Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    People Vs Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, Feb. 22, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Noelle Therese Gotidoc Vedad
    This document summarizes the key points from a Philippine Supreme Court case, People vs Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233. It discusses when an object can be considered in "plain view" and subject to seizure without a warrant. Specifically, if a closed package proclaims or makes obvious its contents, the contents are in plain view. It also discusses that consent to a search must be voluntary, unequivocal, and specifically given without coercion in order to validate an otherwise illegal search. Whether consent was voluntary depends on the totality of circumstances, including characteristics of the person and environment where consent was given. The state has the burden of proving consent was freely and voluntarily given.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, Feb. 22, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Noelle Therese Gotidoc Vedad
    25 views1 page
    This document summarizes the key points from a Philippine Supreme Court case, People vs Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233. It discusses when an object can be considered in "plain view" and subject to seizure without a warrant. Specifically, if a closed package proclaims or makes obvious its contents, the contents are in plain view. It also discusses that consent to a search must be voluntary, unequivocal, and specifically given without coercion in order to validate an otherwise illegal search. Whether consent was voluntary depends on the totality of circumstances, including characteristics of the person and environment where consent was given. The state has the burden of proving consent was freely and voluntarily given.

    Original Description:

    Case

    Original Title

    Consented Search

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes the key points from a Philippine Supreme Court case, People vs Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233. It discusses when an object can be considered in "plain view" and subject to seizure without a warrant. Specifically, if a closed package proclaims or makes obvious its contents, the contents are in plain view. It also discusses that consent to a search must be voluntary, unequivocal, and specifically given without coercion in order to validate an otherwise illegal search. Whether consent was voluntary depends on the totality of circumstances, including characteristics of the person and environment where consent was given. The state has the burden of proving consent was freely and voluntarily given.

    Copyright:

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

    People Vs Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, Feb. 22, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Noelle Therese Gotidoc Vedad
    This document summarizes the key points from a Philippine Supreme Court case, People vs Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233. It discusses when an object can be considered in "plain view" and subject to seizure without a warrant. Specifically, if a closed package proclaims or makes obvious its contents, the contents are in plain view. It also discusses that consent to a search must be voluntary, unequivocal, and specifically given without coercion in order to validate an otherwise illegal search. Whether consent was voluntary depends on the totality of circumstances, including characteristics of the person and environment where consent was given. The state has the burden of proving consent was freely and voluntarily given.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, Feb. 22, 2007.

    An object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight. Where the object seized was inside a
    closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without
    a warrant. However, if the package proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive
    configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an observer, then the
    contents are in plain view and may be seized. In other words, if the package is such that an
    experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article,
    then the article is deemed in plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that
    the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject
    to seizure.

    Indeed, the constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal
    right which may be waived. However, it must be seen that the consent to the search was
    voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal detention and search, i.e., the consent was
    unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.
    The consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but must be shown by clear and
    convincing evidence. The question whether a consent to a search was in fact voluntary is a
    question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances. Relevant to this
    determination are the following characteristics of the person giving consent and the
    environment in which consent is given: (1) the age of the defendant; (2) whether he was in a
    public or secluded location; (3) whether he objected to the search or passively looked on;
    (4) the education and intelligence of the defendant; (5) the presence of coercive police
    procedures; (6) the defendant's belief that no incriminating evidence will be found; (7) the
    nature of the police questioning; (8) the environment in which the questioning took place;
    and (9) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting. It is the State which
    has the burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the necessary consent was
    obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given.[46]

    You might also like