Digging through my old review notes, I found some notes in Constitutional Law that might be worth salvaging. Since I feel like preserving some of these studies, I might as well post them here for everyone else to analyze as well.
Just a little disclaimer. It’s not a guarantee that they will not be asked just because the notes and cases are more than a decade old. References are included either as annotations or embedded links.
Existence of Probable Cause
An information for murder was filed against petitioners. The new judge who took over the case quashed the warrant for their arrest on the ground that the confession of their co-accused implicating them was not credible, since the co-accused had been a fugitive from justice for five years, the confession was given after two years in custody of the National Bureau of Investigation, it was given in exchange for his discharge from the case, and it was given during the election period during a politically charged atmosphere.
HELD: An exhaustive debate on the credibility of a witness is not within the provision of the determination of probable cause.Miranda vs Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377
A foreign corporation manufacturing cosmetic products with trademark Chin Chun Su appointed respondent as its exclusive distributor in the Philippines. Respondent applied for a search warrant against petitioner for manufacturing fake cosmetic products with the trademark Chin Chun Su.
In support of the application, a police officer and a representative of respondent testified that they conducted a surveillance and that they saw plastic containers filled with cream being affixed with fake labels with the trademark Chin Chun Su in two places in Manila. Petitioner argued that there was no probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant.
HELD: Probable cause existed for the issuance of the search warrant as shown by the affidavits of the affiants who had personal knowledge of facts indicating that an offense involving violation of intellectual property rights was being committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense were in the place sought to be searched.Kho vs Lanzanas, 489 SCRA 444
Absence of Probable Cause
The President issued Proclamation No. 1017, which declared a state of national emergency. The Presidential Chief of Staff announced that warrantless arrests could be implemented. During the dispersal of a rally, petitioner was arrested without a warrant and was charged with violation of the Public Assembly Act and inciting to sedition.
HELD: The instances when a lawful warrantless arrest may be made do not justify the warrantless arrest of petitioner. All that the arresting officers could invoke was that some rallyists were wearing t-shirts with the slogan “Oust Gloria Now” and their erroneous assumption was that petitioner was the leader of the rally. Petitioner was not wearing the t-shirt. Even if he was wearing it, such fact is insufficient for charging him with inciting to sedition.David vs Arroyo, 489 SCRA 162
The President issued Proclamation No. 1017, which declared a state of national emergency. Policemen raided the Office of the Daily Tribune and seized materials for publication although they had no search warrant.
HELD: The search was illegal.David vs Arroyo, 489 SCRA 162