BVR & ASSOCIATES
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • VIRTUAL ASSISTANT
    • FINANCIAL PLANNING
    • ASSET MANAGEMENT
    • HUMAN RESOURCES
  • About
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • CONTACT US
  • SERVICES

a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer


People v. Cogaed, GR 200334, 30 July 2014

12/21/2020

0 Comments

 
 People v. Cogaed, GR 200334, 30 July 2014

FACTS:
 
At about 6:00 a.m. of November 25, 2005, Police Senior Inspector Sofronio Bayan, "received a text message from an unidentified civilian informer" that one Marvin Buya (also known as Marvin Bugat) "[would]be transporting marijuana" from Barangay LunOy, San Gabriel, La Union to the Poblacion of San Gabriel, La Union.
PSI Bayan organized checkpoints in order "to intercept the suspect." The jeepney driver disembarked and signalled to SPO1 Taracatac indicating the two male passengers who were carrying marijuana.
SPO1 Taracatac approached the two male passengers who were later identified as Victor RomanaCogaed and Santiago Sacpa Dayao. Cogaed was carrying a blue bag and a sack while Dayao was holding a yellow bag.
The Court of Appeals found that Cogaed waived his right against warrantless searches when "without any prompting from SPO1 Taracatac, he voluntarily opened his bag."
 
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure of marijuana as against the appellant
 
RULING: 
 No. Any evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Otherwise known as the exclusionary rule or the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, this constitutional provision originated from Stonehill v. Diokno. This rule prohibits the issuance of general warrants that encourage law enforcers to go on fishing expeditions. Evidence obtained through unlawful seizures should be excluded as evidence because it is "the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures." It ensures that the fundamental rights to one’s person, houses, papers, and effects are not lightly infringed upon and are upheld.
Considering that the prosecution and conviction of Cogaed were founded on the search of his bags, a pronouncement of the illegality of that search means that there is no evidence left to convict Cogaed.
Drugs and its illegal traffic are a scourge to our society. In the fight to eradicate this menace, law enforcers should be equipped with the resources to be able to perform their duties better. However, we cannot, in any way, compromise our society’s fundamental values enshrined in our Constitution. Otherwise, we will be seen as slowly dismantling the very foundations of the society that we seek to protect.
 
 
 



0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2018

    Categories

    All
    Agrarian Law
    Articles-of-incorporation
    By-laws
    Constitutional Law
    Criminal Law
    Law
    Persons And Family Relations

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • VIRTUAL ASSISTANT
    • FINANCIAL PLANNING
    • ASSET MANAGEMENT
    • HUMAN RESOURCES
  • About
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • CONTACT US
  • SERVICES