Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,924|Likes:
Published by Stef Macapagal
constitutional law 2 digests on: search and seizure
constitutional law 2 digests on: search and seizure

More info:

Published by: Stef Macapagal on Jul 21, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4 – Stef Macapagal
Search and Seizure
Title Facts Issue/s Ruling Doctrine
Abenes v. CAGR No. 15632014 February 2007
 Austria-Martinez, J.
Rodolfo Abenes, a barangaychairman, was charged withillegal possession of high powered firearm and itsammunitions during the election period. Two Informations werefiled for (1) illegal possession of firearms and its ammunitions;and (2) violation of the OmnibusElection Code.The firearm was confiscatedfrom Abenes at a checkpointwherein his vehicle was stoppedand he was asked to alight thesame for routine inspection. The police saw the firearm tucked inhis waist, and asked him to produce a license for it. WhenAbenes could not produce one,the police confiscated thefirearm. It was then found thatAbenes was not a registered nor a licensed firearm holder.The trial court then convictedAbenes on both charges. Abenesappealed to the CA alleging thatthe checkpoint was not shown tohave been legally set up, and thathis constitutional right againstunlawful search and seizure wasviolated. The CA affirmed thetrial court.W/N the checkpoint was legallyset up.W/N Abenes’ constitutional rightagainst unlawful search andseizure had been violated.YES. The production of amission order is not necessary inview of the fact that thecheckpoint was established threedays before the May 11, 1998elections; and the circumstancesunder which the policemenfound the gun warranted itsseizure without a warrant (plainview). NO. The law enforcementofficers lawfully made an initialintrusion because of theenforcement of the Gun Ban andwere properly in a position fromwhich they particularly viewedthe area. In the course of suchlawful intrusion, the policemencame inadvertently across a pieceof evidence incriminatingAbenes where they saw the guntucked into his waist. The gunwas in plain view and discoveredinadvertently when Abenesalighted from the vehicle.However, there is insufficientevidence that the firearm Abenescarried had no license. Thus, for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubtthat Abenes was carrying afirearm without prior authority,license or permit, the latter must be exculpated from criminalliability under the illegal possession of firearms law.However, Abenes is stillconvicted for violation of theComelec Gun Ban. Not all checkpoints are illegal.Those which are warranted bythe exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way leastintrusive to motorists areallowed. For as long as thevehicle is neither searched nor itsoccupants subjected to a bodysearch, and the inspection of thevehicle is limited to a visualsearch, said routine checkscannot be regarded as violativeof an individual’s right againstunreasonable search.Under the plain view doctrine,objects falling in the “plainview” of an officer who has aright to be in the position to havethat view are subject to seizureand may be presented asevidence.The plain view doctrine applieswhen the following requisitesconcur:(a) the law enforcement officer insearch of the evidence has a prior  justification for an intrusion or isin a position from which he canview a particular area;(b) the discovery of the evidencein plain view is inadvertent;(c) it is immediately apparent tothe officer that the item heobserves may be evidence of acrime, contraband or otherwisesubject to seizure.
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4 – Stef Macapagal
Aniag v. COMELECGR No. 1049617 October 1994
 Bellosillo, J.
In pursuance of the Gun Ban,Representative Francisco Aniaginstructed his driver, ErnestoArellano, to pick up his twofirearms which were issued tohim by the House oRepresentatives. Aniag toldArellano to deliver the guns tothe Sergeant-at-Arms of theHouse of Representatives.Outside the Batasan Complex, acheckpoint was set up. The car  being driven by Arellano wasflagged down and searched. Thefirearms were found neatly packed in their gun cases and placed in a bag in the trunk of thecar. As such, he wasapprehended and detained.COMELEC then filed anInformation against Aniag andArellano for violation of theOmnibus Election Code. Aniagwas also disqualified fromrunning in the elections.W/N the warrantless search of Aniag’s car and the seizure of theguns violated his right againstunlawful search and seizure.W/N the seeming acquiescenceof Arellano to the searchconstitutes an implied waiver of Aniag’s right to question thereasonableness of the search of the vehicle and the seizure of thefirearms.YES. The records do not showthat the manner by which the package was bundled led thePNP to suspect that it containedfirearms. There was no mentioneither of any report regardingany nervous, suspicious, or unnatural reaction from Arellanowhen the car was stopped andsearched. Given thesecircumstances and relying on itsvisual observation, the PNPcould not thoroughly search thecar lawfully as well as the package without violating theconstitutional injunction.Consequently, the firearmsobtained in violation o petitioner’s right againstwarrantless search cannot beadmitted for any purpose in any proceeding. NO. Arellano did not know the purpose of the checkpoint. In theface of 14 armed policemenconducting the operation,Arellano being alone and a mereemployee of Aniag could nothave marshaled the strength andthe courage to protest against theextensive search conducted in thevehicle. In such scenario, the“implied acquiescence,” if therewas any, could not be more thana mere passive conformity onArellano’s part to the search, andconsent” given undeintimidating or coercivecircumstances is no consentwithin the purview of theconstitutional guaranty.As a rule, a valid search must beauthorized by a search warrantduly issued by an appropriateauthority. However, this is notabsolute. Aside from a searchincident to a lawful arrest, awarrantless search had beenupheld in cases of movingvehicles and the seizure of evidence in plain view, as well asthe search conducted at police or military checkpoints.An extensive search withoutwarrant could only be resorted toif the officers conducting thesearch had reasonable or  probable cause to believe
the search that either the motoristwas a law offender or that theywould find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to thecommission of a crime in thevehicle to be searched. Theexistence of probable cause justifying the warrantless searchis determined by the facts of eachcase.Summerville GeneralMerchandising v. CAGR No. 158767Summerville GeneralMerchandising, Co. sells RoyalPlaying Cards. ItsW/N the cards inside the plasticcontainers are also “subject of the offense” and should not have NO. Summerville’s assertion thatthe Crown Playing Cards are“subject of the offense” isThere exists a constitutionalsafeguard against unreasonablesearches and seizures, which
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4 – Stef Macapagal
26 June 2007
Chico-Nazario, J.
President/General Manager Angcomplained to the authorities thatArotech InternationalCorporation had violated theIntellectual Property Code of thePhilippines by engaging inunauthorized manufacturing,distribution, and sale of RoyalPlaying Cards. The authoritiesapplied for a search warrantagainst Arotech, which wasgranted. They were able toacquire, among others, CrownPlaying Cards which used the plastic containers which werealleged to have infringed thecontainers of the Royal PlayingCards.Arotech moved for the return of the seized items, claiming thatthe cards that were seized wereCrown, not Royal, PlayingCards, and so could not have been subject of the offense.Moreover, the warrant that wasissued was a general searchwarrant because the warrantfailed to describe the things to beseized with particularity.The RTC then ordered that theseized Crown Playing Cardsshould be released to Arotech,leaving only the plasticcontainers in the custody of Summerville, since the violationof the intellectual property rightof Summerville was limited onlyto the plastic container cases,which should have been the onlyitems subject of the warrant. CA,on appeal, affirmed the RTC. been returned to Arotech.erroneous. The articles seizedhad little, if any, evidentiaryvalue for the criminal action of trademark infringement relatingto the use of the plasticcontainers. Moreover,Summerville does not disputethat the design and/or mark of the Crown Playing Cards isowned by Arotech. In fact, thereis no allegation that the designand/or mark of such playingcards is a reproduction,counterfeit, copy, or colorableimitation of another registeredmark legally owned by another;hence, no trademarinfringement appears to have been committed or perpetrated towarrant the inference that theCrown Playing Cards are“subject of the offense,” fruits of the offense, or used or intendedto be used as means ocommitting an offense.refers to the immunity of one’s person from interference by thegovernment, included in which ishis residence, his papers andother possessions. TheConstitution, however, does not provide a blanket prohibitionagainst all searches and seizures;rather, the fundamental protection accorded by the searchand seizure clause is that, between persons and the police,there must stand the protectiveauthority of a magistrate clothedwith the power to issue or refusesuch search warrant.The responsibilities of amagistrate do not end with thegranting of the warrant, butextends to the custody of thearticles seized. In exercisingcustody over these articles, the property rights of the owner should be balanced with thesocietal need to preserveevidence, which will be used inthe prosecution of a case.Yao v. PeopleGR No. 168306The Yaos are incorporators andofficers of Masagana GasW/N there was probable cause toissue the search warrant.YES. The NBI operatives wereable to present testimonial,A search warrant can be issuedonly upon a finding of probable

Activity (51)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
cyndigrace_m liked this
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Ruby Monday liked this
anajuanito liked this
Nico Molé liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->