Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2.
The authorities must convince the Court that the
materials sought to be seized are obscene, and pose a
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER of an evil substantive
enough to warrant a State interference and action;
PITA vs CA
FACTS:
An anti-smut campaign initiated by the Mayor of City of
Manila, Ramon Bagatsing, seized & confiscated from
dealers, distributors, news stand owners and peddlers
along sidewalks, magazines, publications and other
reading materials believe to be obscene, pornographic
and indecent and later burned the seized materials in
public at University belt along CM Recto Avenue.
Among the publications seized, and later burned was
Pinoy Playboy magazines and Co-edited by plaintiff
Leo Pita.
Pita assailed, Preliminary Injunction, as to whether or
not the defendants and or their agents can without a
Court order confiscate or seize plaintiffs magazine
before any judicial finding is made on which is said may
be obscene or not.
HELD:
Petition is GRANTED, reversed & set-aside.
RATIONALE:
TEST OF OBSCENITY (PEOPLE vs KOTTINGER)
1.
Whether the tendency of the matter charged as
obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds
are open to such immoral influences and into whose
2.
Those that shocks the ordinary and common
sense of men as an indecency
PASEI vs DRILON (Definition of Police Power)
State authority to enact legislation that may interfere
with personal liberty or property in order to promote
GENERAL WELFARE
PROCEDURE (OBSCENE MATERIALS)
1.
The authorities must apply for the issuance of a
Search Warrant from a Judge, in in their opinion, an
obscenity rap is in order;
3.
The Judge must determine whether or not the
same are indeed obscene the question is to be
resolved on a case-to-case basis and on his hands
sound discretion;
4.
If, in the opinion of the Court, probable cause
exists, it may issue the Search Warrant;
5.
6.
Placer vs Villanueva
G.R. Nos. 60349-62, December 29, 1983
Facts: Following receipt of informations from
petitioners that probable cause has been
established which necessitates the issuance of
warrants of arrest, respondent judge issued an
order the hearing of said criminal cases for the
purpose of determining the propriety of issuing the
corresponding warrants of arrest. After said
hearing, respondent issued the questioned orders
requiring petitioners to submit to the court the
affidavits of the prosecution witnesses and other
documentary
evidence
in
support
of
the informations to aid him in the exercise of his
power of judicial review of the findings of probable
cause by petitioners
Petitioners contended that under P.D. Nos. 77 and
911, they are authorized to determine the existence
of a probable cause in a preliminary
on
Warrant
Issued
by
RTC)
Facts:
Held:
No
Ratio:
I.
THE FACTS
II.
THE ISSUE