BVR CONSULTING INC
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • I.T. SOLUTIONS
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
    • AUDIT
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
  • BVR ACCOUNTING
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
    • AUDIT
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
  • CONTACT US
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • ONLINE TAX PREPARATION

a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer. 
this webpage is
 primarily designed to assist students of law in their studies. It is merely a tool. The use of our Services does not guarantee success in obtaining a law degree nor in passing the Bar Exams. we makes no warranties or representations of any kind, whether expressed or implied for the Services provided. The cases, laws, and other publications found in this site are of public domain, collected from public sources such as the Supreme Court online library. The content however have been heavily modified, formatted, and optimized for better user experience, and are no longer perfect copies of their original. we gives no warranty for the accuracy or the completeness of the materials. This site also contains materials published by the students, professors, lawyers, and other users of the our Services. 


Pita v. CA, 178 SCRA 362 (1989),

11/28/2020

0 Comments

 
Pita v. CA, 178 SCRA 362 (1989)

FACTS:
  • In pursuant to Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of the City of Manila, magazines, publications and other reading materials that are alleged to be obscene, pornographic and indecent were seized and confiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila sidewalks and later burned in public at the University belt along CM Recto Avenue Manila in the presence of Mayor Bagatsing and several officers and members of various student organizations. One of which was Pinoy Playboy magazines published and co-edited by Leo Pita, the plaintiff.
 
  • The plaintiff then filed a case for injunction with prayer for issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against Mayor Bagatsing and Narciso Cabrera (superintendent of Western Police District of the City Manila), seeking to enjoin and/or restrain said defendants and their agents from confiscating plaintiffs magazines or from otherwise preventing the sale or circulation thereof claiming such materials is a decent, artistic and educational magazine and that publication is protected by the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press.
 
  • Then, an Urgent Motion was filed by the petitioner for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and was later granted.
  • In defense of Mayor Bagatsing, he claimed that the confiscation and seizure was done in pursuant to PD No 960 which the materials were voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities and the plaintiffs’ establishment was not raided.
 
  • While, the plaintiff filed his Memorandum raising the issues as to whether or not the defendants and/or their agents can without a court order confiscate or seize plaintiffs magazine before any judicial finding is made on whether said magazine is obscene or not".
 
  •  The trial court issued an Order setting the case for hearing for the parties to adduce evidence on the question of whether the publication 'Pinoy Playboy Magazine alleged (sic) seized, confiscated and/or burned by the defendants, are obscene per se or not". Later, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to be given three days to file a reply to the defendant's opposition; however, after following such order, the plaintiff’s motion was denied and the case was dismissed for lack of merit.
 
  •  The petitioner now ascribes to the respondent court the following errors:
1.  The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the trial court and, in effect, holding that the police officers could without any court warrant or order seize and confiscate petitioner's magazines on the basis simply of their determination that they are obscene.
 
2.   The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the trial court and, in effect, holding that the trial court could dismiss the case on its merits without any hearing thereon when what was submitted to it for resolution was merely the application of petitioner for the writ of preliminary injunction.
 
ISSUE:
Whether or not the seizure was constitutional
 
RULING:
No. As strongly stressed in Bagatsing, a case involving the delivery of a political speech, the presumption is that the speech may validly be said. The burden is on the State to demonstrate the existence of a danger, a danger that must not only be: (1) clear but also, (2) present, to justify State action to stop the speech. Meanwhile, the Government must allow it (the speech). It has no choice. However, if it acts notwithstanding that (absence of evidence of a clear and present danger), it must come to terms with, and be held accountable for, due process.
​
The Court is not convinced that the private respondents have shown the required proof to justify a ban and to warrant confiscation of the literature for which mandatory injunction had been sought below. First of all, they were not possessed of a lawful court order: (1) finding the said materials to be pornography, and (2) authorizing them to carry out a search and seizure, by way of a search warrant.
 The fact that the former respondent Mayor's act was sanctioned by "police power" is no license to seize property in disregard of due process. In Philippine Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon, the Court defined police power as "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare ." Presidential Decrees Nos. 960 and 969 are, arguably, police power measures, but they are not, by themselves, authorities for high-handed acts. They do not exempt our law enforcers, in carrying out the decree of the twin presidential issuances (Mr. Marcos'), from the commandments of the Constitution, the right to due process of law and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, specifically.

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    September 2024
    August 2024
    May 2024
    December 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    March 2018

    Categories

    All
    Agrarian Law
    Articles-of-incorporation
    By-laws
    Constitutional Law
    Criminal Law
    Law
    Persons And Family Relations

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • HOME
  • OUR SERVICES
    • BUSINESS REGISTRATION
    • BACK OFFICE SUPPORT SERVICES
    • I.T. SOLUTIONS
    • BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING
    • PAYROLL SERVICES
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
    • AUDIT
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
  • BVR ACCOUNTING
    • TAX COMPLIANCE & ACCOUNTING
    • ADVISORY
    • AUDIT
    • TRAININGS & SEMINARS
  • CONTACT US
  • ARTICLES
    • TESTIMONIALS
    • BLOG
  • ONLINE TAX PREPARATION