Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
11Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Crim Pro Case Digests_crimpro

Crim Pro Case Digests_crimpro

Ratings: (0)|Views: 544 |Likes:
Published by irishvilllamor

More info:

Published by: irishvilllamor on Oct 11, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

07/02/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Among the cases decided by the Supreme Court which granted victory to theadvocacy for environmental protection, the case of 
OPOSA VS. SECRETARY FACTORAN 
(224 SCRA 792) stands out as most unique, and novel to the legalworld. Studded with new legal doctrines and principles relating to environmentalprotection, the case has up to now been the inspiration of the warriors of mother nature.Case SummaryFacts: This case originating from the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manilawas initiated by several minors, as represented by their parents, including viatheir representation the generations yet unborn. As the original defendant,Secretary Factoran of the Department of Environment and Natural resources wasimpleaded as such.Plaintiffs herein anchor their claim on their right to the full benefit and enjoymentof the countries natural resources, particularly of the virgin forests. They movefor the cancellation of the issued existing Timber License Agreements (TLA) aswell as the desistance of the Defendant and the officers so authorized from anyfurther issuance or renewal of the same.They assert that they have the existing Constitutional right to a balanced andhealthful ecology.Issue: Whether or not the Plaintiffs are real parties in interest.Rule: Plaintiff has the standing. The complaint focuses on a fundamental naturaland legal right enshrined in the Constitution. The same right and source of obligation can justify the claimed inter-generational responsibility. Hence, theymay bring the matter at hand to court and be granted the proper recognition.Section 16, Article II which recognizes above all: THE STATE SHALL PROTECTAND ADVANCE THE RIGHT TO A BALANCED AND HEALTHFUL ECOLOGY INACCORD WITH THE RHYTHM AND HARMONY OF NATURE.Said provision is recognized as self executory and hence may be a source of obligation upon the state without need of further positive act from Congress.
 
PEOPLE V. BURGOS - 144 SCRA 1
FACTS:
Due to an information given by a person, who allegedly was being forcibly recruited byaccused to the NPA, the members of the Constabulary went to the house of accused,asked about his firearm and documents connected to subversive activities. Accusedpointed to where his firearm was as well as his other documents allegedly.
HELD:
The right of the person to be secure against any unreasonable seizure of his body andany deprivation of liberty is a most basic and fundamental one. The statute or rule, which s exceptions to the requirement of warrants of arrest is strictlyconstrued. Any exception must clearly fall within the situations when securing awarrant would be absurd or is manifestly unnecessary as provided by the Rule.We cannot liberally construe the rule on arrests without warrant or extend itsapplicationbeyond the cases specifically provided by law. To do so would infringe uponpersonal liberty and set back a basic right so often violated and so deserving of full protection.
G.R. No. L-64261 December 26, 1984JOSE BURGOS, SR vs. THE CHIEF OF STAFF- AFP, ET ALFacts: Assailed in this petition for certiorari prohibition and mandamus withpreliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction is the validity of two [2]search warrants issued on December 7, 1982 by Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano of thethen CFI of Rizal [Quezon City], under which the premises of the "MetropolitanMail" and "We Forum" newspapers, respectively, were searched, and office andprinting machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articlesused in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as wellas numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to bein the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We Forum" newspaper, were seized.Petitioners further pray that a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction be issued for the return of the seized articles, and that respondents beenjoined from using the articles thus seized as evidence against petitioner JoseBurgos, Jr. and the other accused in Criminal Case No. Q- 022782 of the RegionalTrial Court of Quezon City, entitled People v. Jose Burgos, Jr. et al.Issue: Was the closure of WE Forum a case of prior restraint?Ruling: Yes. As heretofore stated, the premises searched were the business and printingoffices of the "Metropolitan Mail" and the "We Forum newspapers. As aconsequence of the search and seizure, these premises were padlocked andsealed, with the further result that the printing and publication of saidnewspapers were discontinued. Such closure is in the nature of previous restraintor censorship abhorrent to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the
 
fundamental law, and constitutes a virtual denial of petitioners' freedom toexpress themselves in print. This state of being is patently anathematic to ademocratic framework where a free, alert and even militant press is essential forthe political enlightenment and growth of the citizenry.
PEOPLE VS. MONTILLAG. R. No. 123872Jan. 30, 1998Regalado, J.:Facts:Ruben Montilla, alias “Joy” was charged for violating Section 4, Article 2 of theDangerous Drugs Act of 1972, R. A. No. 6425, as amended by R. A. No. 7659 in an informationwhich alleges: “That on or about 20th day of June 1994, at Brgy. Salitran, Dasmarinas, Cavite,xxx the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully,unlawfully and feloniously, administer, transport and deliver 28 kilos of dried marijuana leaveswhich are considered prohibited drugs.Issue:Whether the warrantless search conducted on appellant invalidates the evidence obtainedfrom him?Ruling:A legitimate warrantless arrest necessarily cloaks the arresting officer with authority tovalidly search and seize from the offender (1) dangerous weapons; and (2) those that may beused as proof of the commission of an offense. On the defense argument that the warrantlesssearch conducted on appellant invalidates the evidence obtained from him, still the search on his belongings and the consequent confiscation of the illegal drugs as a result thereof was justified asa search incidental to a lawful arrest under Section 5 (a) Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
People v. Malmstedt [GR 91107, 19 June 1991]
 En Banc, Padilla (J): 8 concur, 1 on leave
Facts:
Mikael Malmstedt, a Swedish national, entered the Philippines for the 3rd time inDecember 1988 as a tourist. He had visited the country sometime in 1982 and 1985. In theevening of 7 May 1989, Malmstedt left for Baguio City. Upon his arrival thereat in the morningof the following day, he took a bus to Sagada and stayed in that place for 2 days. On 11 May1989, Capt. Alen Vasco of NARCOM, stationed at Camp Dangwa, ordered his men to set up atemporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay, Mountain Province, for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region. The order to establish a checkpoint inthe said area was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada weretransporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. Moreover, information was received by theCommanding Officer of NARCOM, that same morning, that a Caucasian coming from Sagadahad in his possession prohibited drugs. At about 1:30 pm, the bus where Malmstedt was ridingwas stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and announced that they weremembers of the NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection. During the inspection,CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on Malmstedt’s waist. Suspecting the bulge on Malmstedt’s waistto be a gun, the officer asked for Malmstedt’s passport and other identification papers. WhenMalmstedt failed to comply, the officer required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging on his waist, which was a pouch bag. When Malmstedt opened the same bag, as ordered,

Activity (11)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Bea Au liked this
C'tian Moo Moo liked this
Jasmine Diego liked this
RenEleponio liked this
shantle liked this
dudekie14344 liked this
fatywines liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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