Scribd
Upload
85 views2 pages

P V Aminnudin Digest

The document discusses a court case where a man named Aminnudin was arrested without a warrant for possession of marijuana. The court ruled that his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure were violated as the police had enough time and information to obtain a warrant before arresting him but did not do so. The court acquitted Aminnudin as a result.

Uploaded by

Juden Jae J. Castro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
85 views2 pages

P V Aminnudin Digest

The document discusses a court case where a man named Aminnudin was arrested without a warrant for possession of marijuana. The court ruled that his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure were violated as the police had enough time and information to obtain a warrant before arresting him but did not do so. The court acquitted Aminnudin as a result.

Uploaded by

Juden Jae J. Castro
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

PEOPLE VS AMINNUDIN

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. IDEL AMINNUDIN y AHNI


G.R.No. 74869 July 6, 1988

Facts:

The PC (Philippine Constabulary) officer received a tip


from one of their informers that the accused was on board a
vessel bound for Iloilo City and was carrying marijuana. He was
identified by name. Acting on this tip, they waited for him in the
evening and approached him as he descended from the
gangplank after the informer pointed at him. They detained him
and inspected the bag he was carrying. It was found to contained
three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by the
NBI forensic examiner. On the basis of the finding, the
corresponding charge was then filed against Aminnudin.

Issue:

Whether or not accused constitutional right against


unreasonable serach and seizure is violated

Ruling:

The Supreme Court Held that warrantless arrest allowed


under Rule 113 of the rules of court not justified unless the
accused was caught in flagrante or a crime was about to be
committed or had just been committed.

A vessels and aircraft are subject to warrantless searches and


seizures for violation of the customs law because these vehicles
may be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction before the
warrant can be secured.

In the present case, from the conflicting declarations of


the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days within
which they could have obtained a warrant to arrest and search
Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His
name was known. The vehicle was identified. The date of his
arrival was certain. And from the information they have received,
they could have persuaded a judge that there was a probable
cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did
nothing. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC
lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team had determine
on his own authority that a search warrant was not necessary.

The evidence of probable cause should be determined by


a judge and not law enforcement agents.

ACQUITTED

You might also like