Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 242 views

    Sindac v. People Digest

    Uploaded by

    MARGARETTE ANGULO
    Sindac was convicted of illegal possession of drugs based on evidence seized during his warrantless arrest. However, the court ruled that Sindac's arrest was invalid because the surveilling officers were too far away to have witnessed the alleged drug transaction or to have known for certain a crime was committed. As the evidence was seized during an illegal arrest, it was inadmissible and insufficient to uphold Sindac's conviction, which was therefore overturned.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sindac v. People Digest

    Uploaded by

    MARGARETTE ANGULO
    242 views1 page
    Sindac was convicted of illegal possession of drugs based on evidence seized during his warrantless arrest. However, the court ruled that Sindac's arrest was invalid because the surveilling officers were too far away to have witnessed the alleged drug transaction or to have known for certain a crime was committed. As the evidence was seized during an illegal arrest, it was inadmissible and insufficient to uphold Sindac's conviction, which was therefore overturned.

    Original Title

    Sindac v. People digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sindac was convicted of illegal possession of drugs based on evidence seized during his warrantless arrest. However, the court ruled that Sindac's arrest was invalid because the surveilling officers were too far away to have witnessed the alleged drug transaction or to have known for certain a crime was committed. As the evidence was seized during an illegal arrest, it was inadmissible and insufficient to uphold Sindac's conviction, which was therefore overturned.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    242 views1 page

    Sindac v. People Digest

    Uploaded by

    MARGARETTE ANGULO
    Sindac was convicted of illegal possession of drugs based on evidence seized during his warrantless arrest. However, the court ruled that Sindac's arrest was invalid because the surveilling officers were too far away to have witnessed the alleged drug transaction or to have known for certain a crime was committed. As the evidence was seized during an illegal arrest, it was inadmissible and insufficient to uphold Sindac's conviction, which was therefore overturned.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Invalid Warrantless Arrest

    Sindac v. People
    Margarette B. Angulo, JD2-A
    Issues:

     Whether or not Sindac’s conviction should be upheld.


     Whether Sindac’s arrest and the subsequent seizure of the evidence was valid.

    Facts:
    The PNP were conducting surveillance operations on Sindac’s alleged drug trade. From about 5-10
    meters away, the surveillance team saw Sindac meeting with Caň on, who sold and handed to Sindac
    a small plastic bag containing shabu, which was later verified via laboratory tests. After the
    transaction, the surveillance team rushed apprehend Sindac since they already suspected him to be
    have purchased shabu.
    The surveillance team frisked Sindac and asked him to empty his pockets and wallet to which they
    found the small packet of shabu. The policemen then arrested Sindac for illegal possession of
    dangerous drugs.
    Ruling:
    Sindac’s conviction could not be upheld. Article III of the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search
    and seizure must be carried out through a judicial warrant. A recognized exception of the rule is
    when a search and seizure is made after a valid warrantless arrest. In the case, the arrest was made
    after the search and seizure.
    A valid warrantless arrest requires that an officer himself a) witnessed the crime or b) knows for a
    fact that a crime has just been committed. Given the distance between Sindac and the officers, and
    the size of the evidence in question, the prosecution failed to establish that Sindac’s arresting
    officers had done either of the two.
    And since the shabu, the corpus delicti of the crime charged, was seized during an illegal arrest, the
    inadmissibility as evidence precludes conviction and Sindac’s conviction could not be upheld.

    You might also like