Scribd
Upload
7 views1 page

Valmonte V

The case VALMONTE v. DE VILLA involves petitioners challenging the legality of military checkpoints in Valenzuela, claiming violations of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove specific violations of these rights, as the petitioners did not provide detailed incidents of unlawful searches. The ruling emphasizes that not all searches are prohibited, only those deemed unreasonable.

Uploaded by

JLee Saldon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
7 views1 page

Valmonte V

The case VALMONTE v. DE VILLA involves petitioners challenging the legality of military checkpoints in Valenzuela, claiming violations of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove specific violations of these rights, as the petitioners did not provide detailed incidents of unlawful searches. The ruling emphasizes that not all searches are prohibited, only those deemed unreasonable.

Uploaded by

JLee Saldon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

VALMONTE v.

DE VILLA

FACTS: As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the 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.

Petitioner Valmonte also claims that, on several occasions, he had gone thru these checkpoints
where he was stopped and his car subjected to search/check-up without a court order or search
warrant. Petitioners further contend that the said checkpoints give the respondents a blanket
authority to make searches and/or seizures without search warrant or court order in violation of
the Constitution; 2 and, instances have occurred where a citizen, while not killed, had been
harassed.

ISSUE: WON the Constitutional right of the petitioner against unreasonable searches and
seizures was violated.

RULING: NO, No proof has been presented before the Court to show that, in the course of their
routine checks, the military indeed committed specific violations of petitioners' right against
unlawful search and seizure or other rights.

Petitioner Valmonte's general allegation to the effect that he had been stopped and searched
without a search warrant by the military manning the checkpoints, without more, i.e., without
stating the details of the incidents which amount to a violation of his right against unlawful
search and seizure, is not sufficient to enable the Court to determine whether there was a
violation of Valmonte's right against unlawful search and seizure. Not all searches and seizures
are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden.

You might also like