Scribd
Upload
155 views1 page

People Vs Tangliben

1) Two police officers conducting surveillance at a bus terminal noticed Tangliben carrying a bag suspiciously. Upon inspection, they found marijuana leaves wrapped in plastic in his bag, weighing 30 grams. 2) Tangliben was found guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act by the trial court. He appealed, arguing the marijuana was obtained through an unlawful search without a warrant. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the search was legal as incident to a lawful arrest, since the officers witnessed Tangliben committing possession of marijuana, and they had to act quickly based on a tip without time to secure a warrant.

Uploaded by

sandy522
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
155 views1 page

People Vs Tangliben

1) Two police officers conducting surveillance at a bus terminal noticed Tangliben carrying a bag suspiciously. Upon inspection, they found marijuana leaves wrapped in plastic in his bag, weighing 30 grams. 2) Tangliben was found guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act by the trial court. He appealed, arguing the marijuana was obtained through an unlawful search without a warrant. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the search was legal as incident to a lawful arrest, since the officers witnessed Tangliben committing possession of marijuana, and they had to act quickly based on a tip without time to secure a warrant.

Uploaded by

sandy522
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PEOPLE VS. TANGLIBEN [184 SCRA 220; G.R. No.L-63630; 6 Apr 1990] !

"#$% Patrolmen Silverio and Romeo Punzalan were conductingsurveillance at the San Fernando Victory Liner Terminal. At around 9: !"m they noticed a "erson# $edel Tangli%en# carrying a traveling%ag who acted sus"iciously. They con&ronted him# ins"ected his %ag# and there they &ound mari'uana leaves wra""ed in a "lastic wra""er and weight () more or less. A &ield test was conducted on a little "ortion o& the mari'uana leaves and &ound "ositive result &or mari'uana.The accused was then ta*en to the Police +ead,uarters &or &urther investigations. The de&ense version was: +e was an em"loyee in the "oultry and engaged in the %usiness o& selling "oultry medicine and &eeds and including chi*s and used to conduct his %usiness in Taytay Rizal. That he never le&t on $arch - and on $ar. he went to Su%ic to collect a %alance o& P(!! &rom his customer thereat and to %uy something. +e was a%out to go home to $anila# however# he was ti"sy that he did not notive that the %us was only %ound &or San Fernando. ."on alighting at the Victory Liner at San Fernando# Pam"anga to wait &or a %us going to $anila# a "olice o&&icer a""roached him and %rought him to the munici"al %uilding. The "olicie o&&icer told him that i& was 'ust &or veri&ication i& was a mem%er o& the /PA. The RT0 &ound Tangli%en guilty o& violating sec.1 art. - o& the RA 21-3 or the 4angerous 4rugs Act o& (95-. I$$&'% 6hether or /ot there was an unlaw&ul search due to lac* o& search warrant. (')*% /o. Rule (( sec. 3 "rovides the a "eace o&&icer or a "rivate "erson may w7o a warrant arrest a "erson when in his "resence the "erson to %e arrested has committed# is committing# or is attem"ting to commit an o&&ense.

8t was contendedthat the mari'uana allegedly seized &orm the accused was a "roduct o& unlaw&ul search without warrant and is there&ore inadmissi%le in evidence. The S0 held that this contention is without merit %ecause one o& the e9ce"tions to the general rule re,uiring a search warrant is a search incident to a law&ul arrest. Thus# Sec. (- o& Rule (-2 o& the (9:3 Rules on 0riminal Procedure "rovides: Search incident to a law&ul arrest. A "erson law&ully arrested may %e searched &or dangerous wea"ons or anything which may %e used as "roo& o& the commission o& an o&&ese# without a search warrant. 8n the "resent case# the accused was &ound to have %een committing "ossession o& mari'uana and can %e there&ore searched law&ully even without a search warrant. Another reason is that this case "oses urgency on the "art o& the arresting "olice o&&icers. 8t was &ound out that an in&ormer "ointed to the accused telling the "olicemen that the accused was carrying mari'uana. The "olice o&&icers had to act ,uic*ly and there was not enough time to secure a search warrant. 6here&ore# the o&&ense committed %y the a""ellant is "ossession o& mari'uana under Sec. : o& RA 21-3 ;4angerous 4rugs Act o& (95-# as amended.<

You might also like