Scribd
Upload
204 views1 page

People of The Philippines, vs. Idel Aminnudin Y Ahni, G.R.No. 74869 July 6, 1988 Cruz

The defendant was arrested shortly after disembarking from a ship by Philippine Coast Guard officers without a warrant. The officers searched the defendant's bag and found what appeared to be marijuana leaves. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant's constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated. The officers had two days to obtain a warrant but did not do so. A search warrant is required unless a crime is caught in the act of being committed. Determinations of probable cause should be made by a judge, not law enforcement agents.

Uploaded by

Bion Henrik Priolo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
204 views1 page

People of The Philippines, vs. Idel Aminnudin Y Ahni, G.R.No. 74869 July 6, 1988 Cruz

The defendant was arrested shortly after disembarking from a ship by Philippine Coast Guard officers without a warrant. The officers searched the defendant's bag and found what appeared to be marijuana leaves. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant's constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure was violated. The officers had two days to obtain a warrant but did not do so. A search warrant is required unless a crime is caught in the act of being committed. Determinations of probable cause should be made by a judge, not law enforcement agents.

Uploaded by

Bion Henrik Priolo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

IDEL AMINNUDIN y AHNI,


defendant-appellant.
G.R.No. 74869 July 6, 1988 Cruz, J.

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.

FACTS: 
Accused was arrested shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 The PC officers who
were in fact waiting for him simply accosted him, inspected his bag and finding what looked
liked marijuana leaves took him to their headquarters for investigation. The two bundles of
suspect articles were confiscated from him and later taken to the NBI laboratory for
examination. When they were verified as marijuana leaves, an information for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against him. However, and it is Aminnudin’s claim that he was
arrested and searched without warrant, making the marijuana allegedly found in his possession
inadmissible in evidence against him under the Bill of Rights.

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.

You might also like