Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 200 views

    14 People V Cogaed

    Uploaded by

    Sanjeev J. Sanger
    The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Victor Cogaed for illegal possession of drugs. There were two key issues: 1) whether the search and seizure of Cogaed's bag was valid, and 2) whether the seized drugs were admissible as evidence. The Court found that the search was not valid as it did not meet the requirements for a legal "stop and frisk" search. As the search was illegal, the exclusionary rule applied, making the seized drugs inadmissible as evidence. Without this evidence, there was no basis for Cogaed's conviction.

    Copyright:

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

    14 People V Cogaed

    Uploaded by

    Sanjeev J. Sanger
    200 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Victor Cogaed for illegal possession of drugs. There were two key issues: 1) whether the search and seizure of Cogaed's bag was valid, and 2) whether the seized drugs were admissible as evidence. The Court found that the search was not valid as it did not meet the requirements for a legal "stop and frisk" search. As the search was illegal, the exclusionary rule applied, making the seized drugs inadmissible as evidence. Without this evidence, there was no basis for Cogaed's conviction.

    Original Title

    14 People v Cogaed.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Victor Cogaed for illegal possession of drugs. There were two key issues: 1) whether the search and seizure of Cogaed's bag was valid, and 2) whether the seized drugs were admissible as evidence. The Court found that the search was not valid as it did not meet the requirements for a legal "stop and frisk" search. As the search was illegal, the exclusionary rule applied, making the seized drugs inadmissible as evidence. Without this evidence, there was no basis for Cogaed's conviction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    200 views2 pages

    14 People V Cogaed

    Uploaded by

    Sanjeev J. Sanger
    The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Victor Cogaed for illegal possession of drugs. There were two key issues: 1) whether the search and seizure of Cogaed's bag was valid, and 2) whether the seized drugs were admissible as evidence. The Court found that the search was not valid as it did not meet the requirements for a legal "stop and frisk" search. As the search was illegal, the exclusionary rule applied, making the seized drugs inadmissible as evidence. Without this evidence, there was no basis for Cogaed's conviction.

    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 2

    14 – People v. Victor Cogaed y Romana, G.R. No.

    200334 (July 30, 2014)


    III. D. Exclusionary Rules Under the 1987 Constitution (Sec 2-3, Art III)

    FACTS
    · Accused Appellant Victor Cogaed was on board a passenger jeepney, together with one Santiago Dayao, when
    the driver of the jeepney he rode disembarked upon an organized checkpoint and signaled to the police (SPO1
    Taracatac) indicating that the 2 male passengers Cogaed and Dayao were carrying marijuana.
    · The checkpoint was organized from a tip (text message) of an unidentified civilian informant that one
    Marvin Buya would be transporting marijuana to Poblacion La Union.
    · SPO1 Taracatac approached them and asked about the contents of their bags, to which they replied that they
    did not know. After the exchange, Cogaed opened the blue bag he was carrying, revealing 3 bricks of marijuana.
    Cogaed and Dayao were thereafter brought to the police station.
    · At the police station, the suspected marijuana was confiscated and brought for lab testing. It appeared that a
    total of 17k grams of marijuana were collected from Cogaed and Dayao’s bags.
    · Meanwhile, accdg to Cogaed’s testimony, he boarded a passenger jeepney from Balbalayan La Union to San
    Gabriel Poblacion La Union to buy a pesticide. In the jeep, he recognized his younger brother’s friend Santiago
    Dayao. Upon arrival at San Gabrial, Dayao allegedly asked for help in carrying his things (travelling bag and a
    sack), to which Cogaed agreed. This was when SPO1 Taractac approached them to ask the contents of the bag
    (to which they responded they did not know) and thereafter they were brought to the police station.
    · Both Cogaed and Dayao were charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA9165.
    · RTC: dismissed the case vs Dayao (because he was only 14 yrs old at that time and was exempt from criminal
    liability), but found Cogaed guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and P1M fine.
    · Note that the trial court initially found Cogaed’s arrest and warrantless search illegal. However, it found
    that notwithstanding the illegality, Cogaed waived his right to such irregularity when he failed to protest.
    · CA: affirmed RTC = Coaged waived his constitutional right when he voluntarily opened his bag.

    ISSUES
    1) WON there was a valid search and seizure?
    2) WON the seized marijuana be admissible as evidence?

    HELD: BOTH NO, judgment appealed from is reversed and set aside thereby acquitting Cogaed.
    Exclusionary rule or the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine = any evidence obtained in violation of [the right
    against unreasonable searches and seizures] shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
    The right to privacy is a fundamental right enshrined by implication in our Constitution. It has many dimensions.
    One of its dimensions is its protection through the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures in Article III,
    Section 2 of the Constitution

    1) NO, there was no valid search and seizure.


    As a general rule, searches conducted with a warrant that meets all the requirements of this provision are
    reasonable. This warrant requires the existence of probable cause that can only be determined by a judge.
    However, there are instances when searches are reasonable even when warrantless. The known jurisprudential
    instances of reasonable warrantless searches and seizures are:
    1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
    2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view,"
    3. Search of a moving vehicle
    4. Consented warrantless search
    5. Customs search
    6. Stop and frisk
    7. Exigent and emergency circumstances

    Stop and Frisk


    The search involved in this case was initially a "stop and frisk" search, but it did not comply with all the
    requirements of reasonability required by the Constitution.
    "Stop and frisk" searches are necessary for law enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be given the legal
    arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses. However, this should be balanced with the need to protect the
    privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. The balance lies in the concept of
    "suspiciousness" present in the situation where the police officer finds himself or herself in. x x x Clearly, a basic
    criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the
    suspicion of an illicit act. It does not have to be probable cause, but it cannot be mere suspicion. It has to be a
    “genuine reason” to serve the purposes of the stop and frisk exception.

    The case of Cogaed was different. He was simply a passenger carrying a bag and traveling aboarda
    jeepney. There was nothing suspicious, moreover, criminal, about riding a jeepney or carrying a bag. The
    assessment of suspicion was not made by the police officer but by the jeepney driver. It was the driver
    who signalled to the police that Cogaed was "suspicious."

    Lawful Arrest
    Moreover, the facts of this case do not qualify as a search incidental to a lawful arrest. None of the instances
    enumerated in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court were present when the arrest was made.

    Waiver of Rights
    There can be no valid waiver of Cogaed’s constitutional rights. Appellant’s silence should not be lightly taken as
    consent to such search. The implied acquiescence to the search, if there was any, could not have been more than
    mere passive conformity given under intimidating or coercive circumstances and is thus considered no consent at
    all within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.

    2) NO, the sized marijuana should NOT be admissible in evidence.


    The Constitution provides: “Any evidence obtained in violation of [the right against unreasonable searches and
    seizures] shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.” (Art. III Sec. 3b)

    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.

    You might also like