• Sign up
  • ‎What is Shvoong?‎
  • Sign In
    Sign In
    Remember my username Forgot your password?

Summaries and Short Reviews

.

Shvoong Home>Law & Politics>Case Digest People vs. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122 Summary

.

Case Digest People vs. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122

Book Abstract by: WritingNow360     

Original Author: Supreme Court of the Philippines
People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122   F:     Peter Lo , together with co-accused Lim Cheng Huat alias
Antonio Lim and Reynaldo Tia, were charged with a violation of  the Dangerous Drugs Act, for the transport of metamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu".  The drug was  contained in tea bags inside tin cans which were placed inside their luggages.  Upon arrival from Hongkong, they boarded the taxis at the airport which were apprehended by CIS operatives. Their luggages were subsequently searched where the tea bags were opened and found to contain shabu. Only Lo and Lim were convicted.  Tia was discharged as a state witness, who turned out to be a " deep penetration agent" of the CIS in its mission to bust the drug syndicate .   Issue:       W/N the search and seizure was legal.   HELD:  YES         That search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule.  One of the exceptions  thereto is a search of a moving vehicle.  The circumstance of the case clearly show that the serach 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.          It was firmly established from the factual findings of the court that the authorities had reasonable ground to believe that appellant would attempt to bring in contraband and transport within the country.  The belief was based on intelligence reports gathered from surveillance activities on the suspected syndicate, of which appellant was touted to be amember.  Aside from this, they were also certain as to the expected date and time of arrival of the accused from China via Hongkong.  But such knowledge was insufficient to enable them to fulfill the requiremnents for the issuance of a search warrant.  Still and all, the important thing is that there was probable cause to conduct the warrantless search, which must still be present in the case.
Published: February 18, 2008
Please Rate this Review : 1 2 3 4 5

Bookmark & share this post

.