ALVAREZ V.

CFI TAYABAS

The Anti-Usury Board of the Department of Justice presented to Judge David a

sworn affidavit that a certain Narciso Alvarez was in possession of books,
receipts, chits, lists used by him as an usurer charging usurious rates in
violation of law.
Mariano Almeda, chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board under the
Department of Justice, said that he heard such information from a reliable
source.
Subsequently, the judge issued the search warrant ordering the search of
residence of Alvarez
On June 4, 1936, the agents raided the place in the residence of Alvarez in
Infanta, Tayabas and seized different documents namely, banknotes,
bankbooks, stubs, cashbooks, bills of lading, credit receipts, etc.
Thereafter, the articles were not brought immediately to the custody of the
judge who issued the search warrant.
Alvarez moved that the agents of the Board be declared guilty of contempt
and that all articles in question be returned to him because the search
warrant issued was illegal.
On the other hand, the Anti-Usury Board pleaded that they be allowed to
retain custody of the articles seized for further investigation
When the judge sustained the motion of the respondents, Alvarez elevated
the matter to the SC and prayed that the search warrant as well as the order
of the judge authorizing the Anti-Usury Board to retain custody be declared
null and void.

Whether or not the search warrant issued by the judge is illegal? YES.

The court gave 8 reasons as to why the search warrant issued by the
judge was considered to be illegal. (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 of probable cause, the manner in
which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the
character of the articles procured)

1) Art. 3 of the Constitution as well as General Order No. 58 Section 98 clearly

express that there should be a LIBERAL construction in favor of the individual
regarding the rules or search warrants
-

As the protection of the citizen and the maintenance of his constitutional rights is
one of the highest duties and privileges of the court, these constitutional
guaranties should be given a liberal construction or a strict construction in favor
of the individual, to prevent stealthy encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation
of, the rights secured by them

2) Such provisions in question were drastic in form restricting the enjoyment of

ownership, possession and use of personal property and as such should be
strictly construed
3) The search and seizure was illegal because the warrant was based on the
sole affidavit of the petitioner who had NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of the

facts and because the seizure was to be used directly for criminal
proceedings AGAINST Alvarez

the search warrant must be based upon an application supported by oath of the
applicant and the witnesses he may produce
in its broadest sense, an oath includes any form of attestation by which a party
signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully;
and it is sometimes defined as an outward pledge given by the person taking it
that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his
responsibility to God; the oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within
the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose
thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the
affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable
cause
the true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant
is whether it has been drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged
thereon and affiant be held liable for damages caused

4) Unreasonable warrant because it was not stated in the affidavit that articles
were in the possession of the petitioner nor the specific place it was in PLUS
the search was conducted at night which was not allowed
5) When it is mere hearsay, the judge must require OTHER affidavits from other
individuals

Inasmuch as the affidavit of the agent in this case was insufficient because his
knowledge of the facts was not personal but merely hearsay, it is the duty of the
judge to require the affidavit of one or more witnesses for the purpose of
determining the existence of probable cause to warrant the issuance of the
search warrant

6) Detailed description of person and place but not necessary the technicalities
of articles to be seized

Section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the Constitution, and section 97 of General

Orders, No. 58 provide that the affidavit to be presented, which shall serve as the
basis for determining whether probable cause exists and whether the warrant
should be issued, must contain a particular description of the place to be
searched and the person or thing to be seized. These provisions are mandatory
and must be strictly complied with
Exception: by the nature of the articles to be seized, their description
must be rather general, it is not required that a technical description be given, as
this would mean that no warrant could issue

7) Petitioner did not waive Constitutional Rights and did not consent to search
8) Appeal from the orders questioned by the petitioner if taken by him would not
be effective remedy
BURGOS, SR. V. CHIEF OF STAFF

Judge Cruz-Pano issued search warrants for the offices of Metropolitan Mail
and We Forum, during which printing equipment, motor vehicles,
documents, books, etc possessed by Burgos Jr., the publisher-editor, because
these were alleged to be used in subversive activities.
Respondents said that the case should be dismissed because petitioners
should have sought the quashal of the warrant from Cruz-Pano itself. The SC
said that yes there was a procedural flaw but they still take cognizance of the

case because of the urgency of the constitutional issues as well as how We

Forum garnered public interest because it was shown on Channel 7.
Respondents also said that it should be dismissed on the ground of laches
(negligence for a long amount of time, doing something that could have
been done earlier) because petitioners only filed the case 6 months after the
event. Dec 1982-June1983. Petitioners said this was because they exhausted
other remedies, i.e. writing a letter to Pres Marcos. When nothing turned up
they went to Court

W/N the search warrants could be deemed invalid when it only

specified one address but searched two places NO
The executing officer's prior knowledge as to the place intended in the
warrant is relevant. The defect pointed out is obviously a typographical error.
Precisely, two search warrants were applied for and issued because the purpose
and intent were to search two distinct premises. It would be quite absurd and
illogical for respondent judge to have issued two warrants intended for one and
the same place. Besides, the addresses of the places sought to be searched
were specifically set forth in the application, and since it was Col. Abadilla
himself who headed the team which executed the search warrants, the
ambiguity that might have arisen by reason of the typographical error is more
apparent than real.
W/N the affidavits of witnesses Gutierrez and Tango (Metrocom
Intelligence and Security Group who did surveillance) provided
sufficient basis for probable cause? NO
Not sufficient basis because too general 1. Probable cause for a search is
defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet
and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be
searched. And when the search warrant applied for is directed against a
newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the publication of subversive
materials, as in the case at bar, the application and/or its supporting affidavits
must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive
material he has published or is intending to publish . Mere generalization will not
suffice.

1 Abadillas statement: "is in possession or has in his control printing equipment and
other paraphernalia, news publications and other documents which were used and
are all continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of subversion
punishable under Presidential Decree 885, as amended ..."
Gutierrez and Tangos affidavits: "that the evidence gathered and collated by our unit
clearly shows that the premises above- mentioned and the articles and things abovedescribed were used and are continuously being used for subversive activities in
conspiracy with, and to promote the objective of, illegal organizations such as the
Light-a-Fire Movement, Movement for Free Philippines, and April 6 Movement."

Another factor which makes the search warrants under consideration

constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general
warrants. Jurisprudence tells of the prohibition on the issuance of general
warrants. (Stanford vs. State of Texas). The description and enumeration in
the warrant of the items to be searched and seized did not indicate with
specification the subversive nature of the said items.
STONEHILL V. DIOKNO
(the Court abandoned the doctrine set by Moncado in this case)
FACTS:

Respondent-judges issued a total of 42 warrants, issued on different

dates, against petitioners herein

The warrants gave a direction to any peace officer, to search the persons
above-named and/or the premises of their offices, warehouses
and/or residences, and to seize and take possession of the following
personal property to wit:
Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence,
receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and
other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions
including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss
statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers).

as "the subject of the offense; stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits

of the offense," or "used or intended to be used as the means of
committing the offense," which is described in the applications adverted
to above as "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws,
Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code."

Petitioners, in filing this case (preliminary injunction, praying for the return of
the sequestered objects), submit the contention that the aforementioned
warrants are null and void

PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS

RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS

(1) they do not describe with

particularity the documents, books and
things to be seized;

(1) that the contested search warrants

are valid and have been issued in
accordance with law;

(2) cash money, not mentioned in the

warrants, were actually seized;

(2) that the defects of said warrants, if

any, were cured by petitioners' consent;
and

(3) the warrants were issued to fish

evidence against the aforementioned

petitioners in deportation cases filed
against them;
(4) the searches and seizures were
made in an illegal manner; and

(3) that, in any event, the effects seized

are admissible in evidence against
herein petitioners, regardless of the
alleged illegality of the aforementioned
searches and seizures

(5) the documents, papers and cash

money seized were not delivered to the
courts that issued the warrants, to be
disposed of in accordance with law

ISSUE: W/N the search and seizure conducted was valid?

-

The courts answer is slightly qualified. The Court opined that petitioners
herein have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested
warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof, regarding those
found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations, for the
simple reason that said corporations have their respective personalities,
separate and distinct from the personality of herein petitioners, regardless
of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of each of them in said
corporations, and whatever the offices they hold therein may be.

With respect to the documents, papers and things seized in the residences
of petitioners herein, the aforementioned resolution of June 29, 1962,
lifted the writ of preliminary injunction previously issued by this Court,
thereby, in effect, restraining herein Respondents-Prosecutors from using
them in evidence against petitioners herein.

THE BULK OF THE DECISION DEALS WITH THE ISSUES SURROUNDING THE
SEIZURE OF THE THINGS IN PETITIONERS RESIDENCES. THE COURT
FURTHER ANSWERED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:

Whether the search warrants in question, and the searches and

seizures made under the authority thereof, are valid or not?
The search warrants were not valid. The court argued that the issued
warrants were general warrants.
-

Requisites for a valid search warrant: (1) that no warrant shall issue
but upon probable cause (in connection to a specific offense), to be

determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision; and (2)
that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. None
of these requirements has been complied with in the contested
warrants

No specific offense was alleged in the application for the warrants; the
averments with regard to the imputed offense were abstract, thus, the
judges could not have found the existence of probable cause

The application for the warrants in the instant case do not even contain
alleged specific acts/offenses committed by petitioners

The description of the items to be seized were also too general; the
warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records pertaining to all
business transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of whether the
transactions were legal or illegal. The warrants sanctioned the seizure of
all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned corporations,
whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the explicit command of
our Bill of Rights that the things to be seized be particularly described
as well as tending to defeat its major objective: the elimination
of general warrants

If the answer to the preceding question is in the negative, whether

said documents, papers and things may be used in evidence against
petitioners herein? NO
-

The Court opined that it was now time to abandon the doctrine set by
Moncado, as the more acceptable thing to do now in this case is to apply
the exclusionary rule (evidence obtained through an
unreasonable search and seizure shall be inadmissible)

There were a lot of American jurisprudence cited in this case, these are
some of them:
As we understand it, the reason for the exclusion of evidence
competent as such, which has been unlawfully acquired, is that
exclusion is the only practical way of enforcing the constitutional
privilege. In earlier times the action of trespass against the offending
official may have been protection enough; but that is true no longer. Only
in case the prosecution which itself controls the seizing officials, knows
that it cannot profit by their wrong will that wrong be repressed.
The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to
punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the
sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and

suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental

law of the land
without that rule the freedom from state invasions of privacy
would be so ephemeral and so neatly severed from its conceptual nexus
with the freedom from all brutish means of coercing evidence as not to
permit this Court's high regard as a freedom "implicit in the concept of
ordered liberty."