Practice question
In a warrantless buy-bust case, the required witnesses are nearby and readily available to observe the immediately ensuing inventory. They did not personally see the exchange or arrest, but the inventory and remaining safeguards are properly satisfied. The defense argues their failure to witness the actual arrest alone necessarily defeats compliance. Under Nisperos, which is best?
- They must always see the exchange itself regardless of the main opinion.
- Their location near the arrest makes them automatically disqualified.
- Witnesses are never needed if police claim good faith.
- They need not witness the actual arrest or seizure, but must be readily available at or near the place for the immediate inventory.
- Their presence eliminates every other chain requirement.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2014/ra_10640_2014.html — RA10640 Section1 amending RA9165 Section21(1).
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2022/nov2022/gr_250927_2022.html — Nisperos v. People, G.R.250927, November29 2022, MAIN en banc opinion and guidelines.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.