Skip to main content

Case Digest: Corro v. Lising

 

Corro v. Lising

Facts:

The search warrant was issued on September 29, 1983 (when)

The Philippine Times office (where)

RTC Judge Esteban Lising – issued warrant (who); Lt. Col. Berlin Castillo – PC CSI filed warrant (who)

Printed copies; drafts for publication; newspaper dummies; subversive docs, articles, handbills, leaflets, banners, printed matters; machines – typewriter, duplicating, mimeographing, tape recording, video, tapes (what were seized)

Sedition - indirect act of treason; Art 142 Revised Penal Code (why)

Issues: Whether or not the search warrant was valid

 

Held: No. Search warrants authorizing the return of books and accounts “showing all business transactions” of certain persons, regardless of whether legal or otherwise, contravenes the Bill of Rights. Things to be seized should be particularly described.

 

Decisions/ruling: Search warrant No. Q-00002 issued by respondent judge was declared null and void and accordingly set aside.

 

Principles/grounds: ON WHAT GROUNDS? Validity of search warrant

 

General Warrant – things to be seized must be particularly described (Bill of Rights). Search warrants authorizing seizure of all business transactions contravene bill of rights comment (Stonehill vs. Diokno).

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. no. 168338 (February 15, 2008)

  Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. no. 168338 (February 15, 2008) Summary of rule of law. Any attempt to restrict press freedom and the right to free speech and free expression must be met with an examination so critical that only a danger that is clear and present would be allowed to curtail it. Facts. The case originates from events that occurred a year after the 2004 national and local elections . 1.       On 5 June 2005, an audiotape of a mobile phone conversation allegedly between the President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and a Comelec high-ranking official was released by Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye. It was audiotaped allegedly through wiretapping. 2.       Two versions of the tape were produced: one supposedly the complete version, and the other a spliced, “doctored” version, which would suggest that the President had instructed the Comelec official to manipulate the election results. 3.       On 7 June 2005, for...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Digest: Burgos v. Chief of Staff

  Burgos v. Chief of Staff Facts: 1.       Metropolitan Mail; We Forum; Jose Burgos, Jr. (publisher-editor of We Forum); Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano, executive judge of the Court of First Instance, Q.C.; Col. Rolando Abadilla, warrant petitioner (who) 2.       The two search warrants were issued on December 7, 1982 (when) 3.       No. 19, Road 3, Project 6, Q.C. (where) 784 Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Ave. Q.C. (where) 4.       Office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles, articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of, numerous papers, documents, books, other written literature (what were seized). There were subversive documents from the publications - direct act of treason (why) 5.       Aside from the We Forum documents and equipment and subversive documents said to be promoting the objectives of s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Digest: Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014)

  Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014) Facts. The government has the duty to and the right to prevent cybercrimes from happening and punish their perpetrators, hence the Cybercrime Prevention Act.   But petitioners claim that the means adopted by the cybercrime law for regulating undesirable cyberspace activities violate certain of their constitutional rights. Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of the 21 provisions of the cybercrime law that regard certain acts as crimes and impose penalties for their commission as well as provisions that would enable the government to track down and penalize violators. Pending hearing and adjudication of the issues presented in these cases, on February 5 2013, the Court extended the original 120-day temporary restraining order (TRO) that it earlier issued on October 9 2012, enjoining respondent government agencies from implementing the cybercrime law until further...
Post a Comment
Read more