This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-02-15 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| Prior restraint refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.[56] Freedom from prior restraint is largely freedom from government censorship of publications, whatever the form of censorship, and regardless of whether it is wielded by the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the government. Thus, it precludes governmental acts that required approval of a proposal to publish; licensing or permits as prerequisites to publication including the payment of license taxes for the privilege to publish; and even injunctions against publication. Even the closure of the business and printing offices of certain newspapers, resulting in the discontinuation of their printing and publication, are deemed as previous restraint or censorship.[57] Any law or official that requires some form of permission to be had before publication can be made, commits an infringement of the constitutional right, and remedy can be had at the courts. | |||||
|
2007-06-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| According to the foregoing provisions, a search warrant can be issued only upon a finding of probable cause. Probable cause for search warrant means such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched.[26] | |||||
|
2004-09-13 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Probable cause means "such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper."[19] Thus, probable cause for a search warrant requires such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be searched.[20] | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| More importantly, this case should be dismissed on the ground of manifest violations of the constitutional right of the accused against illegal search and seizure. While appellant may be deemed to have waived his right to question the legality of the search warrant and the admissibility of the evidence seized for failure to raise his objections at the opportune time,[12] however, the record shows serious defects in the search warrant itself which render the same null and void.[13] | |||||