Summary of the Case:
One night, Enrique Manarang noticed the accused appellant’s car running fast. After a while, a screech of tires was heard and thus, made the officer run out and investigate. Not so long, the car continued to run, so a hot-pursuit took place. Manarang then radioed the incident to the Police.
When the car was put to a stop, the driver rolled down the windows with his hands raised. The officers then noticed that it was the famous actor, Robin Padilla. While apprehended, because of the hit-and-run incident, the police saw the revolver tucked in the left waist of Robin. So, the police insisted that the gun be shown in the office if it was legal. The crowd had formed and Robin was shaking their hands and pointing to the police while saying “iyan kinuha ang baril ko”, as if it was in the movies. The gesture then revealed a magazine clip of a rifle which made the police suspect that there is a rifle inside the vehicle. Then the rifle was seen. The other firearms were voluntarily surrendered by Robin.
Now, Robin’s defense was that his arrest was illegal and consequently, the firearms and ammunitions taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule.
Robin Padilla was arrested, tried, and convicted for illegal possession of firearms. He was in possession of a .357 caliber revolver, Smith and Wesson with 6 live ammunitions, One M-16 baby Armalite Rifle with ammunitions, One .380 Pietro Barreta with 8 live ammunitions, and six live double action ammunitions of .38 caliber revolver.
Relation to Article3: Section 2.
Robin claimed that there was no search warrant or warrant of arrest thus, making his arrest illegal and the evidences inadmissible. The Bill of rights’ purpose is to put limit to the government’s power. In the People vs. Marti case, the government was not involved. In this case, the government is involved but it was not illegal.
Why? According to what’s written in the case, a peace officer or a private person may arrest a person: (a) when the person has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit and offense, (b) when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
The instances above clearly explain the legality of the arrest. Robin Padilla, my idol had first sideswept a balut vendor and the incident was heard by Manarang and he saw Robin fled away from the scene, thus, committing a hit-and-run. And Enrique Manarang was a peace officer.
When he was halted, the firearms were revealed to the police officers without their act of searching. The firearms were in “plain view”. And the firearms were found by the police in their pursuit of their official duties. And the police have the right as to where they are because they were in pursuit of Robin when they found the firearms.
One night, Enrique Manarang noticed the accused appellant’s car running fast. After a while, a screech of tires was heard and thus, made the officer run out and investigate. Not so long, the car continued to run, so a hot-pursuit took place. Manarang then radioed the incident to the Police.
When the car was put to a stop, the driver rolled down the windows with his hands raised. The officers then noticed that it was the famous actor, Robin Padilla. While apprehended, because of the hit-and-run incident, the police saw the revolver tucked in the left waist of Robin. So, the police insisted that the gun be shown in the office if it was legal. The crowd had formed and Robin was shaking their hands and pointing to the police while saying “iyan kinuha ang baril ko”, as if it was in the movies. The gesture then revealed a magazine clip of a rifle which made the police suspect that there is a rifle inside the vehicle. Then the rifle was seen. The other firearms were voluntarily surrendered by Robin.
Now, Robin’s defense was that his arrest was illegal and consequently, the firearms and ammunitions taken in the course thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule.
Robin Padilla was arrested, tried, and convicted for illegal possession of firearms. He was in possession of a .357 caliber revolver, Smith and Wesson with 6 live ammunitions, One M-16 baby Armalite Rifle with ammunitions, One .380 Pietro Barreta with 8 live ammunitions, and six live double action ammunitions of .38 caliber revolver.
Relation to Article3: Section 2.
Robin claimed that there was no search warrant or warrant of arrest thus, making his arrest illegal and the evidences inadmissible. The Bill of rights’ purpose is to put limit to the government’s power. In the People vs. Marti case, the government was not involved. In this case, the government is involved but it was not illegal.
Why? According to what’s written in the case, a peace officer or a private person may arrest a person: (a) when the person has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit and offense, (b) when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
The instances above clearly explain the legality of the arrest. Robin Padilla, my idol had first sideswept a balut vendor and the incident was heard by Manarang and he saw Robin fled away from the scene, thus, committing a hit-and-run. And Enrique Manarang was a peace officer.
When he was halted, the firearms were revealed to the police officers without their act of searching. The firearms were in “plain view”. And the firearms were found by the police in their pursuit of their official duties. And the police have the right as to where they are because they were in pursuit of Robin when they found the firearms.
No comments:
Post a Comment