seized were admissible in
    evidence, being fruits of the crime.

    You might also like