Case Title: Topic:

Pita Vs CA Freedom of Speech

Date: Oct 5 1989

Petitioner: LEO PITA doing business under the name and style of PINOY PLAYBOY,
Respondent: THE COURT OF APPEALS, RAMON BAGATSING, and NARCISO CABRERA, respondents

Doctrine:
Relevant Provisions:
Murder punishable under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code

Facts:

On December 1 and 3, 1983, pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of the City of Manila, Ramon D. Bagatsing, elements of the Special Anti-Narcotics Group, Auxilliary Services Bureau,
Western Police District, INP of the Metropolitan Police Force of Manila, seized and confiscated from dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila sidewalks, magazines, publications
and other reading materials believed to be obscene, pornographic and indecent and later burned the seized materials in public at the University belt along C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila, in the presence of
Mayor Bagatsing and several officers and members of various student organizations.Among the publications seized, and later burned, was "Pinoy Playboy" magazines published and co-edited by plaintiff Leo
Pita.

He filed an injunction case against the mayor of manila to enjoin him from confiscating more copies of his magazine and claimed that this was a violation of freedom of speech. The court ordered him
to show cause. He then filed an Urgent Motion for issuance of a temporary restraining order against indiscriminate seizure.

(procedural) plaintiff filed a case for injunction with prayer for issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against Mayor Bagatsing and Narcisco Cabrera, as superintendent of Western Police District of the
City of Manila, seeking to enjoin and/or restrain said defendants and their agents from confiscating plaintiffs magazines or from otherwise preventing the sale or circulation thereof claiming that the magazine
is a decent, artistic and educational magazine which is not per se obscene, and that the publication is protected by the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press.The Court set the
hearing on the petition for preliminary injunction and ordered the defendants to show cause why the writ prayed for should not be granted. Plaintiff filed an Urgent Motion for issuance of a temporary
restraining order. against indiscriminate seizure, confiscation and burning of plaintiff's "Pinoy Playboy" Magazines, pending hearing on the petition for preliminary injunction in view of Mayor Bagatsing's
pronouncement to continue the Anti-Smut Campaign. The Court granted the temporary restraining order

defendant Mayor Bagatsing : admitted the confiscation and burning of obscence reading materials on December 1 and 3, 1983, but claimed that the said materials were voluntarily surrendered by the vendors
to the police authorities, and that the said confiscation and seizure was (sic) undertaken pursuant to P.D. No. 960, as amended by P.D. No. 969, which amended Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. ,
defendant pointed out that in that anti- smut campaign conducted on December 1 and 3, 1983, the materials confiscated belonged to the magazine stand owners and peddlers who voluntarily surrendered
their reading materials, and that the plaintiffs establishment was not raided.The other defendant, WPD Superintendent, Narcisco Cabrera, filed no answer.

plaintiff: raising the issue as to "whether or not the defendants and/or their agents can without a court order confiscate or seize plaintiffs magazine before any judicial finding is made on whether said
magazine is obscene or not".

(procedural)The restraining order issued on December 14,1983 having lapsed on January 3,1984, the plaintiff filed an urgent motion for issuance of another restraining order, which was opposed by defendant
on the ground that issuance of a second restraining order would violate the Resolution of the Supreme Court dated January 11, 1983, providing for the Interim Rules Relative to the Implementation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, which provides that a temporary restraining order shall be effective only for twenty days from date of its issuance. Defendant filed his Comment and/or Rejoinder Memorandum in support
of his opposition to the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The trial court issued an Order setting the case for hearing on January 16, 1984 "for the parties to adduce evidence on the question of
whether the publication 'Pinoy Playboy Magazine alleged (sic) seized, confiscated and/or burned by the defendants, are obscence per se or not".The Court issued an order granting plaintiffs motion to be
given three days "to file a reply to defendants' opposition dated January 9, 1984, serving a copy thereof to the counsel for the defendants, who may file a rejoinder within the same period from receipt, after
which the issue of Preliminary Injunction shall be resolved". Plaintiff's supplemental Memorandum was filed on January 18, 1984. Defendant filed his Comment on plaintiff s supplemental Memorandum on
January 20, 1984, and plaintiff filed his "Reply-Memorandum" to defendants' Comment on January 25, 1984.

TC: promulgated the Order appealed from denying the motion for a writ of preliminary injunction, and dismissing the case for lack of merit. 2

CA: We cannot quarrel with the basic postulate suggested by appellant that seizure of allegedly obscene publications or materials deserves close scrutiny because of the constitutional guarantee protecting
the right to express oneself in print (Sec. 9, Art. IV), and the protection afforded by the constitution against unreasonable searches and seizure (Sec. 3, Art.IV). It must be equally conceded, however, that
freedom of the press is not without restraint as the state has the right to protect society from pornographic literature that is offensive to public morals, as indeed we have laws punishing the author, publishers
and sellers of obscene publications (Sec. I , Art. 201, Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D. No. 960 and P.D. No. 969). Also well settled is the rule that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures
recognizes certain exceptions, as

 (1)when there is consent to the search or seizure, or

Issue 1 Ratio:
Whether or Not the seizure Freedom of the press is not without restraint as the state has the right to protect society from pornographic literature that is offensive to public morals, as indeed we
violative of the freedom of have laws punishing the author, publishers and sellers of obscene publications. However, It is easier said than done to say, that if the pictures here in question were used
expression of the petitioner. not exactly for art's sake but rather for commercial purposes, the pictures are not entitled to any constitutional protection. Using the Kottinger rule: the test of obscenity
is "whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into whose hands a
publication or other article charged as being obscene may fall." Another is whether it shocks the ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency. Ultimately
"whether a picture is obscene or indecent must depend upon the circumstances of the case and that the question is to be decided by the "judgment of the aggregate
sense of the community reached by it." The government authorities in the instant case have not shown the required proof to justify a ban and to warrant confiscation of
the literature. First of all, they were not possessed of a lawful court order:
(1) finding the said materials to be pornography, and
(2) authorizing them to carry out a search and seizure, by way of a search warrant. The court provides that the authorities must apply for the issuance of a search
warrant from a judge, if in their opinion an obscenity seizure is in order and that;

1. The authorities must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized are obscene and pose a clear and present danger of an evil substantive enough to
warrant State interference and action;
2. The judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed obscene. The question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on the judge’s sound discretion;

WON seizure is constitutional? YES. It is basic that searches and seizure may be done only through a judicial warrant , otherwise, they become unreasonable and subject to challenge

There is a greater reason in this case to reprobate the questioned raid, in the complete absence of a warrant, valid or invalid. The fact that the instant case involves an
obscenity rap makes it no different from Burgos, a political case, because speech is speech, whether political or "obscene". The authorities must apply for the issuance
of the a search warrant from the judge , if in their opinion, an obscenity rap is in order. They must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized are "obscene"
and pose a clear and present danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant State interference and action. The judge must determine WON the same are indeed
"obscene": the question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on the judge's sound discretion. If probable cause exist, a search warrant will issue.

Dispositive Portion:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. It appearing, however, that the magazines subject of the search and seizure ave been destroyed, the
Court declines to grant affirmative relief. To that extent, the case is moot and academic.

SO ORDERED.