Professional Documents
Culture Documents
WARREN, C.J.
Facts: This case is a consolidation of several different
cases from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and
Delaware. Several black children (through their legal
representatives, Ps) sought admission to public
schools that required or permitted segregation based
on race. The plaintiffs alleged that segregation was
unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.
In all but one case, a three judge federal district
court cited Plessy v. Ferguson in denying relief under
the separate but equal doctrine. On appeal to the
Supreme Court, the plaintiffs contended that
segregated schools were not and could not be made
equal and that they were therefore deprived of equal
protection of the laws.
Issue: Is the race-based segregation of children into
separate but equal public schools constitutional?
Held: No. The race-based segregation of children into
separate but equal public schools violates the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and is unconstitutional.
Segregation of children in the public schools solely on
the basis of race denies to black children the equal
protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment, even though the physical facilities and
other may be equal. Education in public schools is a
right which must be made available to all on equal
terms.
The question presented in these cases must be
determined not on the basis of conditions existing
when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but
in the light of the role of public education in
American life today. The separate but equal doctrine
May 4, 1946
COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION
5|Pa g e
J. Imperial
Facts:
On June 3, 1936, the chief of of the secret service of
the Anti-Usury Board presented to Judge David,
presiding judge of CFI of Tayabas, alleging that
according to reliable information, the petitioner is
keeping in his house in Infanta, Tayabas documents,
receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by him in
connection with his activities as a money lender
charging usurious rates of interest in violation of the
law.
In his oath the chief of the secret service did not
swear to the truth of his statements upon his
knowledge of the facts but the information received
by him from a reliable person. Upon this questioned
affidavit, the judge issued the search warrant,
ordering the search of the petitioners house at any
time of the day or night, the seizure of the books and
documents and the immediate delivery of such to
him (judge). With said warrant, several agents of the
Anti-Usury Board entered the petitioner's store and
residence at 7 o'clock of the night and seized and
took possession of various articles belonging to the
petitioner.
The petitioner asks that the warrant of issued by the
Court of First Instance of Tayabas, ordering the
search of his house and the seizure, at anytime of
the day or night, of certain accounting books,
documents, and papers belonging to him in his
residence situated in Infanta, Tayabas, as well as the
order of a later date, authorizing the agents of the
Facts:
Two warrants were issued against petitioners for the
search on the premises of Metropolitan Mail and
We Forum newspapers and the seizure of items
alleged to have been used in subversive activities.
Petitioners prayed that a writ of preliminary
mandatory and prohibitory injunction be issued for
the return of the seized articles, and that
respondents be enjoined from using the articles thus
seized as evidence against petitioner.
Petitioners questioned the warrants for the lack of
probable cause and that the two warrants issued
indicated only one and the same address. In addition,
the items seized subject to the warrant were real
properties.
Issue:
Whether or not the two warrants were valid to justify
seizure of the items.
Held:
The defect in the indication of the same address in
the two warrants was held by the court as a
typographical error and immaterial in view of the
correct determination of the place sought to be
searched set forth in the application. The purpose
and intent to search two distinct premises was
evident in the issuance of the two warrant.
As to the issue that the items seized were real
properties, the court applied the principle in the case
of Davao Sawmill Co. v. Castillo, ruling that
machinery which is movable by nature becomes
immobilized when placed by the owner of the
tenement, property or plant, but not so when placed
by a tenant, usufructuary, or any other person
having only a temporary right, unless such person
acted as the agent of the owner. In the case at bar,
petitioners did not claim to be the owners of the land
and/or building on which the machineries were
placed. This being the case, the machineries in
question, while in fact bolted to the ground remain
movable property susceptible to seizure under a
search warrant.
8|Pa g e
pleaded
guilty
upon
Statement of Facts:
-
People vs Molina
19 February 2001 | Ponente: Ynares-Santiago
Applicable Laws:
Article III, Sec. 2
Article III, Sec. 3
Rationale:
-
2.
A search warrant was shown to the accusedappellant and the police operatives started searching
the house. They found heat-sealed transparent
plastic bags containing a white crystalline substance,
a paper clip box also containing a white crystalline
substance, and two bricks of dried leaves which
appeared to be marijuana. A receipt of the items
seized was prepared, but the accused-appellant
refused to sign it. Charges against Roberto Salanguit
10 | P a g e
Lim vs Felix
witnesses.
Although, the general rule is that recantations are
not given much weight in the determination of a case
and in the
granting of a new trial the respondent Judge before is
suing his own warrants of arrest should, at the very
least, have gone over the records of the preliminary
examination conducted earlier in the
lightof the evidence now presented by theconcerned
witnesses in view of the"political undertones" prevaili
ng in the cases.
In making the required personaldetermination, a Judg
e is not precludedfrom relying on the evidence ealier
gathered by responsible officers. Theextent of the reli
ance depends on thecircumstances of each case and
is subject to the Judge's sound discretion. However,
the Judge abuses that discretion when having no
evidence before him, he issues a warrant of arrest.
Indubitably, the respondent Judge (Felix) committed
a grave error when he relied solely on the
Prosecutors certification and issued the questioned
Order dated July 5,1990 without having before him
any other basis for his personal determination of the
existence of a probable cause.
Panderanga vs Drilon
REGALADO, J.: p
1990.
General Rule:
Injunction will not be granted to restrain a criminal
prosecution
4.
When the acts of the officers are without or
excess of authority
5.
6.
When the Court has no jurisdiction over the
offense
7.
8.
The charges are manifestly false and
motivated by vengeance
PADERANGA vs DRILON
FACTS:
Definition of Preliminary Examination Generally
inquisitorial, often only means of discovering the
persons who may be reasonably charged with a
crime, to enable the fiscal to prepare his complaint or
information.
9.
Clearly no Prima Facie case against the
accused
Abdula vs guiani
ISSUES:
1.
2.
HELD:
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition are Granted.
RATIONALE:
In order to disqualify a Judge on the basis of
Prejudice, petitioner must prove the same by clear
and convincing evidence.
Rules of Court: No complaint or information shall be
filed or dismissed by an investigating Fiscal without
the prior written authority or approval of the
Provincial or City Fiscal or Chief of State Prosecutor. A
complaint or information can only be filed if it is
approved or authorized by the Provincial or City
Fiscal or Chief of State Prosecutor.
[11]
2.
Ho vs People (Inting)
1.
the
19 | P a g e