Case Digest (G.R. No. 80806)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 80806)
Facts:
Leo Pita, Doing Business Under the Name and Style of Pinoy Playboy v. The Court of Appeals, Ramon Bagatsing, and Narciso Cabrera, G.R. No. 80806, October 05, 1989, Supreme Court En Banc, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Leo Pita, publisher of the men’s magazine Pinoy Playboy, sought review of a Court of Appeals decision affirming the Regional Trial Court’s dismissal of his complaint for injunctive relief. On December 1 and 3, 1983, as part of an Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by Mayor Ramon D. Bagatsing, elements of the Special Anti-Narcotics Group, Auxiliary Services Bureau, Western Police District, and Metropolitan Police Force of Manila seized assorted magazines and reading materials from vendors and newsstands along Manila sidewalks; the seized materials, including copies of Pinoy Playboy, were publicly burned thereafter.
On December 7, 1983 petitioner filed for a writ of preliminary injunction against Mayor Bagatsing and Narciso Cabrera (Superintendent, Western Police District), claiming the magazine was not obscene and was protected by freedom of speech and of the press; the trial court set a hearing and issued a temporary restraining order on December 14, 1983. Respondents admitted the confiscation and burning but claimed voluntary surrender by vendors and relied on P.D. No. 960 as amended by P.D. No. 969 (amending Art. 201, Revised Penal Code) to justify action. After memoranda and procedural exchanges, the trial court on February 3, 1984 promulgated an order denying the writ of preliminary injunction and dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, reasoning that freedom of the press is not absolute, that the State may legislate against pornographic literature (citing Art. 201, RPC as amended), and that recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement (consent, search incident to arrest, searches of movable vehicles) might apply. Petitioner challenged the appellate ruling before the Supreme Court, arguing that the warrantless seizure and destruction violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and deprivation of property without due process.
Issues:
- Did the warrantless seizure and public burning of petitioner’s magazines violate the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and the due process guarantee?
- Did the trial court and the Court of Appeals err in denying petitioner’s application for a writ of preliminary injunction and dismissing the case without affording the procedural safeguards required where prior restraint or seizure of publications is sought?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)