Pita v.

Court of Appeals
GR No. 80806
October 5, 1989
Article 3 Section 4
FACTS:
The petitioner, publisher of Pinoy Playboy which is a mens magazine seeks the review of
the decision of the Court of Appeals rejecting his appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial
Court which dismissed his complaint for injunctive relief.
Pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign, Mayor Bagatsing of The City of Manila ordered the
seizure and confiscation from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along
sidewalks, magazines and other reading materials believed to be obscene and pornographic, and
subsequently burning the materials in public. Among those seized were the Pinoy Playboy
magazines.
This led the plaintiff to file a case for injunction with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the defendants from confiscating plaintiffs magazines
or from preventing the sale or circulation thereof. The petitioner claims that the magazine is
decent, artistic and an educational magazine which is not per se obscene, and protected by the
constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press. In the answer of Mayor
Bagatsing, he admitted the confiscation and burning of the materials, but claimed that they were
voluntarily surrendered by the vendors to the police, and the establishment of the plaintiff was
not even raided.
On February 3, 1984, the RTC promulgated the decision appealed from denying the
motion for a writ of preliminary injunction, and dismissing the case for lack of merit. The CA
also subsequently dismissed the appeal on the grounds that freedom of the press is not without
restraint as the state has the right to protect the society from pornographic literature that is
offensive to morals, and that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures recognizes
certain exceptions like when there is consent, or when it is incident to an arrest; hence this
petition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in holding that police officers can seize and confiscate
petitioners magazines on the basis simply of their determination that they are obscene
without a lawful warrant or order.
HELD:
1. Yes.
The Court ruled that basing it on jurisprudence, the test for obscenity is whether it has a
corrupting tendency, or when it can be said that it is offensive to human sensibilities. There has
been no uniformity even with American jurisprudence regarding the issue of whether obscenity
is included in the guaranty of free speech or not, but if such pictures are shown in art exhibits for
Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio

the sake of art to be viewed by art enthusiasts, there would be no offense, but if it is for
commercial purposes then it may be viewed by people whose aim is to satisfy their lust and
desires materials which are not entitled to constitutional protection. In the case presented, there
is no challenge to the right of the state in the exercise of police power to suppress obscene
materials, provided that they are proven to be obscene but these materials cannot just be deemed
obscene because of ones opinion. In cases involving the freedom of expression, the courts have
always been on the side of the exercise of the right, but a clear and present danger that would
make state interference justifiable. The Court is not convinced that sufficient proof was shown to
justify the seizure, for no lawful court order was even presented authorizing the respondents.
Invoking police power cannot disregard the right to due process, for it does not exempt law
enforcers from observing the right to due process and the right against unreasonable searches and
seizures. No proof was shown that would make the search and seizure done fall under any of the
conditions of a warrantless search. Mayor Bagatsing cannot have validly ordered the raid without
a warrant just because of his opinion that a violation was committed for it would make him play
the roles of a judge, a jury and an executioner.
Therefore, the petition is granted however since the materials have already been
destroyed, the Court declines the grant of an affirmative relief for this case being moot and
academic.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio