What the ‘plain view’ cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification-whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to a lawful-arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused-and permits the warrantless seizure. Of course, the extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them; the ‘plain view’ doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges.

LAGMAN ET. AL vs. PIMENTEL III ET. AL, G.R. No. 235935, February 6, 2018

Facts: On May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216, declaring a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao for a period not exceeding sixty (60) days, to address the rebellion mounted by members of the Maute Group and AbuContinue reading “LAGMAN ET. AL vs. PIMENTEL III ET. AL, G.R. No. 235935, February 6, 2018”

XXIII. Right against Self Incrimination, Article III, Section 17

A. Purpose, Scope Cases; – Beltran v Samson, GR 32025, 23 Sep 1929 – to a determination of whether the writing from the fiscal’s dictation by the petitioner for the purpose of comparing the latter’s handwriting and determining whether he wrote certain documents supposed to be falsified, constitutes evidence against himself within the scope andContinue reading “XXIII. Right against Self Incrimination, Article III, Section 17”

XXV. Right against Excessive Fines, Cruel, Degrading and Inhuman Punishment, Article III, Section 19

RA 9745 – Anti Torture Act: Act Penalizing Torture and other Cruel, inhuman and Degrading Punishment and Prescribing Penalties therefore Sec. 12, RA 9745, Right to Physical and Psychological Examination Case: Maturan v COMELEC, GR 227155, 28 Mar 2017

XXVII. Right against Double Jeopardy, Article III, Section 21

Cases: – Melo v People, GR L-3580, 22 Mar 1950 – Ivler v Modesto-San Pedro, GR 172716, 17 Nov 2010 – Javier v Gonzalez, GR 193150, 23 Jan 23,2017 (Case dismissed on grave abuse of discretion) – People v Domingo, GR 204895, 21 Mar 2018 (effect of denial to speedy trial)

XXVIII. Right against Ex Post Facto Law, / Bill of Attainder, Article III, Section 22

Cases: – Salvador v Mapa, GR 135080, 28 Nov 2007 – Valeroso v People, GR 164816, 22 Feb 2008 – People v Mejares, GR 225735, 10 Jan 10 2018 – Bureau of Customs Employees Association (BOCEA) v Teves, GR 181704, 6 Dec 2011