Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Valmonte Vs de Villa

    Uploaded by

    mayton30
    The Supreme Court ruled that checkpoints installed by the military did not violate rights against unreasonable searches. While residents feared harassment at checkpoints where their vehicles were searched without warrants, the checkpoints were a security measure for maintaining peace and order. Abnormal times with threats of insurgency and violence in urban areas meant the state's need to protect public security prevailed over an individual's right against warrantless searches, as long as the searches were reasonably conducted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Valmonte Vs de Villa

    Uploaded by

    mayton30
    28 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that checkpoints installed by the military did not violate rights against unreasonable searches. While residents feared harassment at checkpoints where their vehicles were searched without warrants, the checkpoints were a security measure for maintaining peace and order. Abnormal times with threats of insurgency and violence in urban areas meant the state's need to protect public security prevailed over an individual's right against warrantless searches, as long as the searches were reasonably conducted.

    Original Description:

    Constitutional Law Political Law

    Original Title

    28. Valmonte vs de Villa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that checkpoints installed by the military did not violate rights against unreasonable searches. While residents feared harassment at checkpoints where their vehicles were searched without warrants, the checkpoints were a security measure for maintaining peace and order. Abnormal times with threats of insurgency and violence in urban areas meant the state's need to protect public security prevailed over an individual's right against warrantless searches, as long as the searches were reasonably conducted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    28 views1 page

    Valmonte Vs de Villa

    Uploaded by

    mayton30
    The Supreme Court ruled that checkpoints installed by the military did not violate rights against unreasonable searches. While residents feared harassment at checkpoints where their vehicles were searched without warrants, the checkpoints were a security measure for maintaining peace and order. Abnormal times with threats of insurgency and violence in urban areas meant the state's need to protect public security prevailed over an individual's right against warrantless searches, as long as the searches were reasonably conducted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    VALMONTE VS.

    DE VILLA
    G.R. No. 83988 September 29, 1989
    FACTS:
    As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the National Capital Region District

    Command (NCRDC) installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro Manila.

    Petitioners aver that, because of the installation of said checkpoints, the residents of Valenzuela

    are worried of being harassed and of their safety being placed at the arbitrary, capricious and

    whimsical disposition of the military manning the checkpoints, considering that their cars and

    vehicles are being subjected to regular searches and check-ups, especially at night or at dawn,

    without the benefit of a search warrant and/or court order. Their alleged fear for their safety

    increased when, Benjamin Parpon, a supply officer of the Municipality of Valenzuela, Bulacan,

    was gunned down allegedly in cold blood by the members of the NCRDC manning the

    checkpoint for ignoring and/or refusing to submit himself to the checkpoint and for continuing to

    speed off inspire of warning shots fired in the air.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the installation of checkpoints violates the right of the people against

    unreasonable searches and seizures.

    HELD:
    The setting up of the questioned checkpoints may be considered as a security measure to

    enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial defense and

    maintaining peace and order for the benefit of the public. Checkpoints may also be regarded as

    measures to thwart plots to destabilize the government, in the interest of public security. In this

    connection, the Court may take judicial notice of the shift to urban centers and their suburbs of

    the insurgency movement, so clearly reflected in the increased killings in cities of police and

    military men by NPA "sparrow units," not to mention the abundance of unlicensed firearms and

    the alarming rise in lawlessness and violence in such urban centers, not all of which are reported

    in media, most likely brought about by deteriorating economic conditions — which all sum up to

    what one can rightly consider, at the very least, as abnormal times. Between the inherent right of

    the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and an individual's right against a

    warrantless search which is however reasonably conducted, the former should prevail.

    You might also like