ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No 170180 Novem e! "#$ "007 Facts: Petitione! A!

senio V%l&e' (%s fo)n& *)ilt+ + the lo(e! ,o)!ts fo! the viol%tion of Se,tion 11 of RA -1./ 0ille*%l possession of &%n*e!o)s &!)*s1 %fte! &!ie& m%!i2)%n% le%ves (e!e fo)n& in his possession + th!ee %!%n*%+ t%no&s (ho m%&e % se%!,h on him Petitione! &enie& o(ne!ship %n& p)!po!te& th%t he h%& 2)st %li*hte& f!om the )s (hen one of the %!%n*%+ t%no&s %pp!o%,he& him %n& !e3)este& to see the ,ontents of his %*s. 4he petitione! (%s then !o)*ht + the th!ee t%no&s to the ho)se of 5!*+. 6%pt%in 7e!,%&o$ (ho %*%in o!&e!e& to h%ve the %* opene&. D)!in* (hi,h$ the &!ie& m%!i2)%n% le%ves (e!e fo)n&. Petitione! p!%+s fo! his %,3)itt%l 3)estionin*$ %ltho)*h fo! the fi!st time on %ppe%l$ th%t his (%!!%ntless %!!est (%s effe,te& )nl%(f)ll+ %n& the (%!!%ntless se%!,h th%t follo(e& (%s li8e(ise ,ont!%!+ to l%(. Issue: 9hethe! o! not the petitione! sho)l& e %,3)itte& fo! the l%,8 of % (%!!%nt s)ppo!tin* the %!!est %n& the se%!,h. Held: 4he 6o)!t !)le& fo! the !eve!s%l of the &e,ision + the lo(e! ,o)!ts. 4he %,,)se& (%s %,3)itte& + !e%son% le &o) t. Se,tion /$ R)le 11# of the R)les on 6!imin%l P!o,e&)!es p!ovi&es fo! the onl+ o,,%sions pe!mittin* % (%!!%ntless %!!est: 0%1 9hen$ in his p!esen,e$ the pe!son to e %!!este& h%s ,ommitte&$ is %,t)%ll+ ,ommittin*$ o! is %ttemptin* to ,ommit %n offense; 0 1 9hen %n offense h%s 2)st een ,ommitte& %n& he h%s p!o % le ,%)se to elieve %se& on pe!son%l 8no(le&*e of f%,ts o! ,i!,)mst%n,es th%t the pe!son to e %!!este& h%s ,ommitte& it; %n& 0,1 9hen the pe!son to e %!!este& is % p!isone! (ho h%s es,%pe& f!om % pen%l est% lishment o! pl%,e (he!e he is se!vin* fin%l 2)&*ment o! tempo!%!il+ ,onfine& (hile his ,%se is pen&in*$ o! h%s es,%pe& (hile ein* t!%nsfe!!e& f!om one ,onfinement to %nothe!. 4he 6o)!t hel& th%t none of the ,i!,)mst%n,es (%s %tten&%nt %t the time of the %!!est. 4he 6o)!t %lso pose& " e<,eptions to the s%i& !)le$ to (it: 011 the pe!son to e %!!este& m)st e<e,)te %n ove!t %,t in&i,%tin* th%t he h%s 2)st ,ommitte&$ is %,t)%ll+ ,ommittin*$ o! is %ttemptin* to ,ommit % ,!ime; %n& 0"1 s),h ove!t %,t is &one in the p!esen,e o! (ithin the vie( of the %!!estin* offi,e!. None of the petitione!=s %,t)%tions 0i.e. his loo8in* %!o)n& %n& %lle*e& fleein* )pon %pp!o%,h of the t%no&s1 is %&e3)%te to in,ite s)spi,ion of ,!imin%l %,tivit+ to v%li&%te the (%!!%ntless %!!est. >o(eve!$ the 6o)!t=s &e,ision (%s not onl+ hin*e& on this p!emise )t %lso on the f%,t th%t the lo(e! ,o)!ts f%ile& to est% lish the ve!%,it+ of the sei'e& items + vi!t)e of the ,h%in of ,)sto&+ !)le %n& in vie( of the ,ont!%stin* testimonies + the p!ose,)tion (itnesses. ?%il)!e of the lo(e! ,o)!ts to s%tisf+ the test of mo!%l ,e!t%int+$ the %,,)se& (%s th)s %,3)itte&. 4he 6o)!t %&&e& th%t the petitione!=s l%,8 of o 2e,tion to the se%!,h %n& sei')!e is not t%nt%mo)nt to % (%ive! of his ,onstit)tion%l !i*ht o! % vol)nt%!+ s) mission to the (%!!%ntless se%!,h %n& sei')!e.

Facts: 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 #entral Bank $ct, %ariff and #ustoms &aws, 'nternal Revenue #ode, and Revised (enal #ode) *pon effecting the search in the offices of the aforementioned corporations and on the respective residences of the petitioners, there sei+ed documents, papers, money and other records) (etitioners then were subjected to deportation proceedings and were constrained to ,uestion the legality of the searches and sei+ures as well as the admissibility of those sei+ed as evidence against them) -n .arch 2/, 0122, the 3# issued a writ of preliminary injunction and partially lifted the same on 4une 21, 0122 with respect to some documents and papers) Issues: 0! 5hether or not those found and sei+ed in the offices of the aforementioned corporations are obtained legally) 2! 5hether or not those found and sei+ed in the residences of petitioners herein are obtained legally) Held: a) 3earch warrants issued were violative of the #onstitution and the Rules, thus, illegal or being general warrants) %here is no probable cause and warrant did not particularly specify the things to be sei+ed) %he purpose of the re,uirement is to avoid placing the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers) b) 6ocument sei+ed from an illegal search warrant is not admissible in court as a fruit of a poisonous tee) 7owever, they could not be returned, e8cept if warranted by the circumstances) c) (etitioners were not the proper party to ,uestion 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)

Soliven vs Judge Makasiar Facts: Beltran is among the petitioners in this case) 7e together with others was charged for libel by the president) #ory herself filed acomplaint9affidavit against him and others) .akasiar averred that #ory cannot file a complaint affidavit because this would defeat her immunity from suit) 7e grounded his contention on the principle that a president cannot be sued) 7owever, if a president would sue then the president would allow herself to be placed under the court:s jurisdiction and conversely she would be consenting to be sued back) $lso, considering the functions of a president, the president may not be able to appear in court to be a witness for herself thus she may be liable for contempt) ISSUE: 5hether or not such immunity can be invoked by Beltran, a person other than the president) HELD: %he rationale for the grant to the (resident of the privilege of immunity from suit is to assure the e8ercise of (residentialduties and functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that being the #hief ;8ecutive of the <overnment is a job that, aside from re,uiring all of the office9holder:s time, also demands undivided attention) But this privilege of immunity from suit, pertains to the (resident by virtue of the office and may be invoked only by the holder of the office= not by any other person in the (resident:s behalf) %hus, an accused like Beltran et al, in a criminal case in which the (resident is complainant cannot raise the presidential privilege as a defense to prevent the case from proceeding against such accused) .oreover, there is nothing in our laws that would prevent the (resident from waiving the privilege) %hus, if so minded the (resident may shed the protection afforded by the privilege and submit to the court:s jurisdiction) %he choice of whether toe8ercise the privilege or to waive it is solely the (resident:s prerogative) 't is a decision that cannot be assumed and imposed by any other person)

Soliven vs Judge makasair Facts: 'n these consolidated cases, three principal issues were raised> 0! whether or not petitioners were denied due process wheninformations for libel were filed against them although the finding of the e8istence of a prima facie case was still under review by the 3ecretary of 4ustice and, subse,uently, by the (resident= and 2! whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when respondent R%# judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally e8amining the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to determine probable cause) 3ubse,uent events have rendered the first issue moot and academic) -n .arch ?/, 01@@, the 3ecretary of 4ustice denied petitionersA motion for reconsideration and upheld the resolution of the *ndersecretary of 4ustice sustaining the #ity BiscalAs finding of a prima facie case against petitioners) $ second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Beltran was denied by the 3ecretary of 4ustice on $pril C, 01@@) -n appeal, the (resident, through the ;8ecutive 3ecretary, affirmed the resolution of the 3ecretary of 4ustice on .ay 2, 01@@) %he motion for reconsideration was denied by the ;8ecutive 3ecretary on .ay 02, 01@@) 5ith these developments, petitionersA contention that they have been denied the administrativeremedies available under the law has lost factual support) Issues: 0! 5hether or Dot petitioners were denied due process wheninformations for libel were filed against them although the finding of the e8istence of a prima facie case was still under review by the 3ecretary of 4ustice and, subse,uently, by the (resident) 2! 5hether or Dot the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when respondent R%# judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally e8amining the complainant and the witnesses, if any, to determine probable cause Held: 5ith respect to petitioner Beltran, the allegation of denial of due process of law in the preliminary investigation is negated by the fact that instead of submitting his counter9 affidavits, he filed a E.otion to 6eclare (roceedings #losed,E in effect waiving his right to refute the complaint by filing counter9affidavits) 6ue process of law does not re,uire that the respondent in a criminal case actually file his counter9affidavits before the preliminary investigation is deemed completed) $ll that is re,uired is that the respondent be given the opportunity to submit counter9affidavits if he is so minded) %he second issue, raised by petitioner Beltran, calls for an interpretation of the constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest) %he pertinent provision reads> $rt) ''', 3ec) 2) %he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches andsei+ures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e8cept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge aftere8amination nder oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be sei+ed) %he addition of the word EpersonallyE after the word EdeterminedE and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 01C? #onstitution to issue warrants to Eother responsible officers as may be authori+ed by law,E has apparently convinced petitioner Beltran that the #onstitution now re,uires the judge to personally e8amine the complainant and his witnesses in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest) %his is not an accurate interpretation) 5hat the #onstitution underscores is the e8clusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the e8istence of probable cause) 'n satisfying himself of the e8istence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not re,uired to personally e8amine the complainant and his witnesses) Bollowing established doctrine and procedure, he shall> 0! personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the e8istence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest= or 2! if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscalAs report and re,uire the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the e8istence of probable cause) 3ound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the preliminary e8amination and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts) 't has not been shown that respondent judge has deviated from the prescribed procedure) %hus, with regard to the issuance of the warrants of arrest, a finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or e8cess of jurisdiction cannot be sustained) %he petitions fail to establish that public respondents, through their separate acts, gravely abused their discretion as to amount to lack of jurisdiction) 7ence, the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for cannot issue)

57;R;B-R;, finding no grave abuse of discretion amounting to e8cess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondents, the #ourt Resolved to 6'3.'33 the petitions in <) R) Dos) @2F@F, @2@2C and @?1C1) %he -rder to maintain the status ,uo contained in the Resolution of the #ourt en banc dated $pril C, 01@@ and reiterated in the Resolution dated $pril 22, 01@@ is &'B%;6) Nolasco, et al vs. a!o ".#. No. L$%&'() *cto+er ', ,&'Facts: %he present case was subject for resolution) 3upreme #ourt held in a criminal case that the arrest of the petitioners was illegal, annulling the decision of respondent 4udge (aGo, and that the sei+ure of the items by virtue of the warrant by the same respondent judge are inadmissible as evidence in the 3ubversive 6ocuments case) 7owever the #ourt held that the items were to be retained in case it would be used as evidence in a separate criminal case pending before the 3pecial .ilitary #ommission Do)0, returning the rest which are determined irrelevant by petitioner) (etitioners ,uestioned the portion of the decision regarding the retention of the properties sei+ed) -ne of the petitioners also assailed the respondent:s claim that the search was incidental to her arrest for the crime of rebellion) Issue: 5hether or not some of the properties sei+ed may be introduced as evidence in a separate criminal case) Held: %he #ourt ruled the propriety of the declaration of the arrest and search as null and void) 't was held that the warrant was one of a general warrant issued in gross violation of the constitutional mandate against unreasonable searches and sei+ures) %he Bill of rights also orders the absolute e8clusion of all illegally obtained evidence> E$ny evidence obtained in violation of this ) ) ) section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceedingE 3ec) 4H2I!) $ll the articles thus sei+ed fag under the e8clusionary rule totally and unqualifiedly and cannot be used against any of the three petitioners, as held by the majority in the recent case of Galman vs. Pamaran <)R) Dos) C02/@9/1, $ugust ?/, 01@F!) 3ince the search was not an incident of an arrest as it was in fact made under a void general warrant, the sei+ure of documents could not be justified as an incident of an arrest %he #ourt ordered the return of all sei+ed items to petitioners)

./nt0ia . Nolasco vs Hon. Ernani .ru1 anoF2.3S: $,uilar9Ro,ue and Dolasco were arrested by a #onstabulary 3ecurity <roup #3<! at the intersection of .ayon 3treet, Jue+on #ity -n the same day, a searched was conducted) #t) #ol) Kirgilio 3aldajeno= applied for search warrant from the respondent 7on) ;rnani #ru+ (ano, after a month of round the clock" surveillance of the premises as a suspected underground house of the #((/D($", particularly connected to .K Laragatan / (ena $ndrea cases) %he searching party sei+ed 42@ documents and written materials, and additionally a portable typewriter and 2 wooden bo8es) %he #ity Biscal information for violation of (6 Do) ??, 'llegal (ossession of 3ubversive 6ocuments (etitioners contend that the 3earch 5arrant is void because it is a general warrant since it does not sufficiently describe with particularly the things subject of the search and sei+ure and that probable cause had not been properly established for lack of searching ,uestions propounded to the applicant:s witness) ISSUE: 5hether or not the search warrant issued was of general warrant and illegalM HELD: %he search warrant is of <eneral, thus, it was hereby annulled by set aside) #23I*N2LE: %he 3earch 5arrant does not specify what the subversive books and instructions are= what are the manuals not otherwise available to the public certain to make them subversive or to enable them to be used for the crime of rebellion) %here is absent a definite guideline to the searching team as to what items might be lawfully sei+ed thus giving the officers of the law discretion regarding what articles they should sei+e as, in fact, taken also were a portable typewriter) .ere generali+ation will not suffice and odes not satisfy the re,uirements of probable cause upon which a warrant may issue)

Sei1ure o4 goods concealed to avoidduties5ta6es a7a vs.Mago Facts: (etitioner .artin $lagao, head of the counter9intelligence unit of the .anila (olice 6epartment, acting upona reliable information received on Dovember ?, 0122 to theeffect that a certain shipment of personal effects, allegedlymisdeclared and undervalued, would be released thefollowing day from the customs +one of the port of .anilaand loaded on two trucks, and upon orders of petitioner Ricardo (apa, #hief of (olice of .anila and a duly deputi+edagent of the Bureau of #ustoms, conducted surveillance atgate Do) 0of the customs +one)5hen the trucks left gate Do)0 at about 4>?/ in theafternoon of Dovember 4,0122, elements of the counter9intelligence unit went after the trucks and intercepted them atthe $grifina #ircle, ;rmita, .anila) %he load of the two trucks,consisting of nine bales of goods, and the two trucks, weresei+ed on instructions of the #hief of (olice) *poninvestigation, a person claimed ownership of the goods andshowed to the policemen a E3tatement and Receipts of 6uties #ollected on 'nformal ;ntry Do) 04C9FF/0 E, issued bythe Bureau of #ustoms in the name of a certain BienvenidoDaguit)%he respondent .ago, filed a petition for mandamusand certiorari before the #B' .anila contending that thesearch and sei+ure is illegal for lack of a valid warrant).oreover, she also contends that such articles sought fromher is not included by the law for prohibited importation andthat it no longer under the control of the %ariff and #ustomscode for it articles! were already sold to the petitioner)3he also contends that the search sei+ureconducted by the respondents are illegally being madeoutside the jurisdiction of the B-# and that the subse,uentsearch warrant issued by the collector of customs is not validbeing not issued by a judge)%he respondent .ago filed an e89parte motion torelease the confiscated articles upon her posting a bond)%his motion was then granted by the respondent 4udge4arencio) issue: 5as the sei+ure of the goods unlawfulM $nd that theB-# has no jurisdiction over the articles soughtM Held: Do) it is a valid sei+ure)%he #hief of the .anila (olice 6epartment, Ricardo<) (apa, having been deputi+ed in writing by the#ommissioner of #ustoms, could, for the purposes of theenforcement of the customs and tariff laws, effect searches,sei+ures, and arrests, and it was his duty to make sei+ure,among others, of any cargo, articles or other movableproperty when the same may be subject to forfeiture or liablefor any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws) 7e couldlawfully open and e8amine any bo8, trunk, envelope or other container wherever found when he had reasonable cause tosuspect the presence therein of dutiable articles introducedinto the (hilippines contrary to law= and likewise to stop,search and e8amine any vehicle, beast or person reasonablysuspected of holding or conveying such article as aforesaid)'t cannot be doubted, therefore, that petitioner Ricardo <)(apa, #hief of (olice of .anila, could lawfully effect thesearch and sei+ure of the goods in ,uestion) %he %ariff and#ustoms #ode authori+es him to demand assistance of anypolice officer to effect said search and sei+ure, and the latter has the legal duty to render said assistance) %his was whathappened precisely in the case of &t) .artin $lagao who, withhis unit, made the search and sei+ure of the two trucksloaded with the nine bales of goods in ,uestion at the $grifina #ircle) 7e was given authority by the #hief of (oliceto make the interception of the cargo)(etitioner .artin $lagao and his companionpolicemen had authority to effect the sei+ure without anysearch warrant issued by a competent court)%he %ariff and #ustoms #ode does not re,uire saidwarrant in the instant case) %he #ode authori+es personshaving police authority under 3ection 22/? of the %ariff and#ustoms #ode to enter, pass through or search any land,inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwellinghouse= and also to inspect, search and e8amine any vesselor aircraft and any trunk, package, bo8 or envelope or anyperson on board, or stop and search and e8amine anyvehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or conveyingany dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the(hilippines contrary to law, without mentioning the need of asearch warrant in said cases)'t is our considered view, therefore, that e8cept inthe case of the search of a dwelling house, personse8ercising police authority under the customs law may effectsearch and sei+ure without a search warrant in theenforcement of customs laws) Note: %he Bureau of #ustoms has the duties, powers and jurisdiction, among others, 8,9to assess and collect all lawfulrevenues from imported articles, and all other dues, fees,charges, fines and penalties, accruing under the tariff andcustoms laws= 8:9to prevent and suppress smuggling andother frauds upon the customs= and 8)9to enforce tariff andcustoms laws) %he goods in ,uestion were imported from 7ongkong, asshown in the E3tatement and Receipts of 6uties #ollected on'nformal ;ntry)E $s long as the importation has not beenterminated the imported goods remain under the jurisdictionof the Bureau of #ustoms) Im7ortation is deemed terminated only upon thepayment of the duties, ta8es and other charges upon thearticles, or secured to be paid, at the port of entry and thelegal permit for withdrawal shall have been granted %he payment of the duties, ta8es, fees and other charges must be in full)

eo7le vs Malmstedt Facts: $ccused is a 3wedish national arrested for carrying 7ashish, a form of marijuana during a D$R#-. inspection) 7e was tried and found guilty in violation of 6angerous 6rugs $ct) 7e contends that the arrest was illegal without the search warrant) Issue: 5-D the arrest made was illegal in the absence of a search warrant) #uling: D$R#-. operation was conducted with a probable cause for a warrantless search upon information that prohibited drugs are in the possession of the accused and he failed to immediately present his passport) $ warrantless arrest may be lawfully made> a! when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense= b! 5hen an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it= and c! 5hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another)

30e eo7le o4 t0e 0ili77ines vs Mikael Malmstedt %he 3wedish Dational with 7ashish #ase" Facts:. i k a e l . a l m s t e d t , a 3 w e d i s h n a t i o n a l , w a s f o u n d , v i a a r o u t i n e D $ R # - . i n s p e ction at Lilometer 04, $cop, %ublay .ountain (rovince, carrying 7ashish, ad e r i v a t i v e o f . a r i j u a n a ) R % # & a % r i n i d a d f o u n d h i m g u i l t y f o r v i o l a t i o n o f t h e 6angero us 6rugs $ct) %he accused filed a petition to the 3upreme #ourt for the reversalof the decision arguing that the search and the arrest made was illegal because there wasno search warrant) Issue:5hether or not the decision of the trial court should be reversed or affirmed! because the accused argues that the search and arrest was made without a warrant Held>%he R%# decision is affirmed) #atio:%he constitution states that a peace officer or a private person may arrest a personw i t h o u t a w a r r a n t w h e n i n h i s p r e s e n c e t h e p e r s o n t o b e a r r e s t e d h a s c o m m i t t e d , i s actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense) %he offense was recogni+edwith the warrantless search conducted by D$R#-. prompted by probable cause> 0! ther e c e i p t o f i n f o r m a t i o n b y D $ R # - . t h a t a # a u c a s i a n c o m i n g f r o m 3 a g a d a h a d prohibited drugs in his possession and 2! failure of the accused to immediately presenthis passport)

Harris v. United States Facts. (etitioner 7arris sold narcotics out of his pawnshop, while wearing an unconcealed firearm) *nder 0@ *)3)#) 3ection> 124 c! 0! $!, he was sentenced to seven years for brandishing" his firearm) (etitioner argued that this was a statutory offence separate from the crime on which he had been convicted, and had to be proved under $pprendi) Issue. 5hether HtheI .c.illan Hcase, which :sustained a statute that increased the minimum penalty for a crime ;rie4 Fact Summar/. <un and narcotics dealer was given a higher sentence for brandishing a gun) S/no7sis o4 #ule o4 La<. .c.illan is limitHedI ) ) ) to cases that do not involve the imposition of a sentence more severe than the statutory ma8imum for the offense established by the jury:s verdict)"

Facts o4 t0e .ase 5illiam 7arris, who sold illegal narcotics at his pawnshop with an unconcealed semiautomatic pistol at his side, was convicted for violating 0@ *3# section 124 c! 0! $!, which provides that a person who in relation to a drug trafficking crime uses or carries a firearm Eshall, in addition to the punishment for such crime)))if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to)))not less than C years)E 5hen his presentence report recommended that he receive the C9year minimum sentence, 7arris objected, arguing that brandishing was an element of a separate statutory offense for which he was not indicted or convicted) %he 6istrict #ourt found that 7arris had brandished the gun and sentenced him to seven years in prison) 'n affirming, the #ourt of $ppeals found that .c.illan v) (ennsylvania, 4CC *)3) C1, in which the *)3) 3upreme #ourt sustained a statute that increased the minimum penalty for a crime, though not beyond the statutory ma8imum, foreclosed his argument that if brandishing is a sentencing factor, the statute is unconstitutional under $pprendi v) Dew 4ersey, F?/ *)3) 422) =uestion 's .c.illan v) (ennsylvania, 4CC *)3) C1, valid after the *)3) 3upreme #ourtAs decision in $pprendi v) Dew 4ersey, F?/ *)3) 422M 2rgument Decision: F votes for Legal 7rovision: 0@ *)3)#) 124 *nited 3tates, 4 vote s! against

Nes) 'n a 29? opinion delivered by 4ustice $nthony .) Lennedy, the #ourt held that section 124 c! 0! $! defines a single offense, in which brandishing a firearm is a sentencing factor to be found by the judge, not an offense element to be found by the jury) Reaffirming .c.illan, the #ourt also concluded that section 124 c! 0! $! is constitutional because basing a 29year increase in the defendantAs minimum sentence on a judicial finding of brandishing does not evade the re,uirements of neither the Bifth and 3i8th $mendments nor $pprendi) E$pprendiAs conclusions do not undermine .c.illanAs) %here was no comparable historical practice of submitting facts increasing the mandatory minimum to the jury, so the $pprendi rule did not e8tend to those facts,E wrote 4ustice Lennedy) Statement o4 t0e case> %he 6 contended that the weapon sei+ed from his person and introduced into evidence was obtained through an illegal search, under the Bourth $mendment, and that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress) rocedure +elo<> (etitioner sought review of a judgment from the 3upreme #ourt of -hio that affirmed petitioner:s lower court conviction for carrying a concealed weapon) Statement o4 t0e 4acts> $n officer observed two men standing on a street corner) -ne would walk up to a store window, look inside, and return to confer with his companion) %his process was repeated about a do+en times) %he suspects talked with a third man, then followed him up the street) %hinking the suspects were casing" the store, the officer confronted the three men and asked their names) %he men mumbled a response, at which time the officer spun one of the men, %erry 6!, around and patted his breast) 7e found and removed a pistol) 6 was charged with carrying a concealed weapon) 6 moved to suppress this weapon from evidence) %he trial judge denied his motion) %he -hio court of appeals affirmed, and the state supreme court dismissed 6:s appeal) Legal issue> 's it always unreasonable for a policeman to sei+e a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons when there is no probable cause for arrestM Holding> $n officer is justified in conducting a carefully limited search of persons whom he reasonably suspects to be dangerous in order to discover any weapons which might be used to assault him or other nearby, even in the absence of probable cause for arrest and any weapons sei+ed may be introduced in evidence) #easoning> 5arren, #)4)! Do) $n officer is justified in conducting a carefully limited search of persons whom he reasonably suspects to be dangerous in order to discover any weapons which might be used to assault him or other nearby, even in the absence of probable cause for arrest) %he e8clusionary rule has limitations as a tool of judicial control) 'n some conte8ts, the rule will not be effective as a deterrent, and will potentially e8act a high toll in human injury) %he government:s interest in preventing harm must be balanced against the invasion into a person:s privacy) %he policeman should use an objective test, and be able to point to specific and articulable facts which reasonably justify the intrusion) 3tandard would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the sei+ure or the search 5arrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriateM $nything less would invite intrusions upon constitutionally protected rightsO ) %he #ourt went on to say that, effective crime prevention and detection is a governmental interest in appropriate circumstances for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest) 't would be unreasonable to re,uire that the policeman take unnecessary risks) 7e has a need to protect himself and others in situations where he lacks probable cause for arrest) 'n this case, nothing in the conduct of 6 and his friends dispelled the officer:s reasonable fear that they were armed) $ffirmed, for ()

.oncurrence> 7arlan, 4)! $n officer must have constitutional grounds on which to insist on an encounter, to make a forcible stop) %he right to frisk must be immediate and automatic if the reason for the stop is an articulable suspicion of a crime of violence) .oncurrence> 5hite, 4)! $ policeman can address ,uestions to anyone on the streets, but citi+ens are not obliged to answer, and answers may not be compelled) $ refusal to answer is no basis for an arrest, but it may be a basis for continued observation) Dissent> 6ouglas, 4)! 'nfringement of one:s personal liberty is only reasonable if probable cause is present) %he majority gives a policeman more authority to make a sei+ure and conduct a search than a judge has) .ritical summar/> %his case represents a delineation between a reasonable belief and a reasonable suspicion) (robable causeP reasonable belief) 3top and Brisk P reasonable suspicion backed by articulable facts) Facts. %he officer noticed the (etitioner talking with another individual on a street corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same street) %he men would periodically peer into a store window and then talk some more) %he men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually followed up the street) %he officer believed that the (etitioner and the other men were casing" a store for a potential robbery) %he officer decided to approach the men for ,uestioning, and given the nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a ,uick search of the men before ,uestioning) $ ,uick frisking of the (etitioner produced a concealed weapon and the (etitioner was charged with carrying a concealed weapon) Issue. 5hether a search for weapons without probable cause for arrest is an unreasonable search under the Bourth $mendment to the *nited 3tates #onstitution "#onstitution"!M ;rie4 Fact Summar/. %he (etitioner, 4ohn 5) %erry the (etitioner"!, was stopped and searched by an officer after the officer observed the (etitioner seemingly casing a store for a potential robbery) %he officer approached the (etitioner for ,uestioning and decided to search him first) S/no7sis o4 #ule o4 La<. $n officer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant, even without probable cause, when the officer reasonably believes that the person may be armed and dangerous) osadas vs .2 Facts: .embers of the 'ntegrated Dational (olice 'D(! of the 6avao .etrodiscom assigned with the 'ntelligence %ask Borce, (at) *rsicio *ngab and (at) *mbra *mpar conducted surveillance along .agallanes 3treet, 6avao #ity) 5hile in the vicinity of Ri+al .emorial#olleges they spotted petitioner carrying a EburiE bag and they noticed him to be acting suspiciously) %hey approached the petitioner and identified themselves as members of the 'D() (etitioner attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was unsuccessful) %hey then checked the EburiE bag of the petitioner where they found one 0! caliber )?@ 3mith Q 5esson revolver with 3erial Do) CC/012, two 2! rounds of live ammunition for a )?@ caliber gun, a smoke tear gas! grenade, and two 2! live ammunitions for a )22 caliber gun) %hey brought the petitioner to the police station for further investigation) 'n the course of the same, the petitioner was asked to show the necessary license or authority to possess firearms and ammunitions found in his possession but he failed to do so) 7e was then taken to the 6avao .etrodiscom office and the prohibited articles recovered from him were indorsed to ./3gt) 6idoy the officer then on duty) 7e was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the Regional %rial #ourt of 6avao #ity) Issue: 5hether or Dot the warantless search is valid)

Held: 'n justifying the warrantless search of the buri bag then carried by the petitioner, argues that under 3ection 02, Rule 0?2 of the Rules of #ourt a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything used as proof of a commission of an offense without a search warrant) 't is further alleged that the arrest without a warrant of the petitioner was lawful under the circumstances) in the case at bar, there is no ,uestion that, indeed, it is reasonable considering that it was effected on the basis of a probable cause) %he probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same) 't is too much indeed to re,uire the police officers to search the bag in the possession of the petitioner only after they shall have obtained a search warrant for the purpose) 3uch an e8ercise may prove to be useless, futile and much too late)

#learly, the search in the case at bar can be sustained under the e8ceptions heretofore discussed, and hence, the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and sei+ures has not been violated) Dature> $ppeal from the decision of the R%# of 6avao del 3ur Bacts> -ne #esar .asamlok surrendered to the authorities at the 6avao del 3ur #onstabulary 7J) 7e testified that Ruben Burgos forcibly recruited him as member of D($) Burgos threatened him with the use of a firearm) .asamlok attended the seminar where Burgos spoke about his membership with the D($ and the organi+ation:s desire to overthrow the government) (ursuant to this information, (#9'D( members went to house of accused) $ccused was plowing the field when they arrived) (at) Bioco called accused and asked him about the firearm) $ccused denied possession of said firearm but later, his wife pointed to a place below their house where a gun was buried in the ground) $fter the recovery of said firearm, accused pointed to a stock pile of cogon where the officers recovered> 04 marron notebook 0F pamphlets> $ng Byan, (ahayagan ng (aritdo Lomunista ng (ilipinas ets $ccused admitted that firearm was issued to him by Destor 4imines, team leader of sparro unit) #3.: convicted 'ssue> 5-D warrantless arrest was valid 7eld> DRatio> Dot under the conditions provided in rules 0) %he officer arresting a person who has just committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense must have personal knowledge of that fact) 2) %he test of reasonable ground applies only to the identity of the perpetrator ?) *nder 3ection 2 b!, it is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that a person to be arrested has committed a crime= a crime must in fact or actually have been committed first) 'ssue> 5-D search was valid 7eld> DRatio> 'f an arrest without a warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made, generally nothing that happened or is discovered afterwards can make it lawful) 02 %here was to waiver to search in case at bar) %o constitute waiver, ? re,uisites must concur> 0) that the right e8ists 2) that the person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the e8istence of such right ?) that said person had an actual intention to relin,uish the right -thers> 0C denied of right to counsel during custodial interrogation 0@ counsel was only called when accused subscribed under oath his statement .asamlok:s testimony was uncorroborated) 7e was an interested witness) 5anted trade9off> membership with #ivil 7ome 6efense Borce) 6isposition) 4*6<.;D% R;K;R3;6 $D6 3;% $3'6;) $#J*'%%;6) .ru1 vs. "atan Bacts> 3erafin <) #ru+ was arrested by (# agents on $ugust ?/ 01C2, at the Baguio #heckpoint along LennonRoad, Baguio #ity, and brought to #amp -livas, 3anBernando, (ampanga, under the command of respondent<en) Romeo <atan, for custodial interrogation, where he ispresently detained)-n -ctober 22, 01C2, a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was filed in his behalf wherein it wasclaimed that the said 3erafin #ru+ is held incommunicado=that he is restrained of his liberty without due process of lawand is in the custody of the respondent not by virtue of a judgment or court order= that he is not a member of anysubversive organi+ation covered by (roclamation Do)0/@0 and falls within the clays of persons to whom the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus has not been suspended)%he petitioner is said to be an over9all #ommander and #ontractor <eneral of the Bataan 6efenders #ommand,an unregistered veterans outfit) 7e is thus allegedly violated $rt)04C of the R(# 'llegal $ssociations!)3ubse,uently, the counsel for the petitioner however calimed after a discussion with the petitioner claimed that his continued detention is the free will andvolition of the petitioner who e8pressed fears that he mightbe harmed or injured by some members of the EBataan6efenders #ommandE if he were free from custody while themastermind and legal counsel of the association, one $tty)#ecilio Baylon Buenafe, has not yet been arrested) 'ssue>5as the petitioner illegally detainedM 7eld> Do) %he privilege of writ of habeas corpus wassuspended by virtue of the declaration of (6 0/@0 ).oreover, the case petition for habeas corpus! becamemoot and academic since the petitioner voluntarily give itsconsent for its detention due to threats)%he petitioner in the instant case was arrested anddetained by virtue of an $rrest, 3earch, and 3ei+ure -rder issued by the 3ecretary of Dational 6efense for violation of $rticle04C of the Revised (enal #ode pursuant to

theafore,uoted <eneral -rder Do) 29$, as amended= hence, hisarrest and continued detention is legal) %he declaration of martial law and the conse,uent suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus with respect to persons reasonablybelieved or charged to be engaged in the disorder or infomenting it having been settled in the case of $,uino, 4r) vs)(once ;nrile etc), et al), any in,uiry by this #ourt into thecontinued detention of the petitioner would be purposeless) ".#. No. )'>,-, eo7le v. No/na/ and #ui1 3eptember 0F, 01?? <)R) Do) ?@C0F 3HE E* LE *F 3HE HILI INE ISL2NDS, plaintiff9appellee, vs) M2#3IN N*?N2? and ;UEN2@EN3U#2 #UIA, de4endants, ;UEN2@EN3U#2 #UIA , appellant) M.G. Bustos for appellant. Office of the Solicitor-General Hilado for appellee. @ickers, J.: .artin Doynay and Buenaventura Rui+ were charged in the #ourt of Birst 'nstance of #ebu with the crime of asesinato, committed as follows> Jue en o hacia el 2@ de agosto de 01?2, en el .unicipio de .edellin, (rovincia de #ebu, 'slas Bilipinas, los referidos acusados, corcertando entre si y ayudandose mutuamente provistos de armas mortiferas pun+o cortantes, con premeditacion conocida y alevosia, voluntaria, ilegal y criminalmente atacaron y agredieron a 3ilvestre $rriesgado, infiriendole lesiones en diferentes partes del cuerpo queprodujeron la muerta instantanea del mencionado 3ilvestre $rriesgado) $fter hearing the evidence, 4udge Bortunato Borromeo Keloso found the defendants guilty of homicide with the presence of the mitigating circumstances of Do) 4 and Do) 2 of article 0? of the Revised (enal #ode, and sentenced each of them to suffer eight years and one day of reclusion temporal, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of (F//, and to pay the costs) %he defendant Buenaventura Rui+ appealed to this court, and his attorney de oficio makes the following assignments of error> ') ;l 4u+gado inferior erro al no declarar que las pruebas de la acusacion no establecen fuera de toda duda racional la culpabilidad del acusado Buenaventura Rui+) '') ;l %ribunal de origen tambien erro al no declarar que la preponderancia de las pruebas, al menos, esta en favor del acusado Buenaventura Rui+, y que, por tanto, si no ha demostrado concluyentemente la inocencia de este por la naturale+a de las pruebas obrates en autos, debe ser absuelto si,uiera por duda racional) ''') Binalmente erro al no absolver libremente al acusado ahora apelante Buenaventura Rui+) %he facts of the case are as follows> $ carabao belonging to .artin Doynay was destroying sugar cane planted by the deceased 3ilvestre $rriesgado) %he deceased caught the carabao and took it to the house of .artin Doynay) %he deceased was accompanied by his son, 4ose, who was 1 years old) 5hen they reached the house of .artin Doynay, they found him and the appellant Buenaventura Rui+) %he deceased told Doynay that his carabao had destroyed the sugar cane and that he had to pay the damages) Doynay replied that he did not have to pay anything because his carabao was tied) %he deceased then told Doynay that if he did not wish to pay, he would take the carabao to the lieutenant of the barrio, and started to do so) %hereupon Doynay grabbed a spear from the a+otea of his house, and he and Buenaventura Rui+ pursued the deceased) %he deceased began to run, but he was over taken under a tree about @2 meters from the house of .artin Doynay) 4ose $rriesgado ran and hid behind some clumps of maguey, and from there he saw .artin Doynay stab the deceased in the shoulder with a spear) %he deceased picked up a stone and threw it at Doynay, striking him in the forehead) Doynay stabbed the deceased in the side with the spear) %he appellant Buenaventura Rui+ then said let us finish him", and stabbed the deceased twice in the breast with a dagger) %he defendants ran away, .artin Doynay going towards his house, and the appellant towards the provincial road) 4ose $rriesgado then went to the place where his father had fallen, and a few moments later the wounded man died)

Rosa .alinao, the wife of the deceased, after being told by her daughter .aria that the defendants were pursuing the deceased, ran towards the scene of the crime and saw the defendants running away) 3he then went to the place where her husband had been killed, and found there her son 4ose, who was crying) 5hen she asked him who had killed his father, he replied that .artin Doynay and Buenaventura Rui+ had killed him= and when asked why they had attacked his father, he replied that it was because the deceased had taken the carabao to .artin Doynay and demanded payment for the sugar cane the carabao had destroyed) %he appellant Buenaventura Rui+ set up as his defense an alibi, alleging that when the deceased was killed he, the appellant, was in a cockpit C kilometer away) %he evidence was carefully considered by the trial judge) 't leaves no doubt in our minds as to the guilt of the appellant) 5e not only have the testimony of 4ose $rriesgado as to the direct participation of the appellant in the crime, and the testimony of the wife of the deceased that she saw the appellant as well as his coaccused running away from the scene of the crime, but also the fact that the corpse of 3ilvestre $rriesgado showed that he had been wounded with two different kinds of instruments) Beliciano (epito testified that at noon on the day in ,uestion he met the appellant going towards the house of Doynay) 't should be recalled here that the appellant and Doynay were related by marriage) $gripina de la Rama saw the appellant about noon going from the scene of the crime towards the provincial road) %his testimony completely refutes the contention of the appellant that he was in the cockpit from 0/ o:clock in the morning until ? in the afternoon, and destroys his alibi) %he trial judge found that the defendants were entitled to the benefit of two mitigating circumstances, provocation on the part of the deceased and the obfuscation of the accused) %he evidence does not warrant a finding that sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act of the defendants) %he action of the deceased in taking the carabao to Doynay and demanding payment for the sugar cane destroyed, and in taking the carabao to the lieutenant of the barrio when Doynay refused to pay was perfectly legal and proper and constituted no reasonable cause for provocation as to Doynay and certainly none at all as far as the appellant was concerned) %he finding that the defendants acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation was likewise not justified by the evidence of record) %he deceased, as we have said, was clearly within his right in what he did) %he defendants, without any rational cause for provocation, pursued the deceased and deliberately killed him) 'n order to be entitled to this mitigating circumstances, it must appear that the obfuscation of the accused arose from lawful sentiments) %he fact that an offense was committed in an uncontrollable burst of passion con arrebato y obcecacion! should not be taken into consideration as an e8tenuating circumstance unless it appears that it was provoked by prior unjust or improper acts)" *)3) vs) %aylor, 2 (hil) 022)! Bor the foregoing reasons, the defendant Buenaventura Rui+ is sentenced to suffer fourteen years, eight months, and one day of reclusion temporal, instead of the prison sentenced imposed by the lower court) $s thus modified, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant) $vanceGa, #)4), 3treet, $bad 3antos, and Butte, 44), concur)

Brancisco #have+ v) Raul .) <on+ales and Dational %elecommunications #ommission, <)R) Do) 02@??@, Bebruary 0F, 2//@

DE.ISI*N 8En ;anc9 UN*, J.: I. 3HE F2.3S

$s a conse,uence of the public release of copies of the 7ello <arci" compact disc audiotapes involving a wiretapped mobile phone conversation between then9(resident <loria $rroyo and #omelec #ommissioner Kirgilio <arcillano, respondent 6-4 3ecretary <on+ales warned reporters that those who had copies of the #6 and those broadcasting or publishing its contents could be held liable under the $nti9 5iretapping $ct) 7e also stated that persons possessing or airing said tapes were committing a continuing offense, subject to arrest by anybody) Binally, he stated that he had ordered the Dational Bureau of 'nvestigation to go after media organi+ations found to have caused the spread, the playin and the printin of the contents of a tape)"

.eanwhile, respondent D%# warned in a press release all radio stations and %K network owners/operators that the conditions of the authori+ation and permits issued to them by government like the (rovisional $uthority and/or #ertificate of $uthority e8plicitly provides that they shall not use their stations for the broadcasting or telecasting of false information or willful misrepresentation) %he D%# stated that the continuous airing or broadcast of the 7ello <arci" taped conversations by radio and %K stations is a continuing violation of the $nti95iretapping &aw and the conditions of the (rovisional $uthority and/or #ertificate of $uthority) 't warned that their broadcast/airing of such false information and/or willful misrepresentation shall be a just cause for the suspension, revocation and/or cancellation of the licenses or authori+ations issued to the said media establishments) 3ubse,uently, a dialogue was held between the D%# and the !apisanan n m a Brod"aster sa Pilipinas LB(! which resulted in the issuance of a 4oint (ress 3tatement which stated, among others, that the supposed wiretapped tapes should be treated with sensitivity and handled responsibly) (etitioner #have+ filed a petition under Rule 2F against respondents 3ecretary <on+ales and the D%# directly with the 3upreme #ourt) II. 3HE ISSUES

0) 5ill a purported violation of law such as the $nti95iretapping &aw justify straitjacketing the e8ercise of freedom of speech and of the pressM 2) 6id the mere press statements of respondents 6-4 3ecretary and the D%# constitute a form of content9based prior restraint that has transgressed the #onstitutionM III. 3HE #ULIN" #$he %ourt voted &'-( )%* Puno, +oined by **. ,uisumbin , -nares-Santia o, Sandoval-Gutierre., %arpio, /ustria-Martine., %arpio Morales, /.cuna, 0eyes and $in a in the ma+ority, as a ainst **. %orona, %hico-1a.ario, 1achura, 2eonardo-3e %astro and 4elasco in the minority5 in rantin the petition insofar as respondent Secretary Gon.ale.6s press statement 7as concerned. 2i"e7ise, it voted &'-( )%* Puno, +oined by **. ,uisumbin , -nares-Santia o, Sandoval-Gutierre., %arpio, /ustria-Martine., %arpio Morales, /.cuna, 0eyes and 4elasco in the ma+ority, as a ainst **. %orona, %hico-1a.ario, 1achura, 2eonardo-3e %astro and $in a in the minority5 in rantin the same insofar as 1$%6s press statement 7as concerned.8 1. NO, a purported violation of law such as the Anti-Wiretapping Law will NOT ustif! strait ac"eting the e#ercise of freedo$ of speech and of the press. $ governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or of the press +ased on content is given the strictest scrutin/, with the government 0aving t0e +urden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality by the clear and 7resent danger rule) %his rule applies e,ually to all kinds of media, including +roadcast media) Respondents, who have the burden to show that these acts do not abridge freedom of speech and of the press, failed to hurdle the clear and present danger test) H%Ihe great evil which government wants to prevent is the airing of a tape recording in alleged violation of the anti9wiretapping law) %he records of the case at bar however are confused and confusing, and respondents: evidence falls short of satisfying the clear and present danger test) Firstl/, the various statements of the (ress 3ecretary obfuscate the identity of the voices in the tape recording) Secondl/, the integrity of the taped conversation is also suspect) %he (ress 3ecretary showed to the public two versions, one supposed to be a complete" version and the other, an altered" version) 30irdl/, the evidence of the respondents on the who:s and the how:s of the wiretapping act is ambivalent, especially considering the tape:s different versions) %he identity of the wire9tappers, the manner of its commission and other related and relevant proofs are some of the invisibles of this case) Fourt0l/, given all these unsettled facets of the tape, it is even arguable whether its airing would violate the anti9wiretapping law) 5e rule that not ever/ violation o4 a la< <ill Busti4/ straitBacketing t0e e6ercise o4 4reedom o4 s7eec0 and o4 t0e 7ress) -ur la<s are o4 di44erent kinds and doubtless, some of them provide norms of conduct whichH,I even if violatedH,I have only an adverse effect on a person:s private comfort but does not endanger national security) %here are laws of great significance but their violation, +/ itsel4 and <it0out more, cannot support suppression of free speech and free press) 'n fine, violation o4 la< is Bust a 4actor, a vital one to be sure, which should be weighed in adjudging whether to restrain freedom of speech and of the press) %he totalit/ o4 t0e inBurious e44ects of the violation to private and public interest must be calibrated

in light of the preferred status accorded by the #onstitution and by related international covenants protecting freedom of speech and of the press) 'n calling for a careful and calibrated measurement of the circumference of all these factors to determine compliance with the clear and present danger test, t0e .ourt s0ould not +e misinter7reted as devaluing violations o4 la<) By all means, violations of law should be vigorously prosecuted by the 3tate for they breed their own evil conse,uence) But to repeat, t0e need to 7revent t0eir violation cannot 7er se trum7 t0e e6ercise o4 4ree s7eec0 and 4ree 7ress, a 7re4erred rig0t <0ose +reac0 can lead to greater evils. Bor this failure of the respondents alone to offer proof to satisfy the clear and present danger test, the #ourt has no option but to uphold the e8ercise of free speech and free press) %here is no showing that the feared violation of the anti9wiretapping law clearly endangers the national securit/ o4 t0e State) %. &'(, the $ere press state$ents of respondents )OJ (ecretar! and the NT* constituted a for$ of content-+ased prior restraint that has transgressed the *onstitution. CIDt is not decisive t0at t0e 7ress statements made +/ res7ondents <ere not reduced in or 4ollo<ed u7 <it0 4ormal orders or circulars. It is su44icient t0at t0e 7ress statements <ere made +/ res7ondents <0ile in t0e e6ercise o4 t0eir o44icial 4unctions ) *ndoubtedly, respondent <on+ales made his statements as 3ecretary of 4ustice, while the D%# issued its statement as the regulatory body of media) 2n/ act done, suc0 as a s7eec0 uttered, 4or and on +e0al4 o4 t0e government in an o44icial ca7acit/ is covered +/ t0e rule on 7rior restraint. 30e conce7t o4 an EactF does not limit itsel4 to acts alread/ converted to a 4ormal order or o44icial circular. *t0er<ise, t0e non 4ormali1ation o4 an act into an o44icial order or circular <ill result in t0e eas/ circumvention o4 t0e 7ro0i+ition on 7rior restraint. %he press statements at bar are acts that should be struck down as they constitute impermissible forms of prior restraints on the right to free speech and press)

I"LESI2 NI .#IS3* @S .2 Facts: (etitioner has a television program entitled E$ng 'glesia ni #ristoE aired on #hannel 2 every 3aturday and on #hannel 0? every 3unday) %he program presents and propagates petitionerAs religious beliefs, doctrines and practices often times in comparative studies with other religions) (etitioner submitted to the respondent Board ofReview for .oving (ictures and %elevision the K%R tapes of its %K program 3eries Dos) 002, 001, 020 and 02@) %he Board classified the series as ERE or not for public viewing on the ground that they Eoffend and constitute an attack against other religions which is e8pressly prohibited by law)E -n Dovember 2@, 0112, it appealed to the -ffice of the (resident the classification of its %K 3eries Do) 02@ which allowed it through a letter of former ;8ecutive 3ecretary ;delmiro $) $mante, 3r), addressed for 7enrietta 3) .ende+ reversing the decision of the respondent Board) $ccording to the letter the episode in is protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech and e8pression and no indication that the episode poses any clear and present danger) (etitioner also filed #ivil #ase) (etitioner alleged that the respondentBoard acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in re,uiring petitioner to submit the K%R tapes of its %K program and in 89rating them) 't cited its %K (rogram 3eries Dos) 00F, 001, 020 and 02@) 'n their $nswer, respondent Board invoked its power under (6 Do) 01@20 in relation to $rticle 2/0 of the Revised (enal #ode) %he 'glesia ni #risto insists on the literal translation of the bible and says that our #atholic! veneration of the Kirgin .ary is not to be condoned because nowhere it is found in the bible) %he board contended that it outrages #atholic and (rotestantAs beliefs) R%# ruled in favor of petitioners) #$ however reversed it hence this petition) Issue: 5hether or Dot the Eang iglesia ni cristoE program is not constitutionally protected as a form of religious e8ercise and e8pression) Held: Nes) $ny act that restrains speech is accompanied with presumption of invalidity) 't is the burden of the respondent Board to overthrow this presumption) 'f it fails to discharge this burden, its act of censorship will be struck down) %his is true in this case) 3o9called EattacksE are mere criticisms of some of the deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions) R%#:s ruling clearly suppresses petitionerAs freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free e8ercise of religion) attack" is different from offend" any race or religion) %he respondent Board may disagree with the criticisms of other religions by petitioner but that gives it no e8cuse to interdict such criticisms, however, unclean they may be) *nder our constitutional scheme, it is not the task of the 3tate to favor any religion by protecting it against an attack by another religion) Religious dogmas and beliefs are often at war and to preserve peace among their followers, especially the fanatics, the establishment clause of freedom of religion prohibits the 3tate from leaning towards any religion)

Respondent board cannot censor the speech of petitioner 'glesia ni #risto simply because it attacks other religions, even if said religion happens to be the most numerous church in our country) %he basis of freedom of religion is freedom of thought and it is best served by encouraging the marketplace of dueling ideas) 't is only where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be justified, and only to the smallest e8tent necessary to avoid the danger) %here is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes will bring about especially the gravity and imminence of the threatened harm) (rior restraint on speech, including religious speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil) 't is inappropriate to apply the clear and present danger test to the case at bar because the issue involves the content of speech and not the time, place or manner of speech) $llegedly, unless the speech is first allowed, its impact cannot be measured, and the causal connection between the speech and the evil apprehended cannot be established) %he determination of the ,uestion as to whether or not such vilification, e8aggeration or fabrication falls within or lies outside the boundaries of protected speech or e8pression is a judicial function which cannot be arrogated by an administrative body such as a Board of #ensors)E $ system of prior restraint may only be validly administered by judges and not left to administrative agencies)
Es7uelas vs eo7le

%hester %abal.a recommends his visitors to please read the ori inal 9 full te:t of the case cited. ;ie :ie< Es7uelas vs eo7le ".#. No. L$:&&( Decem+er ,>, ,&-, Facts: -n 4une 1 and 4une 24, 014C, both dates inclusive, in the town of %agbilaran, Bohol, -scar ;spuelas y .endo+a had his picture taken, making it to appear as if he were hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of rope suspended form the limb of the tree, when in truth and in fact, he was merely standing on a barrel) $fter securing copies of his photograph, ;spuelas sent copies of same to Bree (ress, the ;vening Dews, the Bisayas, &amdang of general circulation and other local periodicals in the (rovince of Bohol but also throughout the (hilippines and abroad, for their publication with a suicide note or letter, wherein he made to appear that it was written by a fictitious suicide, $lberto Reveniera and addressed to the latterAs supposed wife translation of which letter or note, stating his dismay and administration of (resident Ro8as, pointing out the situation in #entral &u+on and &eyte, and directing his wife his dear wife to write to (resident %ruman and #hurchill of *3 and tell them that in the (hilippines the government is infested with many 7itlers and .ussolinis) Issue: 5hether the accused is liable of seditious libel under $rt) 042 of the R(# against the <overnment of the (hilippinesM Held: Nes) %he accused must therefore be found guilty as charged) $nd there being no ,uestion as to the legality of the penalty imposed on him, the decision will be affirmed with costs) $naly+ed for meaning and weighed in its conse,uences, the article written bybthe accused, cannot fail to impress thinking persons that it seeks to sow the seeds of sedition and strife) %he infuriating language is not a sincere effort to persuade, what with the writerAs simulated suicide and false claim to martyrdom and what with is failure to particulari+e) 5hen the use irritating language centers not on persuading the readers but on creating disturbances, the rationable of free speech cannot apply and the speaker or writer is removed from the protection of the constitutional guaranty) 'f it be argued that the article does not discredit the entire governmental structure but only (resident Ro8as and his men, the reply is that article 042 punishes not only all libels against the <overnment but also Elibels against any of the duly constituted authorities thereof)E %he ERo8as peopleE in the <overnment obviously refer of least to the (resident, his #abinet and the majority of legislators to whom the adjectives dirty, 7itlers and .ussolinis were naturally directed) -n this score alone the conviction could be upheld) Regarding the publication, it suggests or incites rebellious conspiracies or riots and tends to stir up people against the constituted authorities, or to provoke violence from opposition who may seek to silence the writer) 5hich is the sum and substance of the offense under consideration) %he essence of seditious libel may be said to its immediate tendency to stir up general discontent to the pitch of illegal courses= that is to say to induce people to resort to illegal methods other than those provided by the #onstitution, in order to repress the evils which press upon their minds)

rimicias vs. Fugoso CL$,'(((. Jan :>, ,&G'D Facts: $n action was instituted by the petitioner for the refusal of the respondent to issue a permit to them to hold a public meeting in (la+a .iranda for redress of grievances to the government) %he reason alleged by the respondent in his defense for refusing the permit is, Ethat there is a reasonable ground to believe, basing upon previous utterances and upon the fact that passions, specially on the part of the losing groups, remains bitter and high, that similar speeches will be delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government, and in the duly constituted authorities, which might threaten breaches of the peace and a disruption of public order)E <iving emphasis as well to the delegated police power to localgovernment) 3tating as well Revised -rdinances of 012C prohibiting as an offense against public peace, and penali+es as a misdemeanor, Eany act, in any public place, meeting, or procession, tending to disturb the peace or e8cite a riot= or collect with other persons in a body or crowd for any unlawful purpose= or disturb or dis,uiet any congregation engaged in any lawful assembly)E 'ncluded herein is 3ec) 0001, Bree use of (ublic (lace)0 Issue: 5hether or Dot the freedom of speech was violated)

Held: Nes) 6ealing with the ordinance, specifically, 3ec) 0001, saidsection provides for two constructions> 0! the .ayor of the #ity of .anila is vested with unregulated discretion to grant or refuse, to grant permit for the holding of a lawful assembly or meeting, parade, or procession in the streets and other public places of the #ity of .anila= 2! %he right of the .ayor is subject to reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets or public places to be used with the view to prevent confusion by overlapping, to secure convenient use of the streets and public places by others, and to provide ade,uate and proper policing to minimi+e the risk of disorder) %he court favored the second construction) Birst construction tantamount to authori+ing the .ayor to prohibit the use of the streets) *nder our democratic system of government no such unlimited power may be validly granted to anyofficer of the government, e8cept perhaps in cases of nationalemergency) %he .ayor:s first defense is untenable) Bear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly) 't is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears) %o justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced) %here must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent) %here must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one ) %he fact that speech is likely to result in some violence or in destruction of property is not enough to justify its suppression) %here must be the probability of serious injury to the state)

2"LI 2? @s. #UIA <)R) Do) &94F4F1 .arch 0?, 01?C

F2.3S: %he petitioner, .ons) <regorio $glipay, 3upreme 7ead of the (hilippine 'ndependent #hurch, seeks the issuance from this court of a writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent 6irector of (osts from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the %hirty9third 'nternational ;ucharistic #ongress) 'n .ay, 01?2, the 6irector of (osts announced in the dailies of .anila that he would order the issues of postage stamps commemorating the celebration in the #ity of .anila of the %hirty9third international ;ucharistic #ongress, organi+ed by the Roman #atholic #hurch) %he petitioner, in the fulfillment of what he considers to be a civic duty, re,uested Kicente 3otto, ;s,), member of the (hilippine Bar, to denounce the matter to the (resident of the (hilippines) 'n spite of the protest of the petitionerAs attorney, the respondent publicly announced having sent to the *nited 3tates the designs of the postage stamps for printing ISSUE > 5-D the selling of stamps in commemorating the %hirty9third 'nternational ;ucharistic #ongress) constitutional

HELD: N;3 )%he stamps were not issue and sold for the benefit of the Roman #atholic #hurch) Dor were money derived from the sale of the stamps given to that church) -n the contrary, it appears from the latter of the 6irector of (osts of 4une F, 01?2, incorporated on page 2 of the petitionerAs complaint, that the only

purpose in issuing and selling the stamps was Eto advertise the (hilippines and attract more tourist to this country)E %he officials concerned merely, took advantage of an event considered of international importance Eto give publicity to the (hilippines and its people :. Facts: (etitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition against respondent 6irector of (osts from issuing and selling postage stampscommemorative of the ??rd 'nternational ;ucharistic #ongress) (etitioner contends that such act is a violation of the #onstitutional provision stating that no public funds shall be appropriated or used in the benefit of any church, system of religion, etc) %his provision is a result of the principle of the separation of church and state, for the purpose of avoiding the occasion wherein the state will use the church, or vice versa, as a weapon to further their ends and aims) Respondent contends that such issuance is in accordance to $ct Do) 4/F2, providing for the appropriation funds to respondent for the production and issuance of postage stamps as would be advantageous to thegovernment) Issue: 5hether or Dot there was a violation of the freedom to religion)

Held: 5hat is guaranteed by our #onstitution is religious freedom and not mere religious toleration) 't is however not an inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs) Religion as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his #reator is recogni+ed) $nd in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated) %he phrase in $ct Do) 4/F2 advantageous to the government" does not authori+e violation of the #onstitution) %he issuance of the stamps was not inspired by any feeling to favor a particular church or religious denomination) %hey were not sold for the benefit of the Roman #atholic #hurch) %hepostage stamps, instead of showing a #atholic chalice as originally planned, contains a map of the (hilippines and the location of .anila, with the words 3eat RRR''' 'nternational ;ucharistic #ongress)" %he focus of the stamps was not the ;ucharistic #ongress but the city of .anila, being the seat of that congress) %his was to to advertise the(hilippines and attract more tourists," the officials merely took advantage of an event considered of international importance) $lthough such issuance and sale may be inseparably linked with theRoman #atholic #hurch, any benefit and propaganda incidentally resulting from it was no the aim or purpose of the <overnment) Facts: Dew Nork:s ;ducation &aw re,uires local public school authorities to lend te8tbooks free of charge to all students in grade C to 02, including those in private schools) %he Board of ;ducationcontended that said statute was invalid and violative of the 3tate andBederal #onstitutions) $n order barring the #ommissioner of ;ducation $llen! from removing appellant:s members from office for failure to comply with the re,uirement and an order preventing the use of state funds for the purchase of te8tbooks to be lent to parochial schools were sought for) %he trial court held the statute unconstitutional) %he $ppellate 6ivision reversed the decision and dismissed the complaint since the appellant have no standing) %he Dew Nork #ourt of $ppeals, ruled that the appellants have standing but the law is not unconstitutional) Issue: 5hether or Dot the said ordinances are constitutional and valid contention> it restrains the free e8ercise and enjoyment of the religious profession and worship of appellant!) Held: 3ection 0, subsection C! of $rticle ''' of the #onstitution, provides that>

C! Do law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free e8ercise thereof, and the free e8ercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed) Do religion test shall be re,uired for the e8ercise of civil or political rights) %he provision afore,uoted is a constitutional guaranty of the free e8ercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, which carries with it the right to disseminate religious information) 't may be true that in the case at bar the price asked for the biblesand other religious pamphlets was in some instances a little bit higher than the actual cost of the same but this cannot mean that appellant was engaged in the business or occupation of selling said EmerchandiseE for profit) Bor this reason) %he #ourt believe that the provisions of #ity of .anila -rdinance Do) 2F21, as amended, cannot be applied to appellant, for in doing so it would impair its free e8ercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and

worship

as

well

as

its

rights

of

dissemination

of

religious

beliefs)

5ith respect to -rdinance Do) ?///, as amended, the #ourt do not find that it imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the #onstitution, nor ta8 the e8ercise of religious practices) 't seems clear, therefore, that -rdinance Do) ?/// cannot be considered unconstitutional, however inapplicable to said business, trade or occupation of the plaintiff) $s to -rdinance Do) 2F21 of the #ity of .anila, as amended, is also not applicable, so defendant is powerless to license or ta8 the business of plaintiff 3ociety) 57;R;B-R;, defendant shall return to plaintiff the sum of (F,@10)4F unduly collected from it)

SH2""2#3 MINIS3#IES v. .2LIF*#NI2 ;*2#D *F E=U2LIA23I*N Facts o4 t0e .ase #alifornia law re,uired retailers to pay a 2 percent sales ta8 on in9state sales of tangible personal property and residents to pay a 2 percent use ta8 on such property if purchased out of state) 4immy 3waggart .inistries, incorporated in &ouisiana, sold religious materials to #alifornia residents through several direct and mail9order Eevangelistic crusades)E $fter auditing his ministry, the #alifornia Board of ;,uali+ation EBoardE! told 3waggart that under #alifornia law he had to register his ministry as a seller so the Board could collect the appropriate sales and use ta8es) $fter paying the ta8es, 3waggart petitioned the Board for a refund) 5hen his petition was rejected, 3waggart challenged the Board in state court) Bollowing two unfavorable rulings below, the *)3) 3upreme #ourt granted 3waggartAs petition for certiorari) =uestion 6id #aliforniaAs imposition of a sales and use ta8 on the sale of religious materials violate the Bree ;8ercise or ;stablishment #lauses of the Birst $mendmentM .onclusion Decision: 1 votes for #alifornia Legal 7rovision: Bree ;8ercise of Religion Board of ;,uali+ation, / vote s! against

Do) Basing its unanimous decision on the fact that #aliforniaAs sales and use ta8 was not a flat ta8, affected only a small portion of retail sales, and was neutrally applied, the #ourt found the ta8es constitutional) .oreover, since the ta8es were not imposed as a precondition to spreading any given message and were due regardless of registration, the #ourt rejected 3waggartAs claim that #aliforniaAs no9fee registration re,uirement acted as a prior restraint on his religious organi+ation) Binally, the #ourt held that any administrative burdens associated with the payment of ta8es did not give rise to an establishment conflict since they did not cause e8cessive entanglement between the government and 3waggartAs organi+ation) ,-'')OM O, -'L./.ON 2... No. L$)-(. 2ugust >, ,&-& "enaro /erona, et al. vs. Secretar/ o4 'ducation, et al. ,(% 0il : F2.3S: R$ 022F is a law that makes a flag ceremony compulsory for schools) %he implementing rule 6ep -rder @ says that the anthem must be played while the flag is raised) 't also says that everyone must salute the flag and no one is to do anything while the ceremony is being held) $fter the flag everyone is to recite the patriotic pledge) <erona:s children attending the Buenavista #ommunity 3chool in *son, .asbate refused to salute the flag, sing the anthem and recite the pledge) %hey did not do so out of religious belief) %hey are 4ehovahAs 5itnesses) %hey consider the flag to be an image in the conte8t of what is prohibited in their religion and because of this they were e8pelled from the school) <erona wrote to 3ec of ;d that their children be e8empt from the law and just be allowed to remain silent and stand at attention) 3ec of ;d denied the petition) 5rit of preliminary injunction was petitioned and issued) ISSUE: 's 6ep -rder @ unconstitutionalM #ULIN": Blag salute ceremony is secular and the dep order non9

6iscriminatory therefore it is constitutional) %he freedom of belief is limitless and boundless but its e8ercise is not) 'f the belief clashes with law then the former must yield) (etitioners salute the flag during boy scout activities) %heir objection then rests on the singing of anthem and recitation of pledge) %he pledge is judged to be completely secular) 't does not even pledge allegiance to the flag or to the Republic) %he anthem is also secular) 't talks about patriotism) 't does not speak of resorting to force, military service, or duty to defend the country) %here was no compulsion involved in the enforcement of the flag salute) %hey were not criminally prosecuted under a penal sanction) 'f they chose not to obey the salute regulation they merely lost the benefits of public education) ))( US , Fe+ruar/ ,(, ,&G> 2rc0 # Everson v. ;oard o4 Education Facts: D4 enacted a law that gave 3chool 6ist authority to make rules and cases pertaining to the transportation of children to and from schools) Board of ;d authori+ed reimbursement of money paid by parents for bus transportation of their kids who rode public transit to school) 3ome of this money was paid for the transportation of some kids to parochial schoolsS#atholic) Issue: 5hether the D4 statute or the Board resolution, authori+ing the reimbursement of ta8 funds to parents with students of parochial schools, unconstitutionally regulates the establishment of religionM #uling: Do, under the facts the 0st $mend does not bar D4 from spending ta8 funds to pay the bus fares of parochial students under a general program that reimburses the fares of students who attend other schools) $s a general program D4 law is neutral in its application) ),& US %:G June ,G, ,&G) Hest @irginia State ;oard o4 Education v. ;arnette Facts. 'n 0142, the (etitioner adopted a rule that forced all teachers and pupils to pledge allegiance the nation:s flag each day) 'f the student refused he would be found insubordinate and e8pelled from school) 7e would not be readmitted to school until he conformed) .eanwhile, he was considered to be unlawfully absent" and subject to delin,uency hearings) %he parents could be fined TF/ per day with a jail term not to e8ceed ?/ days) %he Respondent asked for an e8ception for all 4ehovah:s 5itnesses because this pledge goes against their religious belief) But he was denied an e8ception) Issue. 6oes this rule compelling a pledge violate the Birst $mendment of the #onstitutionM #uling: Nes) #ompelling a salute to the flag infringes upon an individual:s intellect and right to choose their own beliefs) %he majority focuses on the right of persons to choose beliefs and act accordingly) $s long as the actions do not present a clear and present danger of the kind the state is allowed to prevent, then the #onstitution encourages diversity of thought and belief) %he state has not power to mandatee allegiance in hopes that it will encourage patriotism) %his is something the citi+ens will choose or not) ".#. N*. &->>( Marc0 ,, ,&&) E+ralinag v division su7erintendent o4 sc0ools o4 ce+u :,& S.#2 :-% B$#%3> Respondents ordered e8pulsion of 2@ 73 and <3 students of #ebu)(ublic school authorities e8pelled these students for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the pledge re,uired by R$022F) %hey are 4ehovah:s 5itnesses believing that by doing these is religious worship/devotion akin to idolatry against their teachings) %hey contend that to compel transcends constitutional limits and invades protection against official control and religious freedom) Issue: 7as religious freedom been violatedM Held: Religious freedom is a fundamental right of highest priority) %he 2 fold aspect of right to religious worship is> 0)! Breedom to believe which is an absolute act within the realm of thought) 2)! Breedom to act on one:s belief regulated and translated to e8ternal acts) %he only limitation to religious freedom is the e8istence of grave and present danger to public safety, morals, health and interests where 3tate has right to prevent) %he e8pulsion of the petitioners from the school is not justified) 4ehovah:s 5itnesses may be e8empted from observing the flag ceremony but this right does not give them the right to disrupt such ceremonies) 'n the case at bar, the 3tudents e8pelled were only standing ,uietly during ceremonies) By observing the ceremonies ,uietly, it doesn:t present any danger so evil and imminent to justify their e8pulsion) 5hat the petitioner:s re,uest is e8emption from flagceremonies and not e8clusion from

public schools) %he e8pulsion of the students by reason of their religious beliefs is also a violation of a citi+en:s right to free education) %he non9observance of the flag ceremony does not totally constitute ignorance of patriotism and civic consciousness) &ove for country and admiration for national heroes, civic consciousness and form of government are part of theschool curricula) %herefore, e8pulsion due to religious beliefs is unjustified) ;8pulsion is $DD*&&;6) ".#. N*. G-G-& M2#.H ,), ,&)> 2"LI 2? @S. #UIA %G HIL :(, Facts: (etitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of prohibition against respondent 6irector of (osts from issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the ??rd 'nternational ;ucharistic #ongress) (etitioner contends that such act is a violation of the #onstitutional provision stating that no public funds shall be appropriated or used in the benefit of any church, system of religion, etc) %his provision is a result of the principle of the separation of church and state, for the purpose of avoiding the occasion wherein the state will use the church, or vice versa, as a weapon to further their ends and aims) Respondent contends that such issuance is in accordance to $ct Do) 4/F2, providing for the appropriation funds to respondent for the production and issuance of postage stamps as would be advantageous to the government) Issue: 5hether or Dot there was a violation of the freedom to religion) Held: 5hat is guaranteed by our #onstitution is religious freedom and not mere religious toleration) 't is however not an inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in human affairs) Religion as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his #reator is recogni+ed) $nd in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt and highly appreciated) %he phrase in $ct Do) 4/F2 advantageous to the government" does not authori+e violation of the #onstitution) %he issuance of the stamps was not inspired by any feeling to favor a particular church or religious denomination) %hey were not sold for the benefit of the Roman #atholic #hurch) %he postage stamps, instead of showing a #atholic chalice as originally planned, contains a map of the (hilippines and the location of .anila, with the words 3eat RRR''' 'nternational ;ucharistic #ongress)" %he focus of the stamps was not the ;ucharistic #ongress but the city of .anila, being the seat of that congress) %his was to to advertise the (hilippines and attract more tourists," the officials merely took advantage of an event considered of international importance) $lthough such issuance and sale may be inseparably linked with the Roman #atholic #hurch, any benefit and propaganda incidentally resulting from it was no the aim or purpose of the <overnment) ".#. No. ,,)(&: Se7tem+er ,, ,&&G M2#3IN .EN3EN*, vs) H*N. @I.3*#I2 @ILL2L*N$ *#NILL*S :)% S.#2 ,&> Facts: %he officers of a group of elderly men of a civic organi+ation known as the Samahan !atandaan n 1ayon n $i"ay launched a fund drive for the purpose of renovating the chapel of Barrio %ikay, .alolos, Bulacan) .artin #enteno, the chairman of the group, approached 4udge $doracion <) $ngeles, a resident of %ikay, and solicited from her a contribution of (0,F//)//) 't is admitted that the solicitation was made without a permit from the 6epartment of 3ocial 5elfare and 6evelopment) $s a conse,uence, an information was filed against #enteno, for violation of (6 Do) 0F24 or the 3olicitation (ermit &aw) #enteno filed a motion to ,uash the information on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute an offense, claiming that (6 Do) 0F24 only covers solicitations made for charitable or public welfare purposes, but not those made for a religious purpose such as the construction of a chapel) Issue: 3hould the phrase Echaritable purposesE be construed in its broadest sense so as to include a religious purposeM #uling: Do and that legislative enactments specifically spelled out EcharitableE and EreligiousE in an enumeration, whereas (residential 6ecree Do) 0F24 merely stated Echaritable or public welfare purposes,E only goes to show that the framers of the law in ,uestion never intended to include solicitations for religious purposes within its coverage) -therwise, there is no reason why it would not have so stated e8pressly) 3olicitation for religious purposes may be subject to proper regulation by the 3tate in the e8ercise of police power) 7owever, in the case at bar, considering that solicitations intended for a religious purpose are not within the coverage of (residential 6ecree Do) 0F24, as earlier demonstrated, petitioner cannot be held criminally liable therefor and therefore ac,uitted)

.o6 v. Ne< Ham7s0ire ),: U.S. -%& 8,&G,9

Facts: $ group of 4ehovahAs 5itnesses were convicted for engaging in a public parade without obtaining a permit) %he defendants assembled at their church and divided into smaller groups that marched along sidewalks, displayed signs, and handed out leaflets announcing a later meeting) %hey claimed that their Bourteenth $mendment rights were violated including their rights to freedom of worship and freedom of assembly) Issue: 5hether time, place, and manner restrictions on holding a parade violate the Birst $mendment freedoms of speech and assembly) #uling: Do) $ unanimous 3upreme #ourt, via 4ustice #harles ;vans 7ughes, held that, although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety) %he #ourt held that the Dew 7ampshire law was not meant to prohibit speech, but simply to regulate it when it took the form of a parade or other form of large gathering) %he #ourt said that the government had a legitimate interest in keeping order at such events, and it could impose a fee for the license that was proportional to the amount of police presence that would be re,uired to ensure the peaceable nature of the event) ".#. L$-&,> J2NU2#? :', ,&-F*N2.IE# @S. .*U#3 *F 2 E2LS &% HIL G,> Facts: #ase was filed by 'glesia Bilipina 'ndependiente 'B'!, represented by its supreme bishop <erardo Bayaca, against Bishop Bonacier seeking to render anaccounting of his administration of all the temporal properties and to recover the same on the ground that he ceased to be the supreme bishop of 'B') 'sabelo 6e los Reyes 4r) had been elected as the 3upreme Bishop) (etitioner claims that he was not properly removed as 3upreme Bishop and his legal successor was 4uan 4amias) 7e claims that the there was anaccounting of his administration and was turned over to bishop 4amias) $lso, that 'sabelo 6e los Reyes and Bayaca have abandoned their faith and formally joined the (rostestant ;piscopal #hurch of $merica) #B' rendered judgment declaring 'sabelo 6e &os Reyes, 4r) as the sole and legitimate 3upreme Bishop of 'B' and ordered Bonacier to render anaccounting of his admistration) #$ affirmed the decision of the #B' Issue: 5hether or not the petitioner should still be regarded as the legitimate supreme bishop of 'B') Held: 3upreme #ourt affirmed #$:s decision) %he legitimate 3upreme Bishop of 'B' is 'sabelo 6e los Reyes, 4r) %he 3upreme #ourt affirms the validity of the election of Bishop 6elos Reyes as the 3upreme Bishop based on their internal laws %o finally dispose of the property issue, the #ourt, citing 5atson v) 4ones,?2@ declared that the rule in property controversies within religious congregations strictly independent of any other superior ecclesiastical association such as the (hilippine 'ndependent #hurch! is that the rules for resolving such controversies should be those of any voluntary association) 'f the congregation adopts the majority rule then the majority should prevail= if it adopts adherence to duly constituted authorities within the congregation, then that should be followed) ".#. L$-)G'> M2? :-, ,&', "2#.ES @S. ES3ENA* ,(G S.#2 -,( Facts: %wo resolutions of the Barangay #ouncil of Kalencia, -rmoc #ity were passed) %hese resolutions have been ratified by 2C2 voters, and projects were implemented) %he image was temporarily placed in the altar of the #atholic #hurch of the barangay) 7owever, after a mass, Bather 3ergio .arilao -smeGa refused to return the image to the barangay council, as it was the church:s property since church funds were used in its ac,uisition) Resolution Do) 0/ was passed for the authori+ation of hiring a lawyer for the replevin case against thepriest for the recovery of the image) Resolution Do) 02 appointed Brgy) #aptain Keloso as a representative to the case) %he priest, in his answer assailed the constitutionality of the said resolutions) %he priest with $ndres <arces, a member of the $glipayan #hurch, contends that 3ec) @ $rticle 'K0 and 3ec 0@ 2! $rticle K'''! 2 of the constitution was violated) Issue: 5as any freedom of religion clause in the #onstitution violated)

Held: Do) $s said by the #ourt this case is a petty ,uarrel over the custody of the image) %he image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta and not for the purpose of favoring any religion nor interfering with religious matters or beliefs of the barrio residents) $ny activity intended to facilitate the worship of the patron saint such as the ac,uisition! is not illegal) (ractically, the image was placed in a layman:s custody so that it could easily be made available to any family desiring to borrow the image in connection withprayers and novena) 't was the council:s funds that were used to buy the image, therefore it is their property) Right of the determination of custody is their right, and even if they decided to give it to the #hurch, there is no violation of the #onstitution , since private funds were used) Dot every

government activity which involves the e8penditure of public funds and which has some religious tint is violative of the constitutional provisions regardingseparation of church and state, freedom of worship and banning the use of public money or property)

G.R. NO. 68828 MARCH 27, 1985 GERMAN V . !ARANGAN 1"5 CRA 51# Facts: Petitione!s ,onve!*e& %t @.P. L%)!el St!eet to he%! 7%ss %t the St. @)&e 6h%pel$ (hi,h %&2oine& 7%l%,%A%n*. Respon&ent %!!e& them fo! se,)!it+ !e%sons. Petitione!s file& % petition fo! m%n&%m)s. Issue: 9hethe! o! Not the!e (%s % viol%tion of the ,onstit)tion%l f!ee&om. Held: Petitione!sB intention (%s not !e%ll+ to pe!fo!m %n %,t of !eli*io)s (o!ship )t to ,on&),t %n %ntiC *ove!nment &emonst!%tion sin,e the+ (o!e +ello( 4Cshi!ts$ !%ise& thei! ,len,he& fists %n& sho)te& %ntiC *ove!nment slo*%ns. 9hile eve!+ ,iti'en h%s the !i*ht to !eli*io)s f!ee&om$ the e<e!,ise m)st e &one in *oo& f%ith. 5esi&es$ the !est!i,tion (%s !e%son% le %s it (%s &esi*ne& to p!ote,t the lives of the P!esi&ent %n& his f%mil+$ *ove!nment offi,i%ls %n& &iplom%ti, %n& fo!ei*n *)ests t!%ns%,tin* )siness (ith 7%l%,%n%n*. 4he !est!i,tion (%s %lso inten&e& to se,)!e the e<e,)tive offi,es (ithin the 7%l%,%n%n* *!o)n&s f!om possi le e<te!n%l %tt%,8s %n& &ist)! %n,es. 07ino!it+ opinion1 4he sole 2)stifi,%tion fo! % p!io! !est!%int o! limit%tion on the e<e!,ise of the f!ee&om of !eli*ion is the e<isten,e of % *!%ve %n& imminent$ of % se!io)s evil to p) li, s%fet+$ p) li, mo!%ls$ p) li, he%lth o! %n+ othe! le*itim%te p) li, inte!est th%t the St%te h%s % !i*ht to p!event. 4he )!&en to sho( the e<isten,e of *!%ve %n& imminent &%n*e! lies on the offi,i%ls (ho (o)l& !est!%in petitione!s. Respon&ents (e!e in f)ll ,ont!ol %n& h%& the ,%p% ilit+ to stop %n+ )nto(%!& move. 4he!e (%s no ,le%! %n& p!esent &%n*e! of %n+ se!io)s evil to p) li, s%fet+ o! the se,)!it+ of 7%l%,%n%n*.

RA$% GON&A%E& '. ROMAN CA(HO%IC ARCH!I HO) OF MANI%A. 51 )*+l #2, Facts: Gon'%le' !o)*ht the s)it %*%inst the %!,h ishop in the 6?I of 7%nil% %n& p!%+e& fo! 2)&*ment &e,l%!in* th%t he$ the l%(f)l hei! to the ,h%pl%in,+ %n& its in,ome; est% lishin* the !i*ht of the petitione! %n& his s),,esso!s to e %ppointe& to %n& !e,eive the in,ome of the ,h%pl%in,+ &)!in* thei! inf%n,+ (heneve! it m%+ e v%,%nt %n&$ pen&in* s),h %ppointment$ to !e,eive the in,ome fo! thei! m%inten%n,e %n& s)ppo!t. 4he t!i%l ,o)!t &i!e,te& the %!,h ishop to %ppoint Gon'%le' %s ,h%pl%in; %n& o!&e!e& p%+ment to him the s)m ein* the %**!e*%te net in,ome of the ,h%pl%in,+ &)!in* the v%,%n,+$ less the e<pense of h%vin* the p!es,!i e& m%sses ,ele !%te& in e%,h +e%!. It !ese!ve& to the petitione! %n+ le*%l !i*ht he m%+ h%ve to p!o,ee& in the p!ope! ,o)!t fo! ,%n,ell%tion of the ,e!tifi,%te of !e*ist!%tion of the p!ope!t+ in the n%me of the %!,h ishop. Issue: Is the Gon'%le' le*%ll+ entitle& to e %ppointe& the ,h%pl%inD Rul+-.: 4he S)p!eme 6o)!t of the Philippine Isl%n&s !eve!se& the 2)&*ment %n& % solve& the %!,h ishop f!om the ,ompl%int$ B(itho)t p!e2)&i,e to the !i*ht of p!ope! pe!sons in inte!est to p!o,ee& fo! in&epen&ent !elief$B in !espe,t to the in,ome %,,!)e& &)!in* the v%,%n,+$ o! in !espe,t to the !efo!m%tion of the ,e!tifi,%te of !e*ist!%tion so %s to sho( the fi&),i%!+ ,h%!%,te! of the title.9itho)t &e,i&in* (hethe! s),h &isposition of the s)!pl)s (%s p!ope! o! (h%t sho)l& e its &isposition in the f)t)!e$ th%t % son of the l%st in,)m ent$ (ho (%s p!ope!l+ !ef)se& %ppointment %s ,h%pl%in e,%)se he h%& not the 3)%lifi,%tions p!es,!i e& + the 6%non L%($ (%s not entitle&$ %s the ne%!est !el%tive$ to the %,,!)e& s)!pl)s. GR 11967" IG%E IA NI /RI (O 's. C0u1t 02 A33eals Facts: I*lesi% ni 6!isto h%s % television p!o*!%m entitle& EAn* I*lesi% ni 6!istoE %i!e& on 6h%nnel " eve!+ S%t)!&%+ %n& on 6h%nnel 1# eve!+ S)n&%+. 4he p!o*!%m p!esents %n& p!op%*%tes IN6Bs !eli*io)s eliefs$ &o,t!ines %n& p!%,ti,es often times in ,omp%!%tive st)&ies (ith othe! !eli*ions. Sometime in the months of Septem e!$ O,to e! %n& Novem e! 1--" IN6 s) mitte& to the 74R65 the V4R t%pes of its 4V p!o*!%m. 4he 5o%!& ,l%ssifie& the se!ies %s EFE o! not fo! p) li, vie(in* on the *!o)n& th%t the+ Eoffen& %n& ,onstit)te %n %tt%,8 %*%inst othe! !eli*ions (hi,h is e<p!essl+ p!ohi ite& + l%(.E Issue: Is % p!io! s) mission to 74R65 % ,%se of p!io! !est!%intD

Rul+-.: 4he !e,o!&s sho( th%t the &e,ision of the !espon&ent 5o%!&$ %ffi!me& + the 6A is ,ompletel+ e!eft of fin&in*s of f%,ts to 2)stif+ the ,on,l)sion th%t the s) 2e,t vi&eo t%pes ,onstit)te impe!missi le %tt%,8s %*%inst %nothe! !eli*ion. 4he!e is no sho(in* (h%tsoeve! of the t+pe of h%!m the t%pes (ill !in* % o)t espe,i%ll+ the *!%vit+ %n& imminen,e of the th!e%tene& h%!m. P!io! !est!%int on spee,h$ in,l)&in* !eli*io)s spee,h$ ,%nnot e 2)stifie& + h+potheti,%l fe%!s )t onl+ + the sho(in* of % s) st%ntive %n& imminent evil (hi,h h%s t%8en the life of % !e%lit+ %l!e%&+ on *!o)n&. ?in%ll+$ it is %lso opine& th%t Ethe &ete!min%tion of the 3)estion %s to (hethe! o! not s),h vilifi,%tion$ e<%**e!%tion o! f% !i,%tion f%lls (ithin o! lies o)tsi&e the o)n&%!ies of p!ote,te& spee,h o! e<p!ession is % 2)&i,i%l f)n,tion (hi,h ,%nnot e %!!o*%te& + %n %&minist!%tive o&+ s),h %s % 5o%!& of 6enso!s %n& th%t % s+stem of p!io! !est!%int m%+ onl+ e v%li&l+ %&ministe!e& + 2)&*es %n& not left to %&minist!%tive %*en,ies.