You are on page 1of 13

Stonehill vs.

20 SCRA 383 (GR No. L-19550), June 19, 1967
Respondents issued, on different dates, 42 search warrants against petitioners
personally, and/or corporations for which they are officers directing peace
officers to search the persons of petitioners and premises of their offices,
warehouses and/or residences to search for personal properties “books of
accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers,
journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents showing
all business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and
profit and loss statements and Bobbins(cigarettes)” as the subject of the offense
for violations of Central Bank Act, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue
Code, and Revised Penal Code.
Upon effecting the search in the offices of the aforementioned corporations and
on the respective residences of the petitioners, there seized documents, papers,
money and other records. Petitioners then were subjected to deportation
proceedings and were constrained to question the legality of the searches and
seizures as well as the admissibility of those seized as evidence against them.
On March 20, 1962, the SC issued a writ of preliminary injunction and
partially lifted the same on June 29, 1962 with respect to some documents and
Whether or not the search warrants issued partakes the nature of a general
search warrants.
Whether or not the seized articles were admissible as evidence regardless of the
illegality of its seizure.
Whether or not the petitioners have the legal standing to assail the legality of
search warrants issued against the corporation of which they were officers.
Search warrants issued were violative of the Constitution and the Rules, thus,
illegal or being general warrants. There is no probable cause and warrant did
not particularly specify the things to be seized. The purpose of the requirement
is to avoid placing the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of

However. . Petitioners were not the proper party to question the validity and return of those taken from the corporations for which they acted as officers as they are treated as personality different from that of the corporation. Document seized from an illegal search warrant is not admissible in court as a fruit of a poisonous tee. caprice or passion of peace officers. except if warranted by the circumstances. they could not be returned.communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims.

Freedom may be lost due to external moral compulsion. to erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary power of an impostor to cause harm if not blindly obeyed. The fact that no physical force has been exerted to keep her in the house of the respondent does not make less real the deprivation of her personal freedom of movement. The employment agency wanted that the advance payment.CAUNCA VS. NO. 1 JAN 1949 Facts: This is an action for habeas corpus brought by Bartolome Caunca in behalf of his cousin Estelita Flores who was employed by the Far Eastern Employment Bureau. respondent herein. regardless of the amount it may advance to a prospective employee or maid. has absolutely no power to curtail her freedom of movement. for her to work as a maid. Further she was detained and her liberty was restrained. which was disallowed by the employment agency. SALAZAR 82 PHIL 851. Estelita wanted to transfer to another residence. However. to any other psychological element that may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise of the will. An advanced payment has already been given to Estelita by the employment agency. owned by Julia Salazar. Issue: Whether or Not an employment agency has the right to restrain and detain a maid without returning the advance payment it gave? Held: An employment agency. . freedom to choose one’s residence. freedom to transfer from one place to another. to founded or groundless fear. If the actual effect of such psychological spell is to place a person at the mercy of another.L‐2690. the victim is entitled to the protection of courts of justice as much as the individual who is illegally deprived of liberty by duress or physical coercion. which was applied to her transportation expense from the province should be paid by Estelita before she could be allowed to leave.

15 SEPT 1989] Facts: This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the court to order the respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs.MARCOS VS. Issue: Whether or not. To issue a travel documents to former Pres. G. Aquino is without power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a court may do so within the limits prescribed by law.R. Nor the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. the right . specifically Sections 1 and 6. Essentially. They further assert that under international law. which has been ratified by the Philippines. Held: It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines. their right to return to the Philippines is guaranteed particularly by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. NO. in the exercise of the powers granted by the constitution. Petitioners assert that the right of the Marcoses to return in the Philippines is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. MANGLAPUS [177 SCRA 668. They contended that Pres. 88211. etc. the President (Aquino) may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

a distinct right under international law. Such rights may only be restricted by laws protecting the national security. What the Declaration speaks of is the "right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state". the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. . The return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat and therefore prohibiting their return to the Philippines. the Covenant guarantees the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence and the right to be free to leave any country. President Aquino has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years after the Marcos regime. The Bill of rights treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel. independent from although related to the right to travel. right to enter one's country cannot be arbitrarily deprived. The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining that the return of the Former Pres. It would be therefore inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to ones country in the same context as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel. public order. as a generally accepted principle of International Law and under our Constitution as part of the law of the land. Thus. However. the right to leave the country. Marcos and his family poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare. but it is a well considered view that the right to return may be considered. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state.involved in this case at bar is the right to return to one's country. On the other hand. including his own. public health or morals or the separate rights of others. and the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights.

the Fact-Finding Team concluded that manipulation of the results in the May 14. 9266 approving the creation of a joint committee with the Department of Justice (DOJ). 2007 senatorial elections in the provinces of North and South Cotabato and Maguindanao were indeed perpetrated. De Lima G. which shall conduct preliminary investigation on the alleged election offenses and anomalies committed during the 2004 and 2007 elections.R. 001-2011 creating and constituting a Joint Committee and Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 National Elections electoral fraud and manipulation cases composed of officials from the DOJ and the Comelec.Arroyo vs. The Comelec and the DOJ issued Joint Order No. The Fact-Finding Team recommended that herein . No. 199082 : September 18. In its initial report. 2012 FACTS: The Comelec issued Resolution No.

Consequently. among others. Private individuals were also subjected to the investigation by the Joint Committee. GMA. While GMA and Mike Arroyo were among those subjected to preliminary investigation. 001-2011 before the Supreme Court. assail the validity of Joint Order No. to be subjected to preliminary investigation for electoral sabotage. et al. ISSUES: Whether or not Joint Order No. et al. 001-2011 violates the equal protection clause? HELD: Petitions are DISMISSED. not all respondents therein were linked to GMA as there were public officers who were investigated upon in connection with their acts in the performance of their official duties. It merely requires that all persons under like circumstances and conditions shall be treated alike both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. The equal protection guarantee exists to prevent undue favor or privilege. while that the charges against Jose Miguel Arroyo.petitioners Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA). et al. . it does not demand absolute equality. It is intended to eliminate discrimination and oppression based on inequality. should be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. After the preliminary investigation. Recognizing the existence of real differences among men. the COMELEC en banc adopted a resolution ordering that information/s for the crime of electoral sabotage be filed against GMA.

PLACER VS. G. L‐60349‐62.R. JUDGE VILLANUEVA [126 SCRA 463. 29 DEC 1983] Facts: . NOS.

it calls for the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of issuing magistrate. respondent judge set the hearing of the criminal cases to determine propriety of issuance of warrants of arrest. If on the face of the information. The issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial function. for the purpose of issuing warrants of arrest. Upon receipt of said informations. such certification does not bind the judge to come out with the warrant. They contended that the fiscal’s certification in the informations of the existence of probable cause constitutes sufficient justification for the judge to issue warrants of arrest. Issue: Whether or Not respondent city judge may.Petitioners filed informations in the city court and they certified that Preliminary Investigation and Examination had been conducted and that prima facie cases have been found. Petitioners petitioned for certiorari and mandamus to compel respondent to issue warrants of arrest. After the hearing. issue a warrant of arrest. Held: Judge may rely upon the fiscal’s certification for the existence of probable cause and on the basis thereof. But. respondent issued an order requiring petitioners to submit to the court affidavits of prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidence in support of the informations to aid him in the exercise of his power of judicial review of the findings of probable cause by petitioners. he may disregard the fiscal’s . Under Section 6 Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. the judge finds no probable cause. compel the fiscal to submit to the court the supporting affidavits and other documentary evidence presented during the preliminary investigation. the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest.

certification and require submission of the affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at the conclusion as to existence of probable cause. . Petition dismissed.

has no military leanings and he does not wish to kill or be killed. Tranquilino Lagman reached the age of 20. Lagman refused to do so because he has a father to support. does not go against this constitutional provision but is. on the contrary. The duty of the Government to defend the State cannot be performed except through an army. and in the fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be required by law to render personal military or civil service. “The defense of the State is a prime duty of government.PEOPLE vs. 13 FACTS: In 1936. Lagman further assailed the constitutionality of the said law. He is being compelled by Section 60 of Commonwealth Act 1 (National Defense Law) to join the military service. LAGMAN 66 Phil.” . HELD: Yes. in so far as it establishes compulsory military service. Hence. the National Defense Law. To leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to make this duty of the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein. ISSUE: Whether or not the National Defense Law is constitutional. in faithful compliance therewith.

It must be noted that real properties are not susceptible of confiscation under a search warrant. In another case decided by the Court.R. receptacles. During the course of the search. V. among others. which cannot be validly conducted under the strength of a search warrant. in which the abovementioned legal provision was . equipment. Under Article 415(5) of the civil code. The petitioner’s assertion does not hold water. “machinery. Hence this appeal which assails the validity of the search and the seizure of the properties of the petitioner. instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works” are considered immovable property. Held: No.BURGOS. that the seizure of the properties mentioned above amounts to seizure of real properties. law enforcement officers searched the offices of the “We forum” and “Metropolitan Mail” newspapers. 26 DEC 1984] Facts: Armed with a search warrant issued by the Court of First Instance of Rizal. AFP [133 SCRA 800. SR. paraphernalia and several other materials used in the distribution of newspapers. Issue: Whether there is merit in the petitioner’s assertion that real property were invalidly seized under the disputed warrants. Petitioner avers. the law enforcement officers seized office and printing machines. G. NO. 64261. CHIEF OF STAFF.

This being the case. unless such person acted as the agent of the owner. In the case at bar. .invoked. property or plant. usufructuary. petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land and/or building on which the machineries were placed. the machineries in question. it was ruled that machinery which is movable by nature becomes immobilized when placed by the owner of the tenement. but not so when placed by a tenant. while in fact bolted to the ground remains movable property susceptible to seizure under a search warrant. or any other person having only temporary right.