Scribd
Upload
107 views1 page

Rule 113-114

In the case of Luz vs People, the Supreme Court held that Luz was not lawfully arrested for a traffic violation. While waiting for his citation to be written, Luz could not be considered under arrest. The officer noticed Luz seemed uneasy and found illegal drugs in his pocket, but the arrest and search were still considered invalid. The conviction was therefore reversed.

Uploaded by

Dyan Lazo
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
107 views1 page

Rule 113-114

In the case of Luz vs People, the Supreme Court held that Luz was not lawfully arrested for a traffic violation. While waiting for his citation to be written, Luz could not be considered under arrest. The officer noticed Luz seemed uneasy and found illegal drugs in his pocket, but the arrest and search were still considered invalid. The conviction was therefore reversed.

Uploaded by

Dyan Lazo
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

RULE 113

LUZ VS PEOPLE

In the case of Luz vs People, decided in the year 2012, on the issue of whether or
not Luz be considered lawfully arrested based on traffic violation under the city
ordinance, and such arrest lead to a valid search and seizure. The Supreme
Court held that NO, Luz was not lawfully arrested. Here, when Rodel Luz was
flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely
for this reason, arrested. At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write
his citation ticket, petitioner could not be said to have been under arrest. There
was no intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to arrest him, deprive him of his
liberty, or take him into custody. Prior to the issuance of the ticket, the period
during which petitioner was at the police station may be characterized merely as
waiting time. While issuing a citation ticket for violation of municipal ordinance,
PO3 Alteza noticed that Luz was uneasy and kept on getting something from his
jacket. The accused was obliged to put out the contents of the pocket of his
jacket that included two (2) plastic sachets of suspected shabu. The RTC
convicted petitioner of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Court of appeals
affirmed but Supreme Court reversed the decision.

RULE 114
Juan Ponce Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan
In the case of Enrile vs Sandiganbayan, decided in the year 2015, on the issue of
whether or not Enrile can post bail, the Supreme Court held yes. Here, Senator Juan Ponce
Enrile was charged by the Office of the Ombudsman with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of
his purported involvement in the diversion and misuse of appropriations under the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). The case is a petition for certiorari to annul the decision of the
Sandiganbayan denying his Motion to fix bail. The national commitment to uphold the fundamental
human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person has authorized the grant of bail not
only to those charged in criminal proceedings but also to extradites upon a clear and convincing
showing: (1) that the detainee will not be a flight risk or danger to the community; and (2) that there
exist special, humanitarian and compelling circumstances. The Court argued that his social and political
standing and his having immediately surrendered to the authorities upon being charged in court indicate
that the risk of his flight from this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. The currently fragile state of Enrile’s
health is a compelling justification for his admission to bail.

You might also like