Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ANNOTATION:
Search and Seizure (291 SCRA 418)
Warrantless Search and Seizure of Prohibited Drugs (610 SCRA 670,
2010)
Search and Seizure (643 SCRA 637, 2011)
Law and Jurisprudence on Search Warrants and Warrantless
Searches (664 SCRA 450, 2012)
ANNOTATION:
Plain View Doctrine (609 SCRA 434, 2009)
e. Express Waiver
CASES:
Veroy vs. Layague (210 SCRA 92, 1992)
People vs. Nuevas (516 SCRA 463, 2007)
People vs. Dequina (640 SCRA 111, 2011)
People vs. Uyboco (640 SCRA 146, 2011)
g. Exigency
CASE:
People vs. De Gracia (233 SCRA 716, 1994)
i. Airport Security
CASES:
Martinez vs. People (690 SCRA 656, 2013)
Sales vs. People (690 SCRA 141, 2013)
People vs. Cadidia (707 SCRA 494, 2013)
j. Jail Safety
CASE:
People vs. Conde (356 SCRA 525, 2002)
4. Wire Tapping
Republic Act No. 4200
CASE:
Gaanan vs. IAC (145 SCRA 112, 1986)
a. Exclusionary Rule
Article III, Section 3, Paragraph 2
CASE:
Stonehill vs. Diokno (20 SCRA 383, 1967)
Waiver
CASE:
Pastrano vs. CA (281 SCRA 254, 1997)
ANNOTATION:
Warrantless Arrest (283 SCRA 190)
Warrantless Arrest and Warrantless Search in Buy Bust (607
SCRA 830, 2009)
10. Privacy
Article III, Section 2
CASES:
Ople vs. Torres (293 SCRA 201, 1998)
In Re: Camilo Sabio (504 SCRA 704, 2006)
SJS vs. DDB (570 SCRA 410, 2008)
Lee vs. CA (625 SCRA 66, 2010)
Manila Electric vs. Lim (632 SCRA 195, 2010)
Fernando vs. St. Scho (693 SCRA 141, 2013)
In Re: Noriel Rodriguez (696 SCRA 390, 2013)
Hing vs. Choachuy (699 SCRA 667, 2013)
ANNOTATION:
Right to Privacy (293 SCRA 201)
Concept of Privacy Zones of Privacy
C. Content-based Restrictions
1. Some Tests of Validity of Contest-based Restrictions
Balancing of interest: The court must undertake the delicate and difficult
task of weighing the circumstances and appraising the substantiality of the
reasons advanced in support of the regulation of the free enjoyment of rights.
(American Communication Association vs. Doubs, 339 U.S. 383, cited
in Gonzales vs. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835 [1969])
Direct incitement: The guarantees of free speech and free press do not
permit a state to forbid or prescribe the advocacy of the use of force or of law
violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing
imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
(Brandenburg vs. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 [1969], cited in Salonga vs. Cruz
Pano, 134 SCRA 438 [1985])
ANNOTATION:
(301 SCRA 34)
D. Content-neutral restrictions
O' Brien Test: A government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the
constitutional power of the government; if it furthers an important or substantial
governmental interest; if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression
of free expression; and if the incidental restriction on alleged freedom of
expression is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.
(United States vs. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), adopted, in Adiong vs.
COMELEC, 207 SCRA 712 [1992])
2. Freedom of Assembly
BP Blg. 880 (Public Assembly Act of 1985)
CASES:
Bayan vs. Ermita (488 SCRA 226, 2006)
Supreme Court Circular A.M. 98-7-02-SC
IBP vs. Atienza (613 SCRA 518, 2010)
4. Movies Censorship
CASES:
Gonzales vs. Kalaw Katigbak (137 SCRA 356, 1985)
Iglesia ni Cristo vs. CA (259 SCRA 52
5. Radio Broadcast
CASE:
Eastern Broadcasting Corp. (Dyre) vs. Dans (137 SCRA 647, 1985)
g. Freedom of Information
Article III, Section 7
CASES:
Neri vs. Senate (564 SCRA 152, 2008)
CPEG vs. COMELEC (631 SCRA 41, 2010)
Re: Request for Copy of 2008 SALN (672 SCRA 27, 2012)
ANNOTATION:
(299 SCRA 782)
A. Non-establishment Clause
The establishment clause prohibits (1) excessive governmental entanglement
with religious institutions and (2) government endorsement or disapproval of religion.
CASES:
Re: Request of Muslim (477 SCRA 648, 2005)
Taruc vs. Dela Cruz (453 SCRA 123, 2005)
Estrada vs. Escritur (408 SCRA 1, 2003)
(492 SCRA 1, 2006)
Soriano vs. Laguardia (587 SCRA 79, 2009)
(615 SCRA 254, 2010)
3. Tax Exemption
Article VI, Section 28, Paragraph 3
CASES:
Bishop of Nueva Segovia vs. Provincial Board (51 Phil. 352, 1927)
Tolentino vs. Secretary (235 SCRA 632, 1994)
1. Flag Salute
CASE:
Ebralinag vs. Division Sup't of Schools (219 SCRA 256, 1993)
SOURCE:
Miranda vs. Arizona (384 U.S. 436, 1966)
CASES:
Ho Wai Pang vs. People (659 SCRA 624, 2011)
Luz vs. People (667 SCRA 421, 2012)
PHILCOMSAT vs. Senate (673 SCRA 611, 2012)
People vs. Lara (678 SCRA 332, 2012)
People vs. Soriano (693 SCRA 214, 2013)
People vs. Ibaez (698 SCRA 161, 2013)
Tanenggee vs. People (699 SCRA 639, 2013)
ANNOTATION:
Extrajudicial Confession (649 SCRA 649, 2011)
1. Miranda rule not applicable to confessions executed before January 17, 1973
CASES:
People vs. Ribadajo (142 SCRA 637, 1986)
Filoteo vs. Sandiganbayan (263 SCRA 222, 1996)
Santos vs. Sandiganbayan (347 SCRA 386, 2000)
7. What may be waived: The right to remain silent and to counsel, but not the right to be given
"Miranda warnings."
8. Exclusionary Rule
Article III, Section 12, Paragraph 3
CASES:
People vs. Andan (269 SCRA 95, 1997)
Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan (302 SCRA 102, 1999)
People vs. Janson (400 SCRA 584, 2003)
5. Hello
CASES:
Santiago vs. Vasquez (217 SCRA 633
Silverio vs. CA (195 SCRA 760)
7. READ:
Annotation on Bail (260 SCRA 161)
Right to Bail (647 SCRA 613, 2011)