People v Dela Cruz Sec.

2
DOCTRINE: As a general rule, a police officer must secure a warrant of arrest or a
search warrant before he can search a person. Without such warrant, any evidence that
will be seized shall be deemed as inadmissible evidence by the Court.
FACTS: Dela Cruz and Beltran were convicted for possessing 3 cigarette foil wrapper
containing marijuana which was obtained through a buy bust operation. The defendants
contend that there is an illegal seizure of their possessions as the police officers were
raided without any search warrant. They claim that such action results to corruption of
police officers by planting evidence for their extortion.
ISSUE: Is there an illegal seizure?
RULING: No, the said seizure is lawful and does not result to corruption of officers. It is
a general rule that a police officer must secure a search warrant before any evidence that
will be seized be considered as an admissible evidence. However, in this case, is an
exception to such rule as the seizure was committed during an entrapment operation by
the police offers. Thus, a police officer may, without warrant, arrest a person when, in
his presence, the person to be arrested has committed an offense. There being no
violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure, the
confiscated articles are admissible in evidence.
Pita v CA sec.4
DOCTRINE: Freedom of the press is not without restraint, as the state has the right to
protect society from pornographic literature that is offensive to public morals.
FACTS: Mayor Ramon Bagatsing pursued an Anti-Smut Campaign with the purpose of
seizing and confiscating from dealers, distributors and others along Manila sidewalks ,
magazine, publications and other reading materials which they believe is obscene and
indecent. Upon conducting such campaign, they seized and burned Pinoy Playboy
magazines published by Pita. Pita alleged that their publication is protected by the
constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and the press.
ISSUE: Is the publication of the Pinoy Playboy magazine, which regarded as obscene by
the defendants, protected by the guaranty of freedom of speech?
RULING: No, the publication was made for commercial purpose and not for the sake of
satisfying the art taste of any artist or critic. Thus, it is not included in the guaranty of
freedom of speech as it is obscene and immoral. However, there is an illegal seizure
committed by the Anti-Smut Campaign as there is no judicial order allowing such
seizure and their failure to prove that there is a clear and present danger upon the
publication of the said magazine.
ALFONSO V LBP SEC.9
DOCTRINE: The determination made by the DAR is only preliminary unless accepted
by all the parties concerned. Otherwise, the courts of justice will still have the right to
review with finality the said determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a
judicial function.
FACTS: Alfonso bought 2 parcels of land located in Sorsogon City which the government
sought to expropriate with just compensation. The Special Agrarian Court, applying the
capitalization income approach and using the Cuervo report as their basis, declared the
just compensation of P 6090000. Thereafter, the LBP contends that such just
compensation is excessive and violates the translation of Sec.17 of CARL.
ISSUE: Is there a violation committed by SAC in computing the said just compensation?
RULING: Yes, the basic formula by the DAR is only preliminary and can either be
accepted or declined by the proper Court. In this case, the prior just compensation by
SAC is erroneous as the Cuervo report by Lim and Pascual is bereft of evidentiary
support compare to the reports issued by DAR and LBP which is supported by PCA,
SFMV and other material documents. Thus, this results to excessive just compensation
and violates sec. 17 of CARL as it modifies the factors therein.