Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SUSAN CANTON

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 203335 2014-02-18	JOSE JESUS M. DISINI v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE ABAD, J.
The Solicitor General contends, however, that the current body of jurisprudence and laws on aiding and abetting sufficiently protects the freedom of expression of "netizens," the multitude that avail themselves of the services of the internet. He points out that existing laws and jurisprudence sufficiently delineate the meaning of "aiding or abetting" a crime as to protect the innocent. The Solicitor General argues that plain, ordinary, and common usage is at times sufficient to guide law enforcement agencies in enforcing the law.[51] The legislature is not required to define every single word contained in the laws they craft.
	GR No. 164909 2008-04-30	RONNIE AMBAIT Y SAURA v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
The interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute. The recognized exceptions established by jurisprudence are (1) search of moving vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view; (3) customs searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5) stop and frisk situations; and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest. [26]
	GR NO. 146706 2005-08-15	TOMAS SALVADOR v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The above Constitutional provisions do not prohibit searches and seizures, but only such as are unreasonable. Our jurisprudence provides for privileged areas where searches and seizures may lawfully be effected sans a search warrant. These recognized exceptions include: (1) search of moving vehicles; (2) search in plain view; (3) customs searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5) stop-and-frisk situations; and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest.[10]
	GR No. 146706 2005-07-15	TOMAS SALVADOR v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The above Constitutional provisions do not prohibit searches and seizures, but only such as are unreasonable. Our jurisprudence provides for privileged areas where searches and seizures may lawfully be effected sans a search warrant. These recognized exceptions include: (1) search of moving vehicles; (2) search in plain view; (3) customs searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5) stop-and-frisk situations; and (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest.[10]
	GR No. 143263 2004-01-29	TALA REALTY SERVICES CORPORATION v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere invokes adherence to precedents and mandates not to unsettle things which are established. When the court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it must adhere to that principal and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same.[15] In the instant case, we reiterate our ruling in G.R. No. 137533 that both parties are "in pari delicto," thus, no affirmative relief should be given to one against the other. They should be left where they are, each paying the price for its deception. If at all, petitioner TALA should seek remedy for its loss from the Central Bank which caused the respondent bank's arbitrary closure and not from the bank which was itself a victim of the arbitrary act of the government. Indeed, there is no ground for ejectment either expiration of the lease or non-payment of rent.
	GR Nos. 137542-43 2004-01-20	PEOPLE v. REYNAN SANTIAGO Y CASTILLO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
As to the fine imposed, it is settled that courts may fix any amount within the limits established by law.[21] Under Section 8, Article II of the same law (R.A. 6425, as amended), in relation to Section 20, Article IV of R.A. 7659, as amended,[22] if the marijuana involved is 750 grams or more, the imposable fine is P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. Thus, in Criminal Case No. C-53126 where 911.11 grams of marijuana were confiscated from appellant, the fine often million pesos fixed by the trial court may be equitably reduced to five hundred thousand pesos.
	GR No. 120670 2003-10-23	PEOPLE v. HEDISHI SUZUKI SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
This is not the first time we recognize a search conducted pursuant to routine airport security procedure as an exception to the proscription against warrantless searches. In People vs. Canton,[6] and People vs. Johnson,[7] we validated the search conducted on the departing passengers and the consequent seizure of the shabu found in their persons, thus:"Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. With increased concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased security at the nation's airports. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects, physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects are. There is little question that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified through airport public address systems, signs and notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to search and, if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be subject to seizure. These announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures." (Underscoring ours)