Scribd
Upload
39 views1 page

People v. Aminnudin 163 Scra 402 (G.r. No. 74869)

In the case of People v. Aminnudin, the Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless arrest of Idel Aminnudin was invalid as he was not caught in the act of committing a crime and no warrant was obtained despite prior notification to the officers. The court emphasized the importance of the Bill of Rights in protecting individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Consequently, Aminnudin was acquitted of the charges against him.

Uploaded by

Joseph James Bacayo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
39 views1 page

People v. Aminnudin 163 Scra 402 (G.r. No. 74869)

In the case of People v. Aminnudin, the Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless arrest of Idel Aminnudin was invalid as he was not caught in the act of committing a crime and no warrant was obtained despite prior notification to the officers. The court emphasized the importance of the Bill of Rights in protecting individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. Consequently, Aminnudin was acquitted of the charges against him.

Uploaded by

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

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

AY 2024-2025

BACAYO, JOSEPH JAMES


JD-2B, Saturday, 5:00 PM – 8:00 PM

ATTY. ROBERTO RUBLICO


Professor

PEOPLE V. AMINNUDIN 163 SCRA 402 (G.R. NO. 74869)

FACTS:
Accused-appellant Idel Aminnundin was arrested on June 25, 1984, about 8:30 PM in Iloilo City when the
PC officers searched his bag and found what looked like marijuana leaves. The articles were taken to the
NBI for investigation and were then verified as marijuana. An information was for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against Aminnudin, went to trial and was then convicted.

As per the PC officers, they earlier received a tip from informers that accused-appellant was on board on
a vessel arriving in Iloilo City. Accused was then arrested on June 25, 1984 and then detained and inspected
his belongings. In his defense, accused disclaimed the marijuana, and alleged that he only brought his
clothing. He alleged that he was arbitrarily arrested and detained, confiscated and searched his belongings
without a warrant. He averred that he was even manhandled, tortured, and forced to admit that he
brought in such prohibited item. And that his purpose in visiting Iloilo was to sell watches. The trial court
dismissed accused's statements which was then raised up to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the warrantless arrest was valid.

RULING:

The court held in the negative. As per law, one of the requisites in a warrantless arrest is that the person
was caught in the act doing such crime (in flagrante). Here, there was no warrant of arrest or search
warrant issued by a judge after personal examination of probable. It was declared that the accused was
not committing a crime nor was it shown that he was about to do so or that he had just done so. He was
merely descending the gangplank of the ship and there was no outward indication that called for his arrest.
To all appearances, he was like any of the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel. It
was also discovered during the cross examination that the PC officers were notified of the information 2
days prior to the said arrest. As per the supreme court, this was enough time for the officers to obtain a
warrant of arrest of search warrant, yet they failed to act.

Furthermore, the high court stressed the importance of the Bill of Rights that the right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Hence, accused-appellant was acquitted in the case.

You might also like