Alvarez vs, Court of First Instance of Tayabas

G.R. No. 45358

January 29, 1937
Facts:
The chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury board filed an application for a search warrant
with the CFI of Tayabas. The search warrant was for the books, documents, receipts and other papers
allegedly used by the petitioner for usurious money-lending transactions. The applicant for the search
warrant did not sear on the truth of his personal knowledge but only to the information submitted by a
reliable person. The requested warrant then issued and multiple personal effects and documents were
gathered from the petitioners residence. Petitioner contested the search and stated his protest below the
inventories of the items seized. After failure to submit an inventory upon deposit by agent Emilio L.
Sionco, multiple motions were filed by petitioner for the return of his belongings and accusing said agent
of contempt. The court resolved to return all other seized properties except those 19 items identified by
the anti-usury board for further investigation. The petitioner now contests the legality of the search
warrant issued by respondent court
Issue:
Whether or not the CFI of Tayabas issued a valid search warrant.
Held:
The search warrant is fatally defective in its issuance and is invalid.
The Supreme Court held that the procedural requirements for a search warrant were to be strictly
construed against the courts and in favour of the individual to prevent encroachment upon personal rights.
The court found that the warrant was invalid in various procedural matters.
1. Oath- The oath taken by Mariano G. Almeda was defective as it did not state the facts leading
to the existence of probable cause. In the oath given, he only swore that that he had no
personal knowledge and the information in the affidavit is based on a reliable source. This is
against the requirement that a search warrant will only issue if based upon an application
supported by oath of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce. Such oath must refer to
the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner to convince the judge
of the existence of probable cause. Therefore the test of a valid affidavit under oath is if
perjury could be charged if the facts alleged are found to be false.
2. Witness- Given that the affidavit contains information based only on a reliable source and not
on personal knowledge, the applicant must have presented a witness before the judge to prove
probable cause. This is because an examination of the person who has personal knowledge
must be done by the judge. The examination of such facts through an affidavit does not
suffice as it counts merely as hearsay.

Prepared by: Garreth-Daniel R. Tungol

3. Night Searches Searches made in night time may only be approved if the affidavit
positively asserts that the property to be seized is on the person or in the place ordered to be
searched. As the affidavit is held to be insufficient, the night search made was invalid.
4. Self-incrimination The anti-usury boards only purpose in acquiring the property identified
was to provide evidence in criminal cases to be filed against petitioner. The seizure of books
and documents by search warrant for the sole purpose of use as evidence is not allowed as it
is in violation of the right against self-incrimination of a person. The 19 identified items to be
investigated only serves the purpose of evidence and is therefore an invalid exercise of a
warrant.

Prepared by: Garreth-Daniel R. Tungol