Você está na página 1de 26



Mijares v. Ranada

Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills

Human rights and right to life are superior to right to property.

Tupas v. CA
Observance of both substantive and procedural rights is equally guaranteed by due process.

Banco Espaol-Filipino v. Palanca

The failure of the clerk to send the notice to the defendant by mail did not destroy the jurisdiction of the Court and that such irregularity did not infringe the requirement of due process of law.

Elements of Due Process:

1. 2. 3. 4. Court clothed with jurisdiction to hear and decide the case Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person or property Defendant is given the chance to be heard Judgement is rendered upon hearing

State Prosecutors v. Muro People v. Teehankee, Jr. Ang Tibay v. CIR

Requisites of Administrative Due Process: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Right to hearing and submit evidence Tribunal must consider evidence Need for evidence to support the decision Supporting evidence must be substantial Decision must be rendered on evidence presented CIR must act independently in deciding cases, and not simply accept views of a subordinate Explicate reasons behind the decision

Government of HK v. Olalia
The applicable standard of due process, however, should not be the same as that in criminal proceedings. In the latter, the standard of due process is premised on the presumption of innocence of the accused. As Purganan correctly points out, it is from this premise that the ancillary presumption in favor of admitting to bail arises. Bearing in mind the


purpose of extradition proceedings, the premise behind the issuance of the warrant of arrest and the temporary detention is the possibility of flight of the potential extraditee. This is based on the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. The potential extraditee must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk and will abide by all the orders and processes of the extradition court.

ADMU v. Capulong
Guidelines: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. inform the student in writing Right to answer with counsel assistance Informed of evidence against them Right to present own evidence Evidence must be duly considered by investigating committee who may teach what may be taught how shall it be taught who may be admitted to study

Academic Freedom:

Lao Gi v. CA
The power to deport an alien is an act of the State. It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good and domestic tranquility of the people. A deportation proceeding affects freedom and liberty of a person. The Rules of Criminal Procedure is applicable in deportation proceedings. Procedure: 1. 2. 3. 4. Inform about the threat of arrest Allow to answer charges against them Warrant of arrest can only be issued against them thereafter with cause No private prosecutor because its a summary proceeding

Maceda v. ERB
Price fixing is considered as exercising quasi-legislative function.

Globe v. NTC Corona v. UHPAP

Profession is a property right.

People v. Nazario
A vague statute is one that lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning. It is repugnant to the constitution if it:


1. violates due process for failure to accord notice of the conduct to avoid; and 2. it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes arbitrary flexing fo the government muscles.

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
When a statute lacks comprehensible standards, it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially persons targeted by it, fair notice of conduct to avoid, and it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes arbitrary flexing of government muscles.

CB v. CA
Prior notice and hearing are not required before placement of bank under receivership.

ABAKADA v. Ermita British American Tobacco v. Camacho


US v. Toribio
This was the case involving slaughtering of carabaos without the necessary permit from the municipal treasurer. The accused assailed the constitutionality of the law prohibiting such. SC held that this is a valid exercise of police power. It satisfies the two requisites: 1. it must appear that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference [LAWFUL SUBJECT] 2. that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. [LAWFUL METHOD]

Churchill and Tait v. Rafferty (1915)

All kinds of property are subject to Police power. Police power may regulate and restrict uses of private property when devoted to advertising which is offensive to the sight. In this case, police power was used to regulate billboard along public thoroughfares which are offensive to the sight (e.g. Bench-Phil Volcanoes Billboard). This is to insure the public safety/welfare so that people wont get distracted while driving. Furthermore, it is the right of the public that they properly enjoy the outdoor life without the billboards marring the landscapes and civic beauty. Summary: Churchill was being collected with his annual property tax under Act 2339 but he asked and was granted injunction by the lower court. He claims that the source of the tax was invalid. Rafferty, under Act 2339, was also removing/destroying the billboard of Churchill because it was offensive to the sight. Court said Raffertys actions are lawful as it is an exercise of Police Power for the public welfare

People v. Fajardo
Fajardo was the incumbent mayor when Ordinance 7 was passed requiring all persons to first secure a construction permit from the mayor before commencing any construction or repairs. He and his son in law requested for a permit to construct a building (after his term) on a parcel of land which they owned. They were denied several times


because the said building would obstruct the view of the plaza. Respondents continued to build a residence in the said land and were later on charged with the violation of said Ordinance. SC held that the Ordinance is invalid. Ordinances which allow pure discretionary power on the authority without set standards and limits are invalid. The state may not under the guise of police power, permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them solely to preserve or assure aesthetic appearance of the community.

Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila
Police power measures aimed to safeguard public morals is immune from imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture unsupported by substantial evidence Power to exact a fee is a part of the power to license and regulate The right of the individual is necessarily subject to reasonable restraint by general law for the common good

Ynot v. Intermidiate Court of appeals

Lower courts have authority to resolve issues of constitutionality of legislative measures subject for review by the Supreme Court. Circumstances justifying the use of Police Power: 1. That the interest of the public generally require such interference 2. Means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose

Balacuit v. CFI Agusan del Norte

Police power practiced by municipal corporations derives its authority from the Revised Administrative Code. Only the state has inherent police power. Requirements in the exercise of police power: (1) it must appear that the interest of the public generally requires an interference with private rights (2) means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals The legislature must not arbitrarily use the power to impose unusual and unnecessary restrictions upon lawful occupations. When the requisites are lacking, interference with the legitimate exercise of property rights will not be allowed. A police measure for the regulation of conduct should not encroach upon the legitimate and lawful exercise of property right. The exercise of police power is valid unless it contravenes fundamental laws. The exercise of this power is always subject to judicial review.

Natinal Development Co and New Agrix v. Phil Vet. Bank ACCFA v CUGCO
SUMMARY: ACCFA (later renamed ACA) was charged with violation of CBA and unfair labor practice by the CIR. The ACCFA/ACA appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that it is now performing governmental function by virtue of Agricultural Land Reform Code and so the union cannot be certified. SC ruled in favour of ACCFA/ACA. DOCTRINE: related to social justice The exercise by the state of POLICE POWER necessarily contradicts the laissez-faire system. Our jurisdiction therefore favours Police Power because the government enjoys a much wider latitude of action as to the means it chooses to cope with grave social and economic problems that urgently press for solution and it is clear that their legitimacy cannot be challenged on the ground alone of their being offensive to the implications of the laissez-faire concept. Read concurring opinion of JUSTICE FERNANDO


Agustin v Edu
Requiring motorists to procure early warning devices is a valid exercise of police power because it is a reasonable method to achieve the governments purpose of having road safety for the general public.

Maranaw Hotel v NLRC

Although the reinstatement aspect of the decision is immediately executory, it does not follow that it is selfexecutory. There must be a writ of execution may be issued motu proprio or on motion of an interested party within 5 days from the date it becomes final and executory (Art. 224, Labor Code). Art. 223 of the Labor Code is an exercise of the police power of the state and since appeal is a privilege of statutory origin, the law may validly prescribe limitations or qualification thereto or provide relief to the prevailing party in the event an appeal is interposed by the losing party (Aris Inc. v. NLRC). Art. 223 of the Labor Code is an exercise of the police power of the state and since appeal is a privilege of statutory origin, the law may validly prescribe limitations or qualification thereto or provide relief to the prevailing party in the event an appeal is interposed by the losing party (Aris Inc. v. NLRC).

Magtajas v Pryce Properties Bennis v Michigan

Tina Bennis car was used by her husband for illicit sexual activities with a prostitute. The SC of Michigan declared the car a public nuisance. Forfeiture of property prevents illegal uses "both by preventing further illicit use of the [property] and by imposing an economic penalty, thereby rendering illegal behavior unprofitable." The government may not be required to compensate an owner for property which it has already lawfully acquired under the exercise of governmental authority other than the power of eminent domain.

Cruzan vs Director of Missouri (US CASE, 1990)

Doctrine of Informed Consent a. In US common law, it is the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law The question whether that constitutional right has been violated must be determined by balancing the liberty interest against relevant state interests b. Incompetent person (i.e. vegetable patient) may be represented by a surrogate (usually relative) who will m ake the formers personal choice on how to control his person (e.g. refuse treatment/cut lifeline) c. To insure due process, the level of proof required is a clear and convincing proof that what the surrogate say is the will of the incompetent person and that it outweighs States interests Summary: Petitioner became a vegetable after an accident. After it was clear that she wont recover anymore, her parents wanted to stop her life support. Hospital staff said they would only do so upon a court order. US-SC denied her parents request, as roommates supporting testimony was not convincing enough to prove that the patient really wanted to end her life rather than to live in a vegetative state.


JMM Promotion and Management Inc v CA
Profession is a legitimate subject of police power. So long as professionals and other workers meet reasonably regulatory standard, no such deprivation of property exists.

Dans v People
Penal statutes may use imprecise language as long as it sets the boundaries of the crime involved. It must answer the question: What is the violation?

Ople v Torres
The right to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good. It merely requires that the law be narrowly focused and a compelling interest justify such intrusions. Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions. Any law or order that invades individual privacy will be subjected by the court to strict scrutiny.

Montesclaros v Comelec
Staturory rights may be amended or withdrawn by an act of Congress; constitutional rights are vested rights, which are not subject to legislative action Requisites for judicial review: 1. Actual and appropriate case or controversy 2. Locus standipersonal and substantial interest 3. Brought at the earliest opportunity 4. The consitutional question must be the lis mota of the case The following acts of Congress are not subject to judicial restraint (in short, the internal processes of the Congress): 1. Filing of bills by any member of Congress 2. Approval of the bills by the members of Congress 3. Reconciliation by the Bicameral conference committee 4. Approval of the reconciled bill by each chamber of Congress Separation of powers o SC cannot dictate on the Congress on the subject of legislation o Congress cannot pass laws which are incapable of amendment or repeal; that would encroah upon its plenary powers o Intenral acts of Congress are independent of Court

Tan v People Cruz v Flavier

SUMMARY: the IPRA was passed into law. It was challenged on the ground of unconstitutionality. For Substantive due process, it is argued that the broad definition of ancestral land and ancestral domain under IPRA includes private lands. This is violative of substantive due process insofar as it automatically vests all lands, even if private, found within the domain to the indigenous peoples. The SC ruled in favour of constitutionality citing another provision (Sec 56) in the IPRA which recognizes existing property rights within the domain. Also the use of customary law in disputes is valid because this is sanctioned by the constitution and the civil code. Lastly, the fact


that the NCIP (the court which settles land disputes within ancestral domain) is composed of IPs/ICCs does not mean that it is incapable of being impartial. DOCTRINE: (1) Ancestral domain and lands are not part of public domain. (2) Customary law is a primary source of rights under the IPRA and uniquely applies to ICCs/IPs. (3)

Smith Kline v CA
The granting of the license was a valid exercise of police power. With the more widespread use of Cimetidine, medications will be more available, and at lower prices. Thus, it is beneficial to the general public. The payment of royalties to Smith Kline ensures that there is no deprivation of property rights (in the form of intellectual property). Furthermore, it prevents the buildup of monopolies for those who own patents to certain inventions.

People v De la Piedra Estrada v Sandiganbayan Pilipinas Kao v CA

Philsa v Sec of DOLE

Private respondents sued Philsa and their Saudi employer for illegal exactions, salary deductions, etc. NLRC and SC dismissed the complaints for salary deductions (money claims), but POEA upheld the administrative sanctions of payment for the salary deductions. Philsa cannot be charged for illegal exactions, because the law on which this was based was not yet published at that time. Publication is an essential requisite of due process Administrative sanctions are different from money claims and may still be properly imposed by POEA.

Chavez v Romulo
Right to bear arms is not a constitutional right but merely a statutory privilege License is not a contract, and a revocation of it does not deprive the defendant of any property, immunity, or privilege within the meaning of these words in the declaration of rights1 - this case talked about firearm license Laws regulating the acquisition or possession of guns have frequently been upheld as reasonable exercise of the police power SUMMARY: PNP chief issued guidelines to suspend firearms permit. Chavez assailed the Guidelines saying that it is a citizens right to carry firearms, citing US cases. SC denied petition of Chavez, see above for the Ratio.

Abakada v Ermita GSIS v. Montesclaros

Nicolas filed and was approved an application for retirement benefits under PD No. 1146 on January 31, 1986; to take effect on February 17, 1984. He died on April 22, 1992. Milagros, as wife and designated beneficiary, filed with

Commonwealth v Kinsley


GSIS a claim for survivorship pension. GSIS denied the claim because under Section 18 of PD 1146, the surviving spouse has no right to survivorship pension if the surviving spouse contracted the marriage with the pensioner within three years before the pensioner qualified for the pension. (The Proviso) Petitioner contends that said section is void. The SC favored petitioner stating that said proviso is void for being violative of the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection of the law. The GSIS cannot deny the claim of Milagros for survivorship benefits based on this invalid proviso. Pensioner acquires a vested right to benefits that have become due as provided by the law. No law can deprive such person his pension rights without due process of law: notice and hearing.

Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan
Summary: Romualdez, relative of Pres. Marcos, was charged with a violation R.A. 3019 due to him intervening in a contract involving the government (a GOCC). The due process violations he raised were (1) RA 3019 was void for being vague, and (2) there was a violation of the preliminary investigation because it was conducted by a biased and partial body. For the first issue, the court said that the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines only apply to freespeech cases and not to penal statutes. For the second issue, the court said that the reinvestigation conducted by the Ombudsman cures the biased investigation of the PCGG. Doctrine: Vagueness and Overbreadth doctrines do not apply with regard to penal statutes

Chavez v. COMELEC
COMELEC issued a resolution that candidates appearing in various propaganda materials such as billboards, posters or ads must immediately remove them, or else these appearances shall constitute a ground for disqualification. Petitioner, as a candidate for the position of senator, assails the constitutionality of the resolution as the same is allegedly an invalid exercise of police power because mere product endorsements and not election propaganda subject to COMELEC rules. It was held that non-impairment clause must yield to the loftier purposes targeted by the Government (public welfare). COMELEC is expressly authorized to supervise or regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all media communication or information to ensure equal opportunity, time, and space, all aimed at the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.

o Lawful subject (public interest) - to prohibit premature campaigning and to level the playing field for candidates of public office, to equalize the situation between popular or rich candidates, on one hand, and lesser-known or poorer candidates o Lawful means (reasonable means) - by preventing the former from enjoying undue advantage in exposure and publicity on account of their resources and popularity. Beltran v Sec of Health
Delegation of legislative power o Policy complete in itself o Adequate standards for implementation EPC o Substantial distinction o Serves germane purpose of the law o Applies to present and future conditions o Applies equally to all members of the same class Police power o Lawful subject o Lawful method


Ong v Sandiganbayan

Lucena Grand Terminal v JAC Liner

SUMARY: An ordinance was passed which grants Lucena Grand Central Terminal exclusive franchise to operate within Lucena City a common terminal. JAC liner assailed constitutionality of said ordinance. SC said it was unconstitutional because it did not pass the reasonableness test. DOCTRINE: o Local Government may be considered as having properly exercised its police power only if there is a concurrence of a Lawful subject and Lawful Method. o OVERBREADTH: they go beyond what is reasonably necessary to solve the traffic problem o Terminals are not public nuisance. Unless a thing is a nuisance per se, it may not be abated via an ordinance without judicial proceedings.

City of Manila v Laguio Bayan v Ermita

The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances is, together with freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press, a right that enjoys primacy in the realm of constitutional protection B.P. No. 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and manner of the assemblies A fair and impartial reading of B.P. No. 880 thus readily shows that it refers to all kinds of public assemblies22 that would use
public places. The reference to "lawful cause" does not make it content-based because assemblies really have to be for lawful causes, otherwise they would not be "peaceable" and entitled to protection. The permit can only be denied on the ground of clear and present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public health

KMU v Dir Gen Mirasol v DPWH Three orders were issued by DPWH. These orders seek to ban motorcycles along limited access facilities. This is invalid because it is the DOTC, and not DPWH, that has the power to do so. The use of public highways by motor vehicles is subject to regulation as an exercise of the police power of the state.
The sole standard in measuring its exercise is reasonableness. What is "reasonable" is not subject to exact definition or scientific formulation. The SC thus held that AO 1 was not unreasonable. To assure that the general welfare be promoted, a regulatory measure may cut into the rights to liberty and property.

Parreo v COA
SUMMARY: Parreo retired in 1982 from the AFP-Phil Constabulary. He availed his AFP pension. He migrated to Hawaii and became a US citizen. Jan 2001, AFP stopped the payment of Parreos Pension citing PD 1638 (1979) which says that once a retiree loose his Filipino citizenship, he wont get his retirement benefit anymore. Parreo


filed a case citing the law should apply prospectively and that said PD is depriving him of his right. But SC denied his petition since he still had no right to his retirement benefit when the law took effect. DOCTRINE: o There is substantial distinction between Filipino retiree and non-Filipino retiree, as the former is still part of the Citizen Armed Forces and can be recalled into service when needed. o Before a right to retirement benefits or pension vests in an employee, he must have met the stated conditions of eligibility with respect to the nature of employment, age, and length of service. It is only upon retirement that military personnel acquire a vested right to retirement benefits.

Espinocilla v Bagong Tanyag

SUMMARY: BATAHAI obtained a loan from NHMFC to purchase the land and subdivide it amongst its members. Each member-beneficiary would pay amortizations of the loan to BATAHAI. Petitioners wanted to claim the vacant lots adjacent to theirs and objected to the reduction of the number of lots they were applying for. BATAHAI gave 15 days for the other member-beneficiaries to complete the documents required and later on set new deadlines and sent demand letters to the petitioners to comply with the requirements. But petitioners refused to do so. They claim that what BATAHAI did deprived them of their right to property without due process. The SC ruled that the petitioners were given due process given the sufficient notices and hearings. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard. The due process guarantee cannot be invoked when no vested right has been acquired. It is a fundamental principle of law that acts of possessory character executed by virtue of license or tolerance of the owner, no matter how long, do not start the running of the period of acquisitive prescription.

BF v City Mayor
Summary: Ordinances were passed by the Municipal Council of Paranaque reclassifying certain parts of BF Homes to commercial zones. Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of the said laws by saying that the reclassification amounts to impairment of contracts (it was provided in their titles that property in the village shall be used for residential purposes only). However, the court said that the governments exercise of police power trumps the nonimpairment clause. Given the increasing number of homeowners, addition of commercial zones became a necessity. Doctrine: Police Power trumps the non-impairment clause. Contractual restrictions on the use of property could not prevail over the reasonable exercise of police power through zoning regulations.

St Lukes v NLRC
While the right of workers to security of tenure is guaranteed by the Constitution, its exercise may be reasonably regulated pursuant to the police power of the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and the general welfare of the people. While our laws endeavor to give life to the constitutional policy on social justice and the protection of labor, it does not mean that every labor dispute will be decided in favor of the workers. The law also recognizes that management has rights which are also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play.

Carlos Superdrug v DSWD

Complainants must be able to show that they are greatly damaged by the assailed law


Perez v LPG MMDA v Viron
SUMMARY: EO 179 was issued to establish a greater manila mass transport system. The MMDA was the implementation agency and it seeks to eliminate bus terminals located in Metro Manila. Viron assailed it constitutionality. SC declared EO 179 unconstitutional not only because MMDA has no police power/ legislative power but also the standard for valid exercise of police power was not observed. DOCTRINE: Police power rests mainly in the legislature but such power may be delegated. By virtue of a valid delegation, the power may be exercised by the (1) President and Administrative Boards and (2) lawmaking bodies of Municipal Corporations or Local Governments under the LGC of 1991.

DND v Manalo
The right to security is the right to enjoyment of life. The continuing threat on the life of the Manalo brothers is apparent. This threat vitiates their free will because they are forced to limit their movements and activities. Threats to liberty, security, and life are actionable through a petition for a writ of amparo. Only substantial evidence is required in an Amparo proceeding

Pimentel Petition Legislative power remains limited in the sense that it is subject to substantive (Bill of Rights) and constitutional limitations. Legislative power remains limited in the sense that it is subject to substantive (Bill of Rights) and constitutional limitations. SJS and Laserna Petitions Legislative power remains limited in the sense that it is subject to substantive (Bill of Rights) and constitutional limitations. Mandatory but random drug test prescribed by Sec. 36 of RA 9165 for officers and employees of public and private offices is justifiable, albeit not exactly for the same reasons (Petitioners SJS and Laserna failed to justify how Section 36 (c) and (d) violates the right to privacy and constitutes unlawful and/or unconsented search under Art. III, Secs. 1 and 2 of the Constitution. Mandatory but random drug test prescribed by Sec. 36 of RA 9165 for officers and employees of public and private offices is justifiable, albeit not exactly for the same reasons (Petitioners SJS and Laserna failed to justify how Section 36 (c) and (d) violates the right to privacy and constitutes unlawful and/or unconsented search under Art. III, Secs. 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

SJS v Atienza SEC v Interport

Summary: Interport Resourcs Corporation (IRC) is being investigated for possible violations of the Revised Securities Act , for failure to disclose its negotiations with Ganda Holdings Berhad. IRC shares were heavily traded by officers and directors of IRC during the course of the negotiations.


Doctrine: SEC has the authority to investigate violations of the Securities and Regulations Code (formerly Revised Securities Act) The right to cross-examination is not absolute and connot be demanded during investigative proceedings before the Prosecution and Enforcement Department (PED) of SEC. IRC is only being investigated for their alleged failure to disclose negotiations with GHB and transactions entered into by its directors. Respondents have not shown to be under any imminent danger of sustaining injury attributable to the exercise of adjudicative functions by the SEC.

Banat v Comelec
RA 9369 was passed, giving the poll watchers rights to per diems. It also gave to Congress and Comelec the authority to determine the authenticity of the certificates of canvass, and to Comelec the power to hear pre-proclamation controversies. Petitioners assail the constitutionality of the law, specifically the section regarding per diems because it violated section 1. SC held that it was a valid law. The law was passed before the poll watchers were hired. Thus, the poll watchers contracts were not yet enforced when the law passed. They did not have any obligation yet. Thus, there was no impairment at all. Police power is superior to the non-impairment [of contracts] clause. The regulation of the per diem of the poll watchers of the dominant majority and minority parties is a valid exercise of police power.

People v Siton
SUMMARY: Siton and Sagarano, after being under surveillance by the police, were arrested for violating Art 202 (2), the anti-vagrancy law. Siton claimed he law is vague and provides opportunity for police to discriminate and abuse their authority. SC denied Sitons petition saying that the law is clear as it is qualified by without visible means of support. The only requirement is probable cause, and since police conducted prior surveillance it is deemed to have been complied with. This law was also held to be valid since this will protect the public and promote public order. DOCTRINE o Probable cause as the minimum requirement and provides an acceptable limit on police or executive authority that may otherwise be abused o Art 202 is a public order law. To protect the public.
Dangerous groups wander around, casing homes and establishments for their next hit. The streets must be made safe once more. Though a mans house is his castle, outside on the streets, the king is fair game. The dangerous streets must surrender to orderly society.

White Light v City of Manila

SUMMARY: On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed into law and ordinance entitled An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-time Admission, Short-time Admission Rates, and Wash-up Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila. On December 15, 1992, the Malate Tourist and Development Corporation (MTDC) filed a complaint and prayed that the Ordinance be declared invalid and unconstitutional. The SC held that said ordinance is invalid because it needlessly restrains the operation of businesses of the petitioners as well as restricting the rights of their patrons without sufficient justification. Test of validity of ordinances: (1) MUST NOT CONTRAVENE the CONSTITUTION, (2) MUST NOT BE UNFAIR OR OPPRESSIVE, (3) MUST NOT BE DISCRIMINATORY, (4) MUST NOT PROHIBIT BUT MAY REGULATE TRADE, (5) MUST BE general and CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY, (6) MUST NOT BE UNREASONABLE Individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare.

CREBA v Romulo


Summary: R.A. 8424 and its corresponding revenue regulations were passed. Under it, income payments coming from real estate businesses would be subjected to creditable withholding tax (CWT) advance tax payment. Also, a corporation is assessed a minimum corporate income tax (MCIT) which is equal to 2% of its gross income for the year. Petitioner questions the constitutionality of both types of taxes. Petitioner claims that the MCIT is highly oppressive, arbitrary, and confiscatory which amounts to deprivation of property without due process of law because it taxes the company even if there is no realized gain yet. However, the court disagrees because the government has the power to tax the general rule is that the power to tax is plenary and unlimited in range. Also, no factual foundation was shown to prove arbitrariness. The MCIT is not oppressive because it is merely imposed IN LIEU of the normal income tax. On the issue of CWT, the petitioners assail its constitutionality because in their line of business, gain is never assured by mere receipt of the selling price. However, the court said that the CWT does not violate due process as it is merely an advance tax payment. The CWT is creditable against the tax due from the property at the end of the year. In fact, the seller may be able to claim refund if his net income is less than the taxes withheld. Doctrine: General rule: taxing power is plenary and unlimited in range. To strike down a revenue measure due to arbitrariness, factual foundations supporting the argument must be shown.

Southern Hemisphere v. ATC

Petitioners assail the validity of Republic Act No. 9372 - An Act to Secure the State and Protect our People from Terrorism also known as Human Security Act of 2007. However, petitioners have not presented any personal stake in the outcome of the controversy. None of them faces any charge under RA 9372. 1. The Court cannot take judicial notice of the alleged "tagging" of petitioners. The principal guide in determining what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. o Requisites of Judicial Notice: 1) the matter must be one of common and general knowledge (facts which are universally known) 2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain; and 3) it must be known to be within the limits of the jurisdiction of the court. o Tagging of petitioners with Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and National Peoples Army (NPA) - The Court takes note of the joint statement of Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales that the Arroyo Administration would adopt the US and EU classification of the CPP and NPA as terrorist organizations. However, there is yet to be filed before the courts an application to declare the CPP and NPA organizations as domestic terrorist or outlawed organizations under RA 9372. 1. Doctrines of void-for-vagueness and overbreadth apply only to free speech cases not penal cases; and that RA 9372 regulates conduct, not speech. Cases cited not under free speech. a. Facial challenge doctrine - allowed to be made to a vague and overbroad statutes on free speech when if left unpunished will be detrimental to public welfare o Not applicable to penal statutes o Different from as-applied doctrine in that it is an examination of the entire law, pinpointing its flaws, not only on the basis of its actual operation to the parties, but also on the assumption or prediction that its very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or activities b. As-applied challenge doctrine - considers only extant facts affecting real litigants o Only way to assail a penal statute. When statutes are found vague as a matter of due process only 'as applied' to a particular defendant. (like in the Estrada case, but their arguments failed to show vagueness) c. "Credible threat of prosecution" principle - US Supreme Court allowed the pre-enforcement review of a criminal statute, challenged on vagueness grounds since petitioners were in credible threat of prosecution and should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.


Roxas v. Macapagal-Arroyo
Rubrico v. Arroyo: o Command responsibility refers to the responsibility of commanders for crimes committed by their subordinate members or other persons subject to their control in international wars or domestic conflict Razon v. Tagitis: o Responsibilityextent the actors have been established by substantial evidence to have participated in whatever way in an enforced disappearance; o Accountabilitymeasure of remedies that should be addressed to those who exhibited involvement in the enforced disappearance without bringing the level of their complicity to the level of responsibility or are imputed with knowledge relating to the disappearance or carry the burden of extraordinary diligence in the investigation of enforced disappearances HABEAS DATA o Conceptualized as a judicial remedy for enforcing a right to privacy, most especially the right to informational privacy of individuals. It operates to protect a persons right to control information regarding himself, particularly, in the instances where such information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends. o The indispesable element is a showing, at least substantially, that a violation or threatened violation of the right to privacy in life, liberty or security has happened With regard prayer for the return of her belongings o The order itself is a substantial relief that can only be granted once the liability of the respondents has been fixed in a full and exhaustive proceeding. Matters of liability are not discusses in amparo cases.

Meralco v. Lim


Valmonte v De Villa
This is the checkpoints case. Checkpoints were established as a security measure during the Marcos regime. Petitioners assail the validity of the checkpoints because they intrude the right to privacy and security of the people in the vehicles. Also, petitioners point outthat these are warrantless searches prohibited by Section 2 and are thus invalid. SC held that the checkpoints are valid. The right against unreasonable searches is a personal right. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Only those which are unreasonable are forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved in a case-to-case basis. For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and that the inspection of the vehicle is limited only to a visual search, the routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individuals right against unreasonable search. The checkpoints were installed as part of the police power of the State. The benefit and welfare of the public prevails over the individual right against unreasonable searches.


SJS v DDB People v Veloso
SUMMARY: Veloso resisted arrest when Police raided the Parliamentary Club, a gambling house managed by Veloso. He contends that his resistance was lawful because the police had an invalid search warrant that stated person to be search as only John Doe and not Jose Veloso. Supreme Court said that though it is required that the person to be search must be named, if there is description of said person sufficient for the Police to indicate clearly the proper person upon whom the warrant is to be served, such warrant would still be valid. In this case, the search warrant followed this requirement when it stated that John Doe had gambling apparatus in his possession in the building occupied by him at 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila. DOCTRINE: o John Doe Warrant must contain the best descriptio personae possible to be obtained of the person or persons to be apprehended, and this description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person or persons upon whom the warrant is to be served; and should state his personal appearance and peculiarities, give his occupation and place of residence, and any other circumstances by means of which he can be identified.

Alvarez v CFI of Tayabas

Chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board presented to Judge David an affidavit alleging that according to reliable information, petitioner kept in his house in Infanta, Tayabas, articles used by him in connection with his activities as a money-lender charging usurious rates of interest in violation of the law. He (under oath) stated that his answers to the questions were correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. The Judge issued the search warrant. Several agents of the Anti-Usury Board entered the petitioner's store and residence, seized and took possession of the articles believed to contain proof of the crime of petitioner. Petitioner filed to the court on the grounds of the illegality of the search warrant issued. The SC ruled in favor of the petitioner stating that the affidavit, which served as the exclusive basis of the search warrant, is insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the manner in which the oath was made (no personal knowledge but merely relied on an information given). When the affidavit of the applicant of the complaint contains sufficient facts within his personal and direct knowledge, it is sufficient if the judge is satisfied that there exist probable cause; when the applicant's knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay, the affidavit of one or more witnesses having a personal knowledge of the fact is necessary.

Stonehill v Diokno
Summary: Respondents filed 42 search warrants against the respondents due to their alleged violation of several laws. The warrants were issued against both the residences and the offices of the petitioners. The petitioners contested the warrants saying that they were null on void due to lack of particularity. Court said that two requisites of warrants were not complied with: (1) there was no probable cause because no specific offense was alleged (violations of central bank laws, etc.) and (2) the items to be seized were not described with particularity. Also, the warrant is void because under the rules of court, no search warrant shall be issued for more than one specific offense. Now, relying on jurisprudence, respondents said that they can still use the evidence taken against the petitioners. The court said that that thinking should now be abandoned we should now follow the exclusionary rule which says that evidence taken from a void search and seizure are inadmissible. Doctrines: (1)Isa-isang offense per search warrant lang boys and girls. (2)Exclusionary rule: all evidence obtained from illegal searches and seizures are deemed inadmissible.

Central Bank v Morfe


Judge finds the search unreasonable. If the applicant for such warrant claims that he personally knows that the premises were being used illegally, he should have known specific banking transactions and applied for a warrant to search and seize only relevant books and not all of the records as this would harass the petitioner. Unreasonableness is a condition dependent upon the circumstances surrounding each case and the question whether or not "probable cause" exists is one which must be decided in the light of the conditions obtaining in given situations. Transactions objected to by the Bank involves general pattern of the business of the organization and not isolated transactions. It is not necessary to specify or identify the parties involved in said isolated transactions, so that the search and seizure be limited to the records pertinent thereto.

Bache & Co v Ruiz

Why the requirement of particularly describing the things to be seized: o To limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrantto leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize, that abuses may not be committed. A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized: 1. when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow or 2. when the description expresses a conclusion of factnot of lawby which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure or 3. when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. If the articles desired to be seized have any direct relation to an offense committed, the applicant must necessarily have some evidence, other than those articles, to prove the said offense; and the articles subject of search and seizure should come in handy merely to strengthen such evidence.

Placer v Villanueva Burgos Sr v Chief of Staff, AFP

SUMMARY: After alleged publication of subversive materials, We forum and Metropolitan Mail were searched. Petitioner assails the validity of the search warrant. SC ruled that search warrant was invalid because it was a general warrant. DOCTRINE: o A search warrant against a publisher must particularize the alleged criminal or subversive material to be seized. o Executing officers prior knowledge as to place intended is relevant in determining whether a warrant describes the place with sufficient particularity. o Ownership of seized articles is not necessary, it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has CONTROL or POSSESSION of the property sought to be seized.

Corro v Lising
In order for probable cause to exist, the statements of the witnesses must be specific and proven with evidence. Mere statements as articles which tend to incite distrust and hatred of the Government without showing any proof are insufficient.


Soliven v Makasiar
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. The established doctrine and procedure in issuance of warrants of arrest: o He shall o personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or o if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary examination and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts

Salazar v Achacoso Board of Commissioners v Dela Rosa

This is the case where the Gatchalian family is facing deportation proceedings. A warrant of exclusion was issued in 1962. In 1972, the Commissioner of Immigration upheld the citizenship of Gatchalian. In 1990, Gatchalian was arrested for violation of the Immigration Laws. The SC held that the arrest of Gatchalian, following the warrant of exclusion, was void, because (1) it has prescribed and (2) there was no valid probable cause. The Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation (now the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration) is granted authority to issue warrants in lieu of deportation proceedings. The Commissioner is an exception to the general rule that only judges may issue warrants. Deportation proceedings are against aliens, and not against Filipino citizens. The probable cause in this case should have been based on the non-citizenship of Gatchalian. But, since Gatchalians Filipino citizenship was upheld ten years after the warrant was issued, then the warrant became invalid. Gatchalian can never face deportation proceedings.. Besides, the warrant of exclusion against William was not a warrant to deport him, but to subject him to custodial investigation. Such warrant is null and void for being unconstitutional.

Lim Sr. v Judge Felix

March 17, 1989 (7:30 am) in Masbate, congressman Moises Espinosa Sr and his security escorts were killed by a lone gunman, only one escort survived. Petitioners were accused of said murders in a complaint with MTC Masbate. MTC found probable cause and issued order to arrest the accused. Respondent-prosecutor affirmed findings of MTC with some adjustments. The accused later posted bail and petitioner Lim filed and was granted by SC for change of venue to Makati RTC to avoid miscarriage of Justice. Respondent-judge Felix was assigned to the case and later issued a warrant of arrest on the sole basis of the certification made by MTC Masbate and Prosecutor Alfane. Supreme Court held that though the Judge does not have to personally examine the complaint and his witnesses and may rely on the certification made by the prosecutor, judge must go beyond the prosecutors certification and investigation report whenever necessary. Here Judge solely relied on the certifications and since the records were still in Masbate when he issued the warrant, respondent judge had no basis to make his own personal determination. DOCTRINE: Judge may rely on the certification made by the prosecutor who conducted the preliminary investigation in the issuance of the warrant of arrest. The extent of the Judge's personal examination of the report and its


annexes depends on the circumstances of each case. To be sure, the Judge must go beyond the Prosecutor's certification and investigation report whenever necessary.

Silva v Presiding Judge of RTC of Negros Occ.

The chief of PC Narcom Detachment in Dumaguete filed for a search warrant accompanied by a deposition of witness. It was filed because of their belief that there was a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The warrant was issued by respondent. A search was made, however, the officers also seized money from petitioner which was not included in the list of items to be seized. Petitioners contends that such warrant was void. The SC ruled that said warrant is void because the judge failed to comply with the legal requirement that he must examine the applicant and the witnesses through questions, which are not leading, to determine probable cause. Further, the officers abused their authority by seizing the item which was not listed. In issuing a search warrant, the judge must strictly determine the existence of probable cause by personally examining the applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers. The search warrant was issued for the seizure of personal property (a) subject of the offense and (b) used or intended to be used as means of committing an offense and NOT for personal property stolen or embezzled or other proceeds of fruits of the offense.

Allado v Diokno
Summary: Petitioners have been accused with kidnapping with murder due to the alleged killing of a German national. The focal source of the allegation was the sworn statement of Escolastico Umbal, a certain security guard who allegedly was part of the plan to kill. The Presidential Anti Crime Commission, armed with search warrants, separately raided 2 dwellings of one of the alleged murders. Several evidence were gathered. Petitioners, having been charged with the crime, asked for certain documents for them to prepare their defense (documents were never given). After a while, respondent issued an arrest warrant against the petitioners. Petitioners alleged that the respondent acted with GADALEJ as there is no probable cause against them. The court believes that there is no probable cause. PACC relied heavily on the sworn statement of Umbal who was found to have given a testimony with a lot of inconsistencies. Also, there is still doubt as to the death of the victim as no corpus delicti has been found. Respondent also committed GADALEJ in issuing the warrant without personally examining the evidence and communicating to the complainant and witness. He merely relied on the certification of the prosecutors that there was probable cause. Doctrine: Judge must personally determine probable cause. Probable cuse may not be established simply by showing that a judge subjectively believes that he has good grounds for his action

Webb v De Leon
Petitioners contend that the sworn statement of Jessica Alfaro (witness) is weak, uncorroborated and inconsistent, hence is insufficient to warrant the existence of a probable cause to arrest the accused. It was held that the DOJ Panel correctly adjudged that enough evidence (from sworn statements and material evidences) had been adduced to establish probable cause and clarificatory hearing was unnecessary. Preliminary investigation need not be conclusive. Petitioners were not denied of due process when they were not allowed to cross examine all evidences. Section 1 of Rule 112 provides that a preliminary investigation should determine "whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-grounded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial."

Roberts v CA

The SCs duty in these cases is confined to the issue of whether the executive or judicial determination, as the case may be, of probable cause was done with GADALEJ.


general rule: criminal prosecution may not be stayed by injunction. But it admits of exceptions, such as when necessary for the orderly administration of justice or avoid oppression or multiplicity of actionssuch as in this case.

20th Century Fox v CA

People v Francisco
SUMMARY: Police searched and seized shabu in no. 120 Hizon. The warrant applied for was for 122 Hizon. Francisco contends that search was invalid and materials searched cannot be used against her. SC ruled in favour of defendant. DOCTRINE: The controlling subject of search warrant is the place indicated in the warrant itself and not the place identified by the police.

Microsoft Corp v Maxicorp, Inc

Personal knowledge of the witnesses, together with documentary evidence, is sufficient to establish probable cause. Probable cause Is concerned with the probability that a crime was committed.

Al-Ghoul v CA PICOP v. Asuncion - place to be searched cannot be changed, enlarged nor amplified by the police
Law does not require that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute details as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities, otherwise, it would be virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a search warrant as they would not know exactly what kind of things they are looking for People v. Rubio While it is true that the property to be seized under a warrant must be particularly described therein and no other property can be taken thereunder, yet the description is required to be specific only in so far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow it is not required that a technical description be given Two-witness requirement under Section 10, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court: o two-witness rule applies only in the absence of the lawful occupants of the premises searched. o petitioners were present when the search and seizure operation was conducted by the police at Apartment No. 2.

Uy v BIR Vallejo v CA
The Registry of Deeds in Cagayan was allegedly issuing fake land titles and other fake documents. A search warrant was issued, ordering the confiscation of an undetermined number of fake land titles, etc. The warrant alleged two offenses committed by the Registry: graft and falsification. SC held that the warrant was void, because the specific property to be searched for should be so particularly described as to preclude any possibility of seizing any other property. The warrant is a SCATTER-SHOT warrant, wherein two offenses were alleged in a single warrant. Scatter-shot warrants are void


SUMMARY: MHP was granted exclusive franchise to sell and distribute official Boy Scouts uniforms, supplies badges and insignias. MHP received information that private respondents were selling boy scouts items and paraphernalia without any authority. Phil Constabulary and Petitioner De Guzman, without warrant, raided and seized the Boy Scout stuff in respondents stalls. Petitioner filed for unfair competition but was dismissed and ordered to return seized goods. Respondents then sued for damages. SC affirmed CA and lower courts decision, granting indemnity for damages citing Art 32 Civ Code on the grounds that the seizure was illegal for there was no warrant issued and the circumstances were not proven to fall under valid warrantless searches from the progression of time from receipt of information and the raid, Petitioner had time to apply for warrant DOCTRINE: When Police have time to apply for a warrant they should apply for one, they are not justified to conduct warrantless searches

People v CFI
An undisclosed informer told authorities that dutiable goods will be transported from Angeles to Manila. Agents Manuel and Sabado waited in the North Diversion Road tollgate, chased and stopped the car containing said goods. The Bureau of Customs issued a Warrant of Seizure and Detention against the articles and the car. Seizure proceedings were instituted and a certain DEL ROSARIO intervened and claimed ownership of the said items. He claims to have bought it, showing a receipt as proof, and asked MEDINA to deliver the said. It was held that the articles were NOT subject of forfeiture. Meanwhile, the City Fiscal after doing its own PI found prima facie evidence to convict HOPE and MEDINA for being guilty of smuggling. Respondents contend that the watches found in the box cannot be used as evidence against them because the Collector of Customs already said that they were not subject to forfeiture and that the warrantless search was invalid. SC ruled that the search was valid under the Tariff and Customs Code. Said items may also be used in a criminal proceeding which is distinct from seizure proceeding. The Tariff and Customs Code grants persons duly commissioned to do warrantless searches if there is reason to suspect that the code being violated. A seizure case is a CIVIL and ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING which is different and independent from a criminal proceeding.

Roan v Gonzales
Summary: Petitioner claims that he was a victim of an illegal search and seizure. His house was searched however, none of the articles in the warrant were found. The authorities just confiscated a Colt Magnum and 18 live bullets which are now the bases against the petitioner. Petitioner claims that the warrant is void because there has to be examination of the applicant (3rd requisite for a valid warrant). Court agrees with petitioner. In this case, no deposition of the complainant was taken only his affidavit was examined. Mere affidavits of the complainant are not sufficient. The examining judge has to take depositions. Also, examination must be probing and exhaustive. Even if depositions were taken from witnesses, the examination was found to be just routinary where the judge unquestioningly received the statements. Plain view rule also will not apply because the authorities actually searched for the evidence they found. Doctrines: (1) mere affidavits of complainant are not sufficient, the examining judge has to examine through taking depositions (2) examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely exhaustive (3) when authorities search for the evidence found, plain view rule does not apply

Nolasco v Pao
Aguilar-Roque was one of the accused for Rebellion in People v. Jose Ma. Sison et al. She has been long wanted by the military for being a high ranking officer of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). On August 6, 11:30am,


Aguilar-Roque and Nolasco were arrested by CSG at corner street near Mayon St. and by 12:00nn, CSG searched Aguilar-Roques house at 239-B Mayon St., Quezon City. o o Articles seized by virtue of a void warrant should be returned to its owners. The limit of a warrantless search of a person who is lawfully arrested is only to his or her person at the time of and incident to his or her arrest and to dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. Such warrantless search cannot be made in a place other than the place of arrest.

Papa v Mago
Powers and duties of the Bureau of Customs: 1. to assess and collect all lawful revenues from imported articles , and all other dues, fees, charges, fines and penalties, accruing under the tariff and customs laws; 2. to prevent and suppress smuggling and other frauds upon the customs; and 3. to enforce tariff and customs laws Pacis v. Averia: jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture proceedings are vested exclusively with the Bureau of customs and the court of Tax Appeals, and the court must yield. The Tariff and Customs Code authorizes persons having police authority to effect search and seizures without a search warrant, except in the case of searching a dwelling house. Caroll v. US: There is a necessary difference between a search of a dwelling house or other structure and search of a moving vehiclethe latter can easily be moved out of the jurisdiction of the place where the warrant must be sought, so its not practicable to require a search warrant.

People v Lo Ho Wing (Peter Lo) People v Malmstedt

SUMMARY: Police received information that a Caucasian from Sagada was carrying drugs. Malmstedt was searched on a bus after PC saw a bulge in his belly (see JT Taylos belt bag) and that he failed to show his identification. He was charged by the RTC. He went to the SC for reversal arguing that the search was illegal and thus articles may not be used as evidence against him. SC affirmed the decision of RTC, search was valid. DOCTRINE: Where the search is made pursuant to a lawful arrest, there is no need to obtain a warrant. In this case, there was probable cause (information, the bulge, failure to show id) which justified the warrantless search.

Posadas v CA
A Stop and frisk situation is a valid exception to Sec. 2, Art. III (valid warrantless search)

Aniag v Comelec
A valid search must be authorized by a search warrant duly issued by an appropriate authority. o Some exemptions to this rule: a search incident to a lawful arrest search of moving vehicles seizure of evidence in plain view search conducted at police or military checkpoints which we declared are not illegal per se, and stressed that the warrantless search is not violative of the Constitution for as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its


occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search An extensive search without warrant could only be resorted to if the officers conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that either the motorist was a law offender or that they would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the commission of a crime in the vehicle to be searched Valid and recognized is the stop-and-search without warrant conducted by police officers on the basis of prior confidential information which were reasonably corroborated by other attendant matters.

Malacat v CA Mustang Lumber, Inc v CA

Three cases were filed in this case: two civil cases filed by Mustang Lumber and one criminal case against the president of Mustang, Ri Chuy Po. In the first civil case, Mustang alleged the invalidity of the search warrant issued and the subsequent search conducted in their lumberyard, because the lumberyard was raided twice in two days. In the second civil case, the office premises of Mustang were raided because they were conducting business despite having an order of suspension against them. Ri Chuy Po was charged with violations of the forestry code. A search warrant has a lifetime of ten days. If the search was left unfinished in a day, the raiding team may come back to the place the following day to finish their search, provided that it is still within the 10-day limit Employees of the Bureau of Forestry may seize and confiscate xxx the forest products cut, gathered or taken by the offender in the process of committing the offense *even without a warrant+. Thus, the team that seized lumber and other articles in the principal office of Mustang had the authority to do so. Also, the DENR head or his duly authorized representatives may order the confiscation of any illegal forest products.

Asuncion v CA
Summary: While patrolling, Malabon Police- Anti Narcotics Unit flagged a gray Nissan Sentra driven by Asuncion upon an informants tip that the occupant of said car had drugs in his possession. Asuncion ha d a previous encounter with police but he was able to evade them. Police asked if they can inspect the car and the petitioner voluntarily acceded to it. Police found a plastic packet suspected to contain shabu under the driver seat. Petitioner claimed he just borrowed the car. Police brought him to the station and when frisked they found another plastic packet with shabu in his underwear. In a press conference, Petitioner admitted that the shabu found was for his personal use in his shooting. Petitioner later claimed it was a frame up and also claimed search was illegal because there was no warrant. However, SC affirmed RTC and CAs decision saying that he committed a crime under the dangerous drug Act. SC said that searching a moving vehicle is one of the exceptions - that it did not need warrant to be search because it is not practicable (time is of the essence) for they could just easily get away to another locality or court jurisdiction if police would wait for a warrant to be issued. Doctrine: For practicality search upon a moving vehicle dont need a warrant, especially if enough facts (e.g. name, type of vehicle/location) are not available.

People v Canton
Canton was a departing passenger bound for Saigon, Vietnam. She passed through a metal detector which emitted a beeping sound. Cabunoc and the frisker on duty called her attention and checked Canton. Cabunoc felt something bulging in several parts of Canton. The packages turned out to be SHABU. RTC found Canton guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Dangerous Drugs Act. Canton contends that such search was violative of her constitutional rights but the SC held otherwise. The search was not incidental to her arrest because it was done prior to said arrest. Furthermore, the airport security procedure allows for the search done to her. She was also caught in flagrante delicto, hence she was lawfully arrested.


In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, there must first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made. The process cannot be reversed. Airport security procedure - exception to the proscription against warrantless searches and seizures. A peace officer or a private person may without warrant arrest a person when the person to be arrested is: o Actually committing or attempting to commit an offense; o An Offense has just been committed and he has probably cause to believe based on personal knowledge of the facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; o Person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner

Material Distributors, Inc. v Natividad

Summary: Private respondent filed a complaint seeking a money judgment against the petitioners. He filed a motion for the production and inspection of certain documents owned by the petitioners. Petitioners sought to nullify the order for production of the documents by saying that it was illegal. They cited the code of commerce and the constitution which substantiates inviolability of correspondence. They accused respondent judge with GADALEJ. The court said that no GADALEJ was committed. In cases concerned with the motion for production and inspection, the court requires showing of good cause. In this case, the court ruled that the private respondent showed good cause in his allegations. Arkaye and Heinz, sitting in a tree. K-i-s-s-i-n-g. Also, the orders in question, pertain to a civil procedure that cannot be identified or confused with the unreasonable searches prohibited by the constitution. Finally, privacy of correspondence and communication was not violated given that the trial court has the power and jurisdiction to issue orders for the production and inspection of such documents. Doctrines: (1) in motions for production and inspection of documents, good cause must be shown (2) motions under civil procedures cannot be identified with the constitutional prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures (3) the trial court has the power and jurisdiction to issue orders for the production and inspection of documents

Oklahoma Press Publishing Company v Walling

In a prior case decided in 1945, the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Fair Labor and Standards Act (FLSA) was granted authority by the US Supreme Court to enforce subpoenas against petitioner pursuant to Sec. 11 (a) of the FLSA which enforces Sec. 9 & 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The subpoenas sought the production of specified records to determine whether petitioners were covered by the Act and if they were violating the FLSA. Petitioners, claim that the Act is not applicable to them, and insist that the question of applicability must be adjudicated before the subpoenas may be enforced. It was held that the Administrator as authorized by Congress and upon a judicial order may enforce the production of documents because there is a distinction between a "figurative/constructive search" and an actual search and seizure. Constructive searches are limited by the 4th Amendment (equivalent to Section 2 of Art. III), where actual search and seizure requires a warrant based on probable cause. However, where the subject of the constructive search are of corporate character, the 4th Amendment does not apply, since corporations are not entitled to all the constitutional protections created in order to protect the rights of private individuals (to be secure in person/home, right against self-incrimination etc).

Camara v Municipal Court

Need for probable cause: Unlike searches pursuant to criminal investigation, the purpose of WARRANTS FOR INSPECTION is citywide compliance with the minimum physical standards for private property. The governmental interest here is the prevention of conditions, which will become a hazard to public health and safety. The only way to implement this is through routine periodic inspections of all structures. Probable cause then is based on an appraisal of a certain area as a whole. What is required is probable cause arising from knowledge of condition of the district or area, and not necessarily individual buildings.


When a warrant must be sought: Routine inspections arent so urgent as to have to take effect immediately without warrant. Furthermore, citizens usually allow routine inspections of their premises anyway even without warrant. It is believed that warrants need only be sought when the citizen has refused the warrantless search, unless there has been citizen complaints or other compelling reasons to effect immediate entry.

Harvey v Defensor Santiago People v Aminnudin
SUMMARY: The PC officers received a tip from an informant that Amminnudin was bound for Iloilo onboard MV WILCOM 9 carrying marijuana. Aminnudin was searched and arrested after disembarking from the vessel. The PC officers found 3 kilos of marijuana in his bag. He was charged and found guilty of illegally transporting marijuana by the CFI of Iloilo. The decision was appealed to the SC. The SC ruled that there was no valid search and arrest so the evidence against him was inadmissible. He was acquitted. After this, he watched JT Taylo dance to the tune of All I Want for Christmas is You at the Ateneo Law School and thereupon swore never to sell marijuana again. DOCTRINE: (1) person must be caught in flagrante delicto, or about to commit a crime, or had just committed a crime to justify warrantless search.

People v Burgos Umil v Ramos

The doctrine emphasized by this case is that when the crime is a continuing crime (rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crime) the offenders may be arrested without a warrant. The same doctrine is reiterated in the resolution of this case. The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in the nature of continuing crimes

Go v CA People v Mengote
Mengote was arrested by policemen on the basis that he looked suspicious because he was looking from side to side and that he was holding his abdomen. After a body search, it was found that he had a revolver in his possession. Said revolved was alleged to have belonged to a man named Danganan, whom Mengote allegedly robbed earlier. Mengote defended that his arrest was unlawful. The Supreme Court ruled that in order for a warrantless arrest to be valid, the arresting officers must have personal knowledge that the person arrested has committed, is committing or will be committing an offense. There should also be probable cause for the warrantless arrest. In this case, since the arresting officers had no knowledge that Mengote robbed Danganan earlier or that Mengote was illegally possessing a firearm, and since looking from side to side on holding ones abdomen cannot seriously be considered probable cause, the warrantless arrest of Mengote was unlawful. He was, therefore, acquitted.


Manalili v CA
Summary: Facts are disputed. Prosecution claims that petitioner was found by Police walking in a swaying manner and had reddish eye in
front of the Kaloocan City Cemetery. Police approached him and introduced themselves as such. Police asked what he was holding in his hands. Petitioner showed his wallet and allowed the police to examine it. (Basically they stopped and frisked him). Police found suspected marijuana residue inside which was later on confirmed by the NBI. On the other hand the defense claims that the police flagged the tricycle on which the petitioner was riding. The police searched the driver and petitioner and found nothing. Police then released the driver but brought petitioner to the station and planted evidence in his pants to extort money. RTC, CA and SC however sided with the prosecution. Petitioner also claimed that the search was illegal because there was no warrant thus making the evidence inadmissible. The court however said that petitioners failure to raise the issue of inadmissibility of the evidence during the trial meant that he effectively waived his rights to it. Furthermore, SC said that stop and frisk (what the police did) is another exception to the warrant rule (art 3 sec 2). What is only requ ired is that the police, based on his experience, must have probable cause to stop and frisk a person, in this case petitioner had reddish eyes and was walking in a swaying manner characteristics of a high drug addict; reason practicality, for safety purposes

Doctrine: stop and frisk is another exception to the warrant rule (art 3 sec 2). What is only required is that the police, based on his
experience, must have probable cause to stop and frisk a person.

This is the case about the uniform ID system within the executive offices The president by executive or administrative order may direct the government entities to adopt this uniform ID system pursuant to Art. VII, Sec. 17power of control over the executive department and faithful execution of the laws clause, as in the case at bar o Power of controlpresident may direct the government entities in the executive department to adopt this uniform system. That power is self-executing and not requiring legislation. It is limited to the executive branch and does not include the 2 others. o Faithful executionthere are several laws mandating government entities to reduce costs, increase efficiency and improve public services (i.e. Revised Administrative Code); ergo, the directive to adopt a uniform ID system is pursuant to the faithful execution of the laws. Legislation would be required in the following cases: o When the implementation requires special appropriation because there is no existing appropriation for the purpose o When compulsory on all branches or citizens o When it requires collection of data beyond what is routinely or usually required for the purpose Right to privacy is protected because there are reasonable safeguards


NEW YORK TIMES v UNITED STATES Summary: New York Times and co-petitioner Washington Post had been issued injunction orders to refrain from publishing articles which excerpted History of US Decision-Making Process in Vietnam Policy, a study which the United States government classified as highly-classified. The US SC decided against the government, saying that the publication of the articles is a valid exercise of the right to free speech in the First Amendment (equivalent to Section 4 in our Bill of Rights). It is incumbent upon the government to show cause as to why such articles should


not be published, but in this case, the government [did not meet] the heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such restraint. Doctrine: It is incumbent upon the government to show cause as to why such articles should not be published, but in this case, the government [did not meet] the heavy burden of showing justification for the enforcement of such restraint. To find that the President has inherent power to halt the publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty and security of the very people the Government hopes to make secure.

Adiong v Comelec Summary: Jan 13 1992, Comelec Resolution No. 2347 was promulgated providing that campaign materials (stickers,
printed materials, decals, leaflets etc.. ) may be posted only in authorized posting areas. Said resolution also prohibited the display of election propaganda in any places including mobile or stationary private/public except those in the allowable areas. Petitioner assailed the resolution as violative of the Omnibus election code and RA 6646. SC declared the resolution as null and void on constitutional grounds, more specifically, art 3 sections 1 and 4. SC said that the prohibition of posting of stickers etc... on an individuals property does not only deprive the said individual from the use of his property -since owner is not allowed to place campaign materials on his property- but also deprive him of his right to free speech and information - since posting/placing such material or property reflects/expresses his political views or the candidates he believes in. DOCTRINE: Prohibiting a citizen to place/post/use campaign materials on his property not only deprive him from the use of his property but also deprive him of his right to free speech and information