Feeder International Line v.

CA – 197 SCRA 842 Facts: The M/T „ULU WAI‟ a foreign vessel of Honduran registry, owned and operated by Feeder International Shipping Lines of Singapore, left Singapore on May 6, 1986 carrying 1,100 metric tons of gas oil and 1,000 metric tons of fuel oil consigned to Far East Synergy Corporation of Zamboanga, Philippines. On May 14, 1986, the vessel anchored at the vicinity of Guiuanon Island in Iloilo without notifying the Iloilo customs authorities. The presence of the vessel only came to the knowledge of the Iloilo authorities by information of the civilian informer in the area. Acting on said information, the Acting District Collector of Iloilo dispatched a Customs team on May 19, 1986 to verify the report. The Customs team found out that the vessel did not have on board the required ship and shipping documents, except for a clearance from the port authorities of Singapore clearing the vessel for „Zamboan ga.‟ The District Collector issued his decision finding the said vessel and her cargo in violation of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (PD 1464). The same was affirmed by both Custom Commissioner and Court of Tax Appeals. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner was deprived of property without due process of law in that its right to be presumed innocent was not recognized . Ruling: No, the petitioner, which is a corporate entity, has no personality to invoke the right to be presumed innocent which right is available only to an individual who is an accused in a criminal case.

R.Basco vs. 89572.” The clause does not preclude classification of individuals who may be accorded different treatment under the law as long as the classification is not unreasonable or arbitrary (Itchong v. It violates the equal protection clause of the constitution in that it legalizes PAGCOR—conducted gambling. Issue: Whether or not PD 1869 violates the Equal Protection Caluse of the Constitution. 1991 Facts: A TV ad proudly announces: “The new PAGCOR—responding through responsible gaming. G. Hernandez. 1155). . inter alia. drug trafficking and other vices. while most other forms of gambling are outlawed. May 14. 101 Phil. Held: The Court finds no valid ground to sustain this contention. and because. 91649. public policy and order.” But the petitioners think otherwise. San Diego. together with prostitution. No. The petitioners‟ posture ignores the well-accepted meaning of the clause “equal protection of the laws. they filed the instant petition seeking to annul the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) Charter —PD 1869.R. because it is allegedly contrary to morals. Section 1 of the Constitution (DECS v. 1989). A law does not have to operate in equal force on all persons or things to be conformable to Article III. No. December 21. that is why. Phil. Amusements and Gaming Corporation G.

was gunned down allegedly in cold blood by the members of the NCRDC manning the checkpoint along McArthur Highway at Malinta. the National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) was activated pursuant to Letter of Instruction 02/87 of the Philippine General Headquarters. Petitioner Valmonte also claims that. he had gone thru these checkpoints where he was stopped and his car subjected to search/check-up without a court order or search warrant. Petitioners aver that. Valenzuela. especially at night or at dawn. Petitioners further contend that the said checkpoints give the respondents a blanket authority to make searches and/or seizures without search warrant or court order in violation of the Constitution. Benjamin Parpon. without the benefit of a search warrant and/or court order. Bulacan. Their alleged fear for their safety increased when. for the protection of the people. if conducted within reasonable limits. Metro Manila. the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela. instances have occurred where a citizen. the residents of Valenzuela are worried of being harassed and of their safety being placed at the arbitrary. Metro Manila or elsewhere. with the mission of conducting security operations within its area of responsibility and peripheral areas As part of its duty to maintain peace and order. had been harassed. .Valmonte v. member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). On 20 January 1987. as unconstitutional and the dismantling and banning of the same or. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. Metro Manila. AFP.2 and. while petitioner Union of Lawyers and Advocates for Peo ple‟s Rights (ULAP) sues in its capacity as an association whose members are all members of the IBP. seeking the declaration of checkpoints in Valenzuela. Petitioner Ricardo C. on several occasions. taxpayer. and resident of Valenzuela. considering that their cars and vehicles are being subjected to regular searches and check-ups. in the alternative. Issue: Whether or not checkpoints are constitutional. at dawn of 9 July 1988. are constitutional. while not killed. because of the installation of said checkpoints. to direct the respondents to formulate guidelines in the implementation of checkpoints. capricious and whimsical disposition of the military manning the checkpoints. Held: Checkpoints during abnormal times. a supply officer of Municipality of Valenzuela. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Valmonte sues in his capacity as citizen of the Republic. for ignoring and/or refusing to submit himself to the checkpoint and for continuing to speed off inspite of warning shots fired in the air. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. General de Villa – 178 SCRA 211 (Main) Facts: This is a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order.

was dismissed. checkpoints may be allowed and installed by the government. If the inspection becomes more thorough to the extent of becoming a search. that nowhere in the questioned decision did this Court legalize all checkpoints. at the outset. it is justifiable as a warrantless search of a moving vehicle. under exceptional circumstances. Petitioners have filed the instant motion and supplemental motion for reconsideration of said decision. this can be done when there is deemed to be probable cause. Held: It should be stated. petitioners‟ petition for prohibition seeking the declaration of the checkpoints as unconstitutional and their dismantling and/or banning.Valmonte v. . i. Thus. that checkpoints are not illegal per se. Issue: Whether or not checkpoints are illegal. or where the lives and safety of the people are in grave peril. Routine inspection and a few questions do noty constitute unreasonable searches.e. as where the survival of organized government is on the balance.185 SCRA 655 (MR) In the Court‟s decision dated 29 September 1989. General de Villa . at all times and under all circumstances. What the Court declared is. In the latter situation.