Scribd
Upload
51 views1 page

PP Vs Molina

This case involves Nasario Molina y Manamat who were arrested for possession of marijuana. A police officer received a tip about a marijuana pusher in Davao City. When the officer approached Molina, who was holding a bag, and asked to search it, Molina said "if possible we will settle this." Upon opening the bag, dried marijuana leaves were found inside. Molina and the other appellant claimed the marijuana was seized unlawfully in violation of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court ruled the arrest did not fall under any exceptions to the warrant requirement, so the search was illegal. Therefore, the seized marijuana could not be admitted as evidence against the appellants.

Uploaded by

ron dominic dagum
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
51 views1 page

PP Vs Molina

This case involves Nasario Molina y Manamat who were arrested for possession of marijuana. A police officer received a tip about a marijuana pusher in Davao City. When the officer approached Molina, who was holding a bag, and asked to search it, Molina said "if possible we will settle this." Upon opening the bag, dried marijuana leaves were found inside. Molina and the other appellant claimed the marijuana was seized unlawfully in violation of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court ruled the arrest did not fall under any exceptions to the warrant requirement, so the search was illegal. Therefore, the seized marijuana could not be admitted as evidence against the appellants.

Uploaded by

ron dominic dagum
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/ 1

PEOPLE v. NASARIO MOLINA Y MANAMAT, GR No.

133917, 2001-02-19
Facts:
SPO1 Marino Paguidopon, then a member of the Philippine National Police detailed at Precinct
No. 3, Matina, Davao City, received an information regarding the presence of an alleged
marijuana pusher in Davao City.
At that point, accused-appellant Mula who was holding a black bag handed the same to
accused-appellant Molina. Subsequently, SPO1 Pamplona introduced himself as a police officer
and asked accused-appellant Molina to open... the bag.[13] Molina replied, "Boss, if possible we
will settle this."[14] SPO1 Pamplona insisted on opening the bag, which revealed dried
marijuana leaves inside. Thereafter, accused-appellants Mula and Molina were handcuffed by...
the police officers.
accused-appellants, through counsel... jointly filed a Demurrer to Evidence, contending that the
marijuana allegedly seized from them is inadmissible as evidence for having been obtained in
violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable searches... and seizures
Issues:
THAT THE MARIJUANA IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE FOR HAVING BEEN SEIZED IN VIOLATION
OF APPELLANTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
This brings us to the issue of whether or not the warrantless arrest, search and seizure in the
present case fall within the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Ruling:
SPO1 Marino Paguidopon, then a member of the Philippine National Police detailed at Precinct
No. 3, Matina, Davao City, received an information regarding the presence of an alleged
marijuana pusher in Davao City.
In holding a bag on board a trisikad, accused-appellants could not be said to be committing,
attempting to commit or have committed a crime.
It matters not that... accused-appellant Molina responded "Boss, if possible we will settle this"
to the request of SPO1 Pamplona to open the bag. Such response which allegedly reinforced
the "suspicion" of the arresting officers that accused-appellants were committing a crime, is an
equivocal... statement which standing alone will not constitute probable cause to effect an
inflagrante delicto arres... the Court holds that the arrest of accused-appellants does not fall
under the exceptions allowed by the rules. Hence, the search conducted on their person was
likewise illegal. Consequently, the marijuana seized by the peace officers could not be admitted
as evidence... against accused-appellants

You might also like