[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
920 views2 pages

691 - People v. Lo Ho Wing - 88017

This case involved the search and seizure of shabu found inside tin cans in a taxi occupied by Lo Ho Wing and others. The authorities conducted the search based on intelligence reports and surveillance of a suspected drug syndicate. Lo Ho Wing argued the search was illegal because no warrant was obtained. However, the court ruled the search fell under the exception for searches of moving vehicles. There are three recognized exceptions where a warrant is not needed: 1) a search incident to arrest, 2) a search of a moving vehicle, and 3) seizure of evidence in plain view. As the search here involved a moving taxi, no warrant was required. The conviction of Lo Ho Wing and the others was affirmed.

Uploaded by

Brian Kelvin Pineda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
920 views2 pages

691 - People v. Lo Ho Wing - 88017

This case involved the search and seizure of shabu found inside tin cans in a taxi occupied by Lo Ho Wing and others. The authorities conducted the search based on intelligence reports and surveillance of a suspected drug syndicate. Lo Ho Wing argued the search was illegal because no warrant was obtained. However, the court ruled the search fell under the exception for searches of moving vehicles. There are three recognized exceptions where a warrant is not needed: 1) a search incident to arrest, 2) a search of a moving vehicle, and 3) seizure of evidence in plain view. As the search here involved a moving taxi, no warrant was required. The conviction of Lo Ho Wing and the others was affirmed.

Uploaded by

Brian Kelvin Pineda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

691 People v.

Lo Ho Wing

Date January 21, 1991 GR Number 88017||| Ponente


GANCAYCO J.

Article 3, Section 2 BRIAN PINEDA


Petitioners: People Respondents: . Lo Ho Wing
Doctrine:
There are at least three (3) well-recognized exceptions thereto. As set forth in the case of
Manipon, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, these are:

[1] a search incidental to an arrest,


[2] a search of a moving vehicle, and
[3] seizure of evidence in plain view (emphasis supplied).

FACTS:

Lo with Tia (government’s agent) went to China where they secured the shabu to be brought
to the Philippines. Upon their arrival in the Philippines, Lim met them. The authorities relying
on the intelligence reports gathered from surveillance activities on the suspected syndicate
apprehended them in a taxicab and thereafter were searched. The authorities found shabu
inside the tin cans which are supposed to contain tea. They were charged with a violation of
the Dangerous Drugs Act. The trial court then convicted them based on the factual findings.

Issue/s: Ruling:
1) WON the search and seizure made against the accused was 1. Yes
illegal.
Rationale:

The appellant contends that the authorities could have procured a warrant search. As
correctly averred by appellee, that search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant
is not an absolute rule.

There are at least three (3) well-recognized exceptions thereto. As set forth in the case of
Manipon, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, these are:

[1] a search incidental to an arrest,


[2] a search of a moving vehicle, and
[3] seizure of evidence in plain view (emphasis supplied).

The circumstances of the case clearly show that the search in question was made as regards a
moving vehicle. Therefore, a valid warrant was not necessary to effect the search on
appellant and his co-accused. , We cite with approval the averment of the Solicitor General,
as contained in the appellee's brief, that the rules governing search and seizure have over the
years been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search on the
basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant could be obtained, the place,
things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing
judge—a requirement which borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by
the use of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one place to another with
impunity. AFFIRMED.

You might also like