Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Nogales V People

    Uploaded by

    beth babejes
    The Supreme Court ruled that the removal and destruction of hard disks containing pornographic materials from seized computers did not violate the owners' property rights. While the criminal case for violating anti-pornography laws was dismissed, it was undisputed that the computers contained obscene files. Property rights cannot be claimed over illegal pornographic materials. Destroying the hard disks addresses minimizing pornography proliferation for public welfare, outweighing claims over the disks.

    Copyright:

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

    Nogales V People

    Uploaded by

    beth babejes
    50 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the removal and destruction of hard disks containing pornographic materials from seized computers did not violate the owners' property rights. While the criminal case for violating anti-pornography laws was dismissed, it was undisputed that the computers contained obscene files. Property rights cannot be claimed over illegal pornographic materials. Destroying the hard disks addresses minimizing pornography proliferation for public welfare, outweighing claims over the disks.

    Original Title

    Nogales-v-People

    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 the removal and destruction of hard disks containing pornographic materials from seized computers did not violate the owners' property rights. While the criminal case for violating anti-pornography laws was dismissed, it was undisputed that the computers contained obscene files. Property rights cannot be claimed over illegal pornographic materials. Destroying the hard disks addresses minimizing pornography proliferation for public welfare, outweighing claims over the disks.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    50 views2 pages

    Nogales V People

    Uploaded by

    beth babejes
    The Supreme Court ruled that the removal and destruction of hard disks containing pornographic materials from seized computers did not violate the owners' property rights. While the criminal case for violating anti-pornography laws was dismissed, it was undisputed that the computers contained obscene files. Property rights cannot be claimed over illegal pornographic materials. Destroying the hard disks addresses minimizing pornography proliferation for public welfare, outweighing claims over the disks.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Nogales v. People, G.R. No. 191080, 21 November 2011.

    31
    JUL
    FACTS

    Several electronic devices including desktop computer CPUs and softwares were seized by virtue of a
    search warrant in violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended in relation to R.A. No.
    8972.The RTC issued an order to keep the seized items in the NBI evidence room with the undertaking
    to make said confiscated items available whenever the court would require them. Aggrieved by the
    issuance of the said order, the named persons in the search warrant filed a Motion to Quash Search
    Warrant and Return Seized Properties, but were denied.

    The Court of Appeals, in resolving the petition for certiorari filed with it against the RTC judge, ordered
    the release of the seized CPUs and softwares with the condition that the hard disk be removed from the
    CPUs and be destroyed, and if the softwares are determined to be unlicensed or pirated copies, they
    shall be destroyed in the manner allowed by law.

    Petitioners argue that there is no evidence showing that they were the source of pornographic printouts
    presented by the NBI to the RTC or to the City Prosecutor of Manila. Since the hard disks in their
    computers are not illegal per se unlike shabu, opium, counterfeit money, or pornographic magazines,
    said merchandise are lawful as they are being used in the ordinary course of business, the destruction of
    which would violate not only procedural, but substantive due process.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not the removal and destruction of the hard disks containing the pornographic and obscene
    materials violates the property rights of its owner, considering the criminal case for violation of Article
    201 of the Revised Penal Code was dismissed.

    RULING

    NO.

    The argument of petitioners is totally misplaced considering the undisputed fact that the seized
    computer units contained obscene materials or pornographic files. Had it been otherwise, then,
    petitioners argument would have been meritorious as there could be no basis for destroying the hard
    disks of petitioners computer units.

    While it may be true that the criminal case for violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code was
    dismissed as there was no concrete and strong evidence pointing to them as the direct source of the
    subject pornographic materials, it cannot be used as basis to recover the confiscated hard disks. At the
    risk of being repetitious, it appears undisputed that the seized computer units belonging to them
    contained obscene materials or pornographic files. Clearly, petitioners had no legitimate expectation of
    protection of their supposed property rights.
    [T]he Court holds that the destruction of the hard disks and the softwares used in any way in the
    violation of the subject law (Article 201, RPC) addresses the purpose of minimizing if not totally
    eradicating pornography. This will serve as a lesson for those engaged in any way in the proliferation of
    pornography or obscenity in this country. The Court is not unmindful of the concerns of petitioners but
    their supposed property rights must be balanced with the welfare of the public in general.

    You might also like