NARCISO ALVAREZ, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS and THE ANTI-USURY BOARD, respondents.

G.R. No. L-45358             January 29, 1937            EN BANC 

IMPERIAL, J. 

Article 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained. - In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same.

RATIONALE:

Section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizure. Unreasonable searches and seizures are a menace against which the constitutional guarantee affords full protection. The term "unreasonable search and seizure" is not defined in the Constitution or in General Orders No. 58, and it is said to have no fixed, absolute or unchangeable meaning, although the term has been defined in general language. All illegal searches and seizure are unreasonable while lawful ones are reasonable. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure in any particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search, the presence or absence or probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured. 

Although it is not mandatory to present affidavits of witnesses to corroborate the applicant or a complainant in cases where the latter has personal knowledge of the facts, when the applicant's or complainant's knowledge of the facts is merely hearsay, it is the duty of the judge to require affidavits of other witnesses so that he may determine whether probable cause exists.

FACTS:

1. The chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board filed an affidavit swearing to the truth of his statements and answers to questions to the best of his knowledge and belief. However, he did not swear to the truth of his statements upon his own knowledge of the fact but upon the information received by him by a reliable person.

2. After review of the affidavit filed on June 3, 1936, the lower court issued on the same day a warrant ordering the search and seizure, at any time of day or night, of certain accounting books, documents etc. for the probable violation of Usury Law.

3. On the night of June 4, 1936, the agents entered the store and residence of the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's opposition, they took the following articles: 

internal revenue licenses for the years 1933 to 1936, one ledger, two journals, two cashbooks, nine order books, four notebooks, four checks stubs, two memorandums, three bankbooks, two contracts, four stubs, forty-eight stubs of purchases of copra, two inventories, two bundles of bills of lading, one bundle of credit receipts, one bundle of stubs of purchases of copra, two packages of correspondence, one receipt book belonging to Luis Fernandez, fourteen bundles of invoices and other papers many documents and loan contracts with security and promissory notes, 504 chits, promissory notes and stubs of used checks of the Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation.

4. Petitioner filed a motion seeking the declaration of illegality of the search and seizure and that the articles obtained be returned.

ISSUE: 

W/N the search and seizure made are illegal.

RULING:

YES, the search and seizure made are illegal. 

The court ruled that the search and seizure made are illegal for the following reasons: (a) Because the warrant was based solely upon the affidavit of the petitioner who had no personal knowledge of the facts of probable cause, and (b) because the warrant was issued for the sole purpose of seizing evidence which would later be used in the criminal proceedings that might be instituted against the petitioner, for violation of the Anti-Usury Law.

4. That as the warrant had been issued unreasonably, and as it does not appear positively in the affidavit that the articles were in the possession of the petitioner and in the place indicated, neither could the search and seizure be made at night;

5. That although it is not mandatory to present affidavits of witnesses to corroborate the applicant or a complainant in cases where the latter has personal knowledge of the facts, when the applicant's or complainant's knowledge of the facts is merely hearsay, it is the duty of the judge to require affidavits of other witnesses so that he may determine whether probable cause exists;

6. That a detailed description of the person and place to be searched and the articles to be seized is necessary, but whereby, by the nature of the articles to be seized, their description must be rather general, but is not required that a technical description be given, as this would mean that no warrant could issue;

7. That the petitioner did not waive his constitutional rights because the offer of compromise or settlement attributed to him, does not mean, if so made, that he voluntarily tolerated the search and seizure.

Thus, the search warrant and seizure of June 3, 1936 and the orders of the respondent court authorizing the relation of the books and documents, are declared illegal and are set aside, and it is ordered that the judge presiding over the Court of First Instance of Tayabas direct the immediate return to the petitioner of the nineteen (19) documents.