Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 129651 October 20, 2000
FRANK UY a! UN"F"S# PACK"NG CORPORAT"ON, petitioners,
vs.
$UREAU OF "NTERNA% RE&ENUE a! #ON. MERCE'ES GO(O)'A'O%E,
respondents.
D E C I S I O N
KAPUNAN, J.:
Petitioners assail the valiit! of the "arrants issue for the search of the pre#ises of
the $nifish Pac%in& Corporation' an pra! for the return of the ite#s sei(e b! virtue
thereof.
On )* Septe#ber +,,)' a certain Rori&o -bos reporte to the .ureau of Internal
Revenue /.IR0 that petitioners $nifish Pac%in& Corporation an $! Chin 1o alias
Fran% $! "ere en&a&e in activities constitutin& violations of the National Internal
Revenue Coe. -bos' "ho clai#e to be a for#er e#plo!ee of $nifish' e2ecute an
-ffiavit
+
statin&3
+. 1e has personal %no"le&e that $NIFIS1 P-C4IN5 CORPOR-TION
/hereinafter referre to as $NIFIS10' a cannin& factor! locate at 1ernan
Cortes Street' uner the active #ana&e#ent of $6 C1IN 1O alias Fran% $!
7'8 is sellin& b! the thousans of 7sic8 cartons of canne sarines "ithout
issuin& receipt. This is in violation of Sections 9:) an 9;) of the Internal
Revenue Coe.
9. This &ran scale ta2 frau is perpetrate throu&h the follo"in& sche#e3
/+0 $! Chin 1o a irector of $NIFIS1 bu!s in bul% fro# the
co#pan!<
/90 .ein& a irector' $! Chin 1o has a lot of clout in the istribution
of the canne sarines processe b! $NIFIS1<
/)0 $! Chin 1o ictates the value of canne sarines that he orers
an bu!s fro# $NIFIS1 "ithout an! receipt of his purchases<
/=0 The #o#ent he has the >uantit! he "ants' $NIFIS1 throu&h $!
Chin 1o elivers to the ifferent super#ar%ets such as ?hite 5ol'
5aisano' etc.<
/:0 Pa!#ents #ae b! these ta2 evain& establish#ents are #ae
b! chec%s ra"n pa!able to cash an elivere to $! Chin 1o<
These pa!#ents are also not receipte /sic0<
/;0 $! Chin 1o "ill then pa! $NIFIS1 for the >uantit! of sarines he
ha "ithra"n fro# the corporation<
). -nother frauulent practice perpetrate b! $NIFIS1 throu&h $! Chin 1o@s
irection is the sale of i#porte oil locall! to ifferent custo#ers. This is a
case of s#u&&lin& in the sense that $NIFIS1' bein& an e2port co#pan!
re&istere "ith the .oar of Invest#ents' is enAo!in& certain e2e#ptions in
their i#portation of oil as one of the ra" #aterials in its processin& of canne
tuna for e2port. These ta2 e2e#ptions are &rante b! the &overn#ent on the
conition that the oil is to be use onl! in the processin& of tuna for e2port
an that it is not to be sol unprocesse as is to local custo#ers.
=. -nother frauulent practice involves the sales of unuse cans< $NIFIS1
also enAo!s ta2 e2e#ptions in its purchases of tin cans subAect to the
conition that these are to be use as containers for its processe tuna for
e2port. These cans are never intene to be sol locall! to other foo
processin& co#panies.
:. Prior to +,,*' that is fro# +,B* to +,,*' the factor! of the $NIFIS1
P-C4IN5 CORPOR-TION "as then run b! the PREMIER IND$STRI-C D
DEVECOPMENT CORPOR-TION /hereinafter referre to as PREMIER0 7'8
"hich corporation "as bein& controlle b! the sa#e #aAorit! stoc%holers as
those no" runnin& an controllin& $NIFIS1< 7a8t that ti#e' PREMIER "as
also co##ittin& the sa#e frauulent acts as "hat is bein& perpetrate b!
$NIFIS1 at present.
;. The recors containin& entries of actual volu#e of prouction an sales' of
both $NIFIS1 -ND PREMIER' are foun in the office of the corporation at its
factor! site at 1. Cortes Street' Manaue Cit!. The particular place or spot
"here these recors 7official receipts' sales invoices' eliver! receipts' sales
recors or sales boo%s' stoc% cars' accountin& recors /such as le&ers'
Aournals' cash receipts boo%s' an chec% isburse#ents boo%s08 are %ept an
#a! be foun is best escribe in the herein attache s%etch of the
arran&e#ent of the office@s furniture an fi2ture of the corporation "hich is
#ae an inte&ral part hereof an #ar%e as -nne2 E-E'
F. 1e is e2ecutin& this affiavit to attest uner oath the veracit! of the
fore&oin& alle&ations an he is reservin& his ri&ht to clai# for re"ar uner
the provisions of Republic -ct No. 9))B.
1
On + October +,,)' Nestor N. Cabaria' -ssistant Chief of the Special Investi&ation
.ranch of the .IR' applie for search "arrants fro# .ranch 9B of the Re&ional Trial
Court of Cebu. The application sou&ht per#ission to search the pre#ises of $nifish.
-fter hearin& the epositions of Cabaria an -bos' Gu&e Mercees 5o(oHDaole
issue the ispute search "arrants. The first
9
is oc%ete as ESE-RC1 ?-RR-NT
NO. ,)H+*HF, FOR3 VIOC-TION OF SECTION 9:)E /ESearch ?arrant -H+E0' an
consists of t"o pa&es. - verbati# reprouction of Search ?arrant -H+ appears belo"3
REP$.CIC OF T1E P1ICIPPINES
RE5ION-C TRI-C CO$RT OF CE.$
Fth Guicial Re&ion
.ranch 9B
Manaue Cit!
T1E PEOPCE OF T1E P1ICIPPINES'
Plaintiff'
H versus H
$6 C1IN 1O alias FR-N4 $6'
$nifish Pac%in& Corporation
1ernan Cortes St.' Cebu Cit!
SE-RC1 ?-RR-NT NO. ,)H+*HF,
FOR3 VIOC-TION OF SEC. 9:)
2 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H 2
/"ith s%etch0
SE-RC1 ?-RR-NT
TO -N6 PE-CE OFFICER3
5 R E E T I N 5 S3
It appearin& to the satisfaction of the unersi&ne' after e2a#ination uneroath /sic0'
Nestor N. Cabaria' -sst. Chief' Special Investi&ation .ranch' .IR an "itness Rori&o
-bos that there is a /sic0 probable cause to believe that the cri#e of violation of
Section 9:) H atte#pt to evae or efeat the ta2 has been co##itte an there is &oo
an sufficient reason to believe that $! Chin 1o cIo $nifish Pac%in& Corporation'
1ernan Cortes St.' Manaue Cit! has in his possession' care an control' the
follo"in&3
+. Multiple sets of .oo%s of -ccounts< Ce&ers' Gournals' Colu#nar .oo%s'
Cash Re&ister .oo%s' Sales .oo%s or Recors< Provisional D Official
Receipts<
9. Prouction Recor .oo%sIInventor! Cists 7'8 Stoc% Cars<
). $nre&istere Deliver! Receipts<
=. $nre&istere Purchase D Sales Invoices<
:. Sales Recors' Gob Orer<
;. Corporate Financial Recors< an
F. .an% State#entsICancelle Chec%s
6ou are hereb! co##ane to #a%e an i##eiate search at an! ti#e of a! or ni&ht
of sai pre#ises an its i##eiate vicinit! an to forth"ith sei(e an ta%e possession
of the articles aboveH#entione an other properties relative to such violation an
brin& sai properties to the unersi&ne to be ealt "ith as the la" irects.
?ITNESS M6 1-ND this +st a! of October' +,,).
/s&.0
MERCEDES 5OJOHD-DOCE
Gu&e
The secon "arrant
)
is si#ilarl! oc%ete as ESE-RC1 ?-RR-NT ,)H+*HF, FOR3
VIOC-TION OF SEC. 9:)E /ESearch ?arrant -H9E0. Search ?arrant -H9' reprouce
belo"' is al#ost ientical in content to Search ?arrant -H+' save for the portions
inicate in bol print. It consiste of onl! one pa&e.
REP$.CIC OF T1E P1ICIPPINES
RE5ION-C TRI-C CO$RT OF CE.$
Fth Guicial Re&ion
.ranch 9B
Manaue Cit!
T1E PEOPCE OF T1E P1ICIPPINES'
Plaintiff'
H versus H
$6 C1IN 1O alias FR-N4 $6' an
$nifish Pac%in& Corporation
1ernan Cortes St.' Ma!a*e Cit!
SE-RC1 ?-RR-NT NO. ,)H+*HF,
FOR3 VIOC-TION OF SEC. 9:)
2
2 H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H I
/"ith s%etch0
SE-RC1 ?-RR-NT
TO -N6 PE-CE OFFICER3
5 R E E T I N 5 S3
It appearin& to the satisfaction of the unersi&ne' after e2a#ination uneroath 7sic8'
Nestor N. Cabaria' -sst. Chief' Special Investi&ation .ranch' .IR an "itness Rori&o
-bos that there is a 7sic8 probable cause to believe that the cri#e of violation of Section
9:) H atte#pt to evae or efeat the ta2 has been co##itte an there is &oo an
sufficient reason to believe that $! Chin 1o a+,a- Fra. U/ a! $nifish Pac%in&
Corporation' 1ernan Cortes St.' Manaue Cit! has in his possession' care an control'
the follo"in&3
+. Multiple sets of .oo%s of -ccounts< Ce&ers' Gournals' Colu#nar .oo%s'
Cash Re&ister .oo%s' Sales .oo%s or Recors< Provisional D Official
Receipts<
9. Prouction Recor .oo%sIInventor! Cists 7'8 Stoc% Cars<
). $nre&istere Deliver! Receipts<
=. $nre&istere Purchase D Sales Invoices<
:. Sales Recors' Gob Orer<
;. Corporate Financial Recors< an
F. .an% State#entsICancelle Chec%s
6ou are hereb! co##ane to #a%e an i##eiate search at an! ti#e of a! or ni&ht
of sai pre#ises an its i##eiate vicinit! an to forth"ith sei(e an ta%e possession
of the articles aboveH#entione an other properties relative to such violation an
brin& sai properties to the unersi&ne to be ealt "ith as the la" irects.
?ITNESS M6 1-ND this +st a! of October' +,,).
/s&.0
MERCEDES 5OJOHD-DOCE
Gu&e
Gu&e 5o(oHDaole issue a thir "arrant'
=
"hich "as oc%ete as ESE-RC1
?-RR-NT ,)H+*HB* FOR3 VIOC-TION OF SEC. 9)B in relation to SEC. 9;)E
/hereinafter' ESearch ?arrant .E0. E2cept for the oc%et nu#ber an the esi&nation of
the cri#e in the bo! of the "arrant /ESection 9)B in relation to Sec. 9;) H nonH
issuance of sales invoice an use an possession of unre&istere eliver! receipts
anIor sales invoicesE0' Search ?arrant . is a verbati# reprouction of Search
?arrant -H9.
On the stren&th of these "arrants' a&ents of the .IR' acco#panie b! #e#bers of the
Philippine National Police' on 9 October +,,)' searche the pre#ises of the $nifish
Pac%in& Corporation. The! sei(e' a#on& other thin&s' the recors an ocu#ents of
petitioner corporation. - return of sai search "as ul! #ae b! Nestor Cabaria "ith
the RTC of Cebu ' .ranch 9B.
On B Februar! +,,:' the .IR file a&ainst petitioners a case before the Depart#ent of
Gustice. The recors' ho"ever' o not reveal the nature of this case.
On )+ March +,,:' petitioners file #otions to >uash the subAect search "arrants "ith
.ranch 9B of the Cebu RTC.
The RTC' ho"ever' enie petitionersK #otions to >uash as "ell as their subse>uent
#otion for reconsieration' pro#ptin& petitioners to file a petition for certiorari "ith the
Court of -ppeals /C-0. The C- is#isse their petition' holin& that petitioners faile to
co#pl! "ith Section 9/a0' Rule ; of the Revise Internal Rules of the Court of -ppeals
/RIRC-0' "hich states3
a. ?hat Shoul be File. H The petition shall be file in seven /F0 le&ible copies an a
cop! thereof shall be serve on each of the responents' an #ust be acco#panie
b! a certifie true cop! of the ecision or orer co#plaine of an true copies of the
pleain&s an other pertinent ocu#ents an papers. /-s a#ene b! S.Ct. Res.'
ate Nove#ber 9=' +,,90.
The C- foun that petitioners i not sub#it certifie true copies of /+0 the Motions to
Luash' /90 the Motion for Reconsieration' an /)0 the -ffiavit of Rori&o -bos.
The C- also hel that certiorari "as not the proper re#e! to >uestion the resolution
en!in& the #otion to >uash.
In this case no" before us' the available re#eies to the petitioners' assu#in& that the
Depart#ent of Gustice "ill eventuall! file the case' are3 a petition for reinvesti&ation<
the ri&ht to post bail< a Motion to Luash the Infor#ation< an in case of enial' an
appeal' after Au&#ent on the #erits' or after the case shall have been trie. This
3
brin&s us to the case of Cai vs. Inter#eiate 99* SCR- +=, an the pronounce#ent'
thus3
Cri#inal Proceure3 Certiorari3 Certiorari shoul not be allo"e "here petitioner has
other re#eies available. HH -nent the re#e! resorte to b! petitioners /referrin& to
the petition for certiorari0 fro# the Re&ional Trial Court of Ne&ros Oriental presie b!
Gu&e Die(' the sa#e shoul not have been &rante. Petitioners "ere not "ithout
plain' spee! an ae>uate re#eies in the orinar! course of la" a&ainst Gu&e
Co#eaKs orer for their arrest. These re#eies are as enu#erate b! responent
appellate court in its ecision3 E+. the! can post bail for their provisional release< 9.
The! can as% the Provincial Fiscal for a reinvesti&ation of the char&e a&ainst the#. If
unsatisfie "ith the fiscalKs resolution the! can as% for a revie" b! the Minister of
Gustice< /Sec. +/0' R- :+B* as a#ene b! P.D. ,++0< ). if their petition for revie" oes
not prosper' the! can file a #otion to >uash the infor#ation in the trial court. /Rule ++F'
Rules of Court0. =. If the #otion is enie' the! can appeal the Au&#ent of the court
after the case shall have been trie on the #erits.
2 2 2 ?here #otion to >uash is enie' re#e! is not certiorari' but to &o to trial.HH
Moreover' in the case of -charon vs. Purisi#a' this Court hel that "hen a #otion to
>uash a cri#inal case is enie' the re#e! is not certiorari but to &o to trial "ithout
preAuice to reiteratin& the special efenses involve in sai Motion. In the event that
an averse ecision is renere after trial on the #erits' an appeal therefro# shoul
be the ne2t le&al step.
222
In this case no" before $s' there is no pretention 7sic8 that the Court issue the Search
?arrants "ithout Aurisiction. On the contrar!' it ha Aurisiction. The ar&u#ent
therefore that the Court co##itte an error in not escribin& the persons or thin&s to
be searche< that the Search ?arrants i not escribe "ith particularit! the thin&s to
be sei(eIta%en< the absence of probable cause< an for havin& alle&el! conone
the iscri#inatin& #anner in "hich the properties "ere ta%en' to us' are #erel! errors
in the CourtKs finin&' certainl! not correctible b! certiorari' but instea thru an appeal.
:
In an! event' the C- rule' no &rave abuse of iscretion a#ountin& to lac% of
Aurisiction "as co##itte b! the RTC in the issuance of the "arrants.
-s petitionersK #otion for reconsieration prove futile' petitioners file the instant
petition for revie".
Petitioners clai# that the! i sub#it to the C- certifie true copies of the pleain&s
an ocu#ents liste above alon& "ith their Petition' as "ell as in their Motion for
Reconsieration. -n e2a#ination of the C- Rollo' ho"ever' reveals that petitioners first
sub#itte the sa#e in their Repl!' after responents' in their Co##ent' pointe out
petitioners@ failure to attach the# to the Petition.
Nevertheless' the C- shoul not have is#isse the petition on this &roun althou&h'
to its creit' it i touch upon the #erits of the case. First' it appears that the case
coul have been ecie "ithout these pleain&s an ocu#ents. Secon' even if the
C- ee#e the# essential to the resolution of the case' it coul have as%e for the
recors fro# the RTC. Thir' in a si#ilar case'
;
"e hel that the sub#ission of a
ocu#ent to&ether "ith the #otion for reconsieration constitutes substantial
co#pliance "ith Section )' Rule =; of the Rules of Court' re>uirin& the sub#ission of a
certifie true cop! of E#aterial portions of the recor as are referre to 7in the petition8'
an other ocu#ents relevant or pertinent theretoE alon& "ith the petition. So shoul it
be in this case' especiall! consierin& that it involves an alle&e violation of a
constitutionall! &uarantee ri&ht. The rules of proceure are not to be applie in a ver!
ri&i' technical sense< rules of proceure are use onl! to help secure substantial
Austice. If a technical an ri&i enforce#ent of the rules is #ae' their ai# coul be
efeate.
F
The C- li%e"ise erre in holin& that petitioners cannot avail of certiorari to >uestion
the resolution en!in& their #otions to >uash the subAect search "arrants. ?e note
that the case of ECai vs. Inter#eiate'E cite b! the appellate court as authorit! for its
rulin& oes not appear in E99* SCR- 109.E The e2cerpt of the s!llabus >uote b! the
court' as observe b! petitioners'
B
appears to have been ta%en fro# the case of Yap
vs. Intermediate Appellate Court' 99* SCR- 205 /+,,)0. Yap' ho"ever' is inapplicable
since that case involve a #otion to >uash a co12+a,t for >ualifie theft' not a #otion
to >uash a -earc3 4arrat.
The applicable case is Marcelo vs. De Guzman'
,
"here "e hel that the issuin&
Au&e@s isre&ar of the re>uire#ents for the issuance of a search "arrant constitutes
&rave abuse of iscretion' "hich #a! be re#eie b! certiorari3
E2pressl! announce in Section +' Rule ;: of the Rules of Court is the &eneral rule
that certiorari is available "here a tribunal or officer e2ercisin& Auicial functions Ehas
acte "ithout or in e2cess of its or his Aurisiction' or "ith &rave abuse of iscretion
an there is no appeal' nor an! plain' spee!' an ae>uate re#e! in the orinar!
course of la".E
In the li&ht of the finin&s of the lo"er court' herein above >uote' it is inisputable that
Gu&e e 5u(#an &ravel! abuse his iscretion in issuin& the sai search "arrant.
Inee' he acte "hi#sicall! an capriciousl! "hen he i&nore the e2plicit #anate of
Section )' Rule +9; of the Rules of Court that Ea search "arrant shall not issue but
upon probable cause in connection "ith one specific offense to be eter#ine b! the
#unicipal or cit! Au&e after e2a#ination uner oath or affir#ation of the co#plainant
an the "itnesses he #a! prouce' an particularl! escribin& the place to be
searche an the persons or thin&s to be sei(e< an that Eno search "arrant shall
issue for #ore than one specific offense.E
The utter isre&ar b! Gu&e e 5u(#an of the re>uire#ents lai o"n b! the sai
rule reners the "arrant in >uestion absolutel! null an voi. It has been hel that
"here the orer co#plaine of is a patent nullit!' a petition for certiorari an
#ana#us #a! properl! be entertaine espite the e2istence of the re#e! of appeal.
4
Moreover' an appeal fro# the orer of Gu&e e 5u(#an "oul neither be an
ae>uate nor spee! re#e! to relieve appellee of the inAurious effects of the "arrant.
The sei(ure of her personal propert! ha resulte in the total parali(ation of the articles
an ocu#ents "hich ha been i#properl! sei(e. ?here the re#e! of appeal
cannot affor an ae>uate an e2peitious relief' certiorari can be allo"e as a #oe
of reress to prevent irreparable a#a&e an inAur! to a part!.
This Court ha occasion to reiterate the above pronounce#ent in Silva vs. Presiding
Judge, RC o! "egros #riental, $r. %%%III'
+*
"hich also involve a special civil action
for certiorari3
++
Thus' in issuin& a search "arrant' the Au&e #ust strictl! co#pl! "ith the constitutional
re>uire#ent that he #ust eter#ine the e2istence of probable cause b! e2a#inin& the
applicant an his "itnesses in the for# of searchin& >uestions an ans"ers. 1is failure
to co#pl! "ith this re>uire#ent constitutes &rave abuse of iscretion. -s eclare in
Marcelo vs. De Guzman' 5.R. No. CH9,*FF' Gune 9,' +,B9' ++= SCR- ;:F' Ethe
capricious isre&ar b! the Au&e in not co#pl!in& "ith the re>uire#ents before
issuance of search "arrants constitutes &rave abuse of iscretionE.
In this case' petitioners alle&e in their petition before the C- that the issuin& Au&e
violate the pertinent provisions of the Constitution an the Rules of Court in issuin&
the ispute search "arrants' "hich' if true' "oul have constitute &rave abuse of
iscretion. Petitioners also alle&e that the enforcers of the "arrants sei(e al#ost all
the recors an ocu#ents of the corporation thus resultin& in the paral!sis of its
business. -ppeal' therefore' "oul not be an ae>uate re#e! that "oul affor
petitioners e2peitious relief.
?e no" procee to the #erits of the case.
Section 9' -rticle III of the Constitution &uarantees the ri&ht of the people a&ainst
unreasonable searches an sei(ures3
The ri&ht of the people to be secure in their persons' houses' papers' an effects
a&ainst unreasonable searches an sei(ures of "hatever nature an for an! purpose
shall be inviolable' an no search "arrant or "arrant of arrest shall issue e2cept upon
probable cause to be eter#ine personall! b! the Au&e after e2a#ination uner oath
or affir#ation of the co#plainant an the "itnesses he #a! prouce' an particularl!
escribin& the place to be searche an the persons or thin&s to be sei(e.
In relation to the above provision' Rule +9; of the Rules of Court provies3
SEC. ). Re&uisite !or issuing searc' (arrant. H - search "arrant shall not issue but
upon probable cause in connection "ith one specific offense to be eter#ine
personall! b! the Au&e after e2a#ination uner oath or affir#ation of the co#plainant
an the "itnesses he #a! prouce' an particularl! escribin& the place to be
searche an the thin&s to be sei(e.
SEC. =. )*amination o! complainant+ record. H The Au&e #ust' before issuin& the
"arrant' personall! e2a#ine in the for# of searchin& >uestions an ans"ers' in "ritin&
an uner oath the co#plainant an an! "itnesses he #a! prouce on facts
personall! %no"n to the# an attach to the recor their s"orn state#ents to&ether
"ith an! affiavits sub#itte.
- search "arrant #ust confor# strictl! to the re>uire#ents of the fore&oin&
constitutional an statutor! provisions. These re>uire#ents' in outline for#' are3
/+0 the "arrant #ust be issue upon probable cause<
/90 the probable cause #ust be eter#ine b! the Au&e hi#self an not b!
the applicant or an! other person<
/)0 in the eter#ination of probable cause' the Au&e #ust e2a#ine' uner
oath or affir#ation' the co#plainant an such "itnesses as the latter #a!
prouce< an
/=0 the "arrant issue #ust particularl! escribe the place to be searche an
persons or thin&s to be sei(e.
+9
The absence of an! of these re>uisites "ill cause the o"nri&ht nullification of the
search "arrants.
+)
The proceein&s upon search "arrants #ust be absolutel! le&al'
Efor there is not a escription of process %no"n to the la"' the e2ecution of "hich is
#ore istressin& to the citi(en. Perhaps there is none "hich e2cites such intense
feelin& in conse>uence of its hu#iliatin& an e&rain& effect.E The "arrants "ill
al"a!s be construe strictl! "ithout' ho"ever' &oin& the full len&th of re>uirin&
technical accurac!. No presu#ptions of re&ularit! are to be invo%e in ai of the
process "hen an officer unerta%es to Austif! uner it.
+=
Petitioners conten that there are several efects in the subAect "arrants that
co##an their nullification. The! point out inconsistencies in the escription of the
place to be searche in Search ?arrant -H+' as "ell as inconsistencies in the na#es of
the persons a&ainst "ho# Search ?arrants -H+ an -H9 "ere issue. That t"o search
"arrants /Search ?arrants -H+ an -H90 "ere issue for the sa#e cri#e' for the sa#e
place' at a sin&le occasion is cite as another irre&ularit!. Petitioners also ispute the
e2istence of probable cause that "oul Austif! the issuance of the "arrants. Finall!'
the! clai# that the thin&s to be sei(e "ere not escribe "ith particularit!. These
efects' accorin& to petitioners' rener the obAects sei(e ina#issible in evience.
+:
Inconsistencies in the escription of the place to be searche
Petitioners observe that the caption of Search ?arrant -H+ inicates the aress of $!
Chin 1o alias Fran% $! as E1ernan Cortes St.' Ceb* Cit!E "hile the bo! of the sa#e
"arrant states the aress as E1ernan Cortes St.' Ma!a*e Cit!.E Parentheticall!'
5
Search ?arrants -H9 an . consistentl! state the aress of petitioner as E1ernan
Cortes St.' Ma!a*e Cit!.E
The Constitution re>uires' for the valiit! of a search "arrant' that there be a particular
escription of Ethe place to be searche an the persons of thin&s to be sei(e.E
+;
The
rule is that a escription of a place to be searche is sufficient if the officer "ith the
"arrant can' "ith reasonable effort' ascertain an ientif! the place intene
+F
an
istin&uish it fro# other places in the co##unit!.
+B
-n! esi&nation or escription
%no"n to the localit! that points out the place to the e2clusion of all others' an on
in>uir! leas the officers unerrin&l! to it' satisfies the constitutional re>uire#ent.
+,

Thus' in Castro vs. Pa,alan'
9*
"here the search "arrant #ista%enl! ientifie the
resience of the petitioners therein as .arrio Pa!a-,+ instea of the aAoinin& .arrio
Mar,a Cr,-t,a' this Court Ea#itte that the eficienc! in the "rit is not of sufficient
&ravit! to call for its invaliation.E
In this case' it "as not sho"n that a street si#ilarl! na#e 1ernan Cortes coul be
foun in Cebu Cit!. Nor "as it establishe that the enforcin& officers ha an! ifficult!
in locatin& the pre#ises of petitioner corporation. That Search ?arrant -H+' therefore'
inconsistentl! ientifie the cit! "here the pre#ises to be searche is not a efect that
"oul spell the "arrant@s invaliation in this case.
Inconsistencies in the escription of the persons na#e in the t"o "arrants
Petitioners also fin fault in the escription of the na#es of the persons in Search
?arrants -H+ an -H9. Search ?arrant -H+ "as issue -o+e+/ a&ainst E$! Chin 1o
alias Fran% $!.E Search ?arrant -H9' on the other han' "as irecte a&ainst E$6
C1IN 1O alias FR-N4 $6' a! $nifish Pac%in& Corporation.E
These iscrepancies are harl! relevant.
In Miller v. Sigler'
9+
it "as hel that the Fourth -#en#ent of the $nite States
Constitution' fro# "hich Section 9' -rticle III of our o"n Constitution is historicall!
erive' oes not re>uire the "arrant to na#e the person "ho occupies the escribe
pre#ises. ?here the search "arrant is issue for the search of specificall! escribe
pre#ises onl! an not for the search of a person' the failure to na#e the o"ner or
occupant of such propert! in the affiavit an search "arrant oes not invaliate the
"arrant< an "here the na#e of the o"ner of the pre#ises sou&ht to be searche is
incorrectl! inserte in the search "arrant' it is not a fatal efect if the le&al escription
of the pre#ises to be searche is other"ise correct so that no iscretion is left to the
officer #a%in& the search as to the place to be searche.
99
Since' in the case at bar' the "arrant "as issue not for search of the persons o"nin&
or occup!in& the pre#ises' but onl! a search of the pre#ises occupie b! the#' the
search coul not be eclare unla"ful or in violation of the constitutional ri&hts of the
o"ner or occupants of the pre#ises' because of inconsistencies in statin& their
na#es.
9)
T"o "arrants issue at one ti#e for one cri#e an one place
In an! event' Search ?arrant -H+ shoul be ee#e supersee b! Search ?arrant
-H9.
T"o "arrants' Search ?arrants -H+ an -H9' "ere actuall! issue b! the trial court for
the sa#e cri#e /violation of ESEC. 9:)E of the National Internal Revenue Coe0. It
appears' ho"ever' that Search ?arrant -H9 "as issue #erel! to correct the
inconsistencies in the aress in Search ?arrant -H+' as "ell as to inclue $nifish
Pac%in& Corporation as a part! a&ainst "ho# the "arrant "as issue. Search ?arrant
-H9 "as evientl! an atte#pt b! the issuin& Au&e to be #ore precise in the na#es of
the persons a&ainst "ho# the "arrant "as issue an in the escription of the place
to be searche. Inee' it "oul be absur for the Au&e to issue on a sin&le occasion
t"o "arrants authori(in& the search of a sin&le place for a sin&le offense. Inas#uch as
the apparent intent in issuin& Search ?arrant -H9 "as to supersee Search ?arrant -H
+' the latter shoul be ee#e revo%e b! the for#er.
The alle&e absence of probable cause
Petitioners clai# there "as no probable cause for Gu&e 5o(oHDaole to issue the
subAect search "arrants.
Probable cause is efine as such facts an circu#stances "hich "oul lea a
reasonabl! iscreet an pruent #an to believe that an offense has been co##itte
an that the obAects sou&ht in connection "ith the offense are in the place sou&ht to be
searche.
9=
In the eter#ination of probable cause' the Constitution an the Rules of Court re>uire
an e2a#ination of the "itnesses uner oath. The e2a#ination #ust be probin& an
e2haustive' not #erel! routine or pro !orma. The e2a#inin& #a&istrate #ust not si#pl!
rehash the contents of the affiavit but #ust #a%e his o"n in>uir! on the intent an
Austification of the application.
9:
-s%in& of leain& >uestions to the eponent in an
application for search "arrant' an conuctin& of e2a#ination in a &eneral #anner'
"oul not satisf! the re>uire#ents for issuance of a vali search "arrant.
9;
The "itnesses' in turn' #ust testif! uner oath to facts of their o"n personal
%no"le&e. The oath re>uire #ust refer to the truth of the facts "ithin the personal
%no"le&e of the petitioner or his "itnesses' because the purpose thereof is to
convince the co##ittin& #a&istrate' not the iniviual #a%in& the affiavit an see%in&
the issuance of the "arrant' of the e2istence of probable cause.
9F
Search "arrants are
not issue on loose' va&ue or oubtful basis of fact' nor on #ere suspicion or belief.
9B
It #a! be recalle that before issuin& the "arrants' the Au&e epose t"o "itnesses'
na#el!' Nestor Cabaria of the .IR' an Rori&o -bos' "ho clai#e to be an ol
e#plo!ee of $nifish. Petitioners clai# that the testi#onies of Cabaria an -bos are
hearsa!. ?e a&ree "ith this contention' but onl! as to the testi#on! of Cabaria' "ho
state urin& the e2a#ination3
6
L. Do !ou %no" of a certain $! Chin 1o alias Fran% $!M
-. No.
L. Do !ou %no" his establish#ent %no"n as $nifish Pac%in& CorporationM
-. I have onl! hear of that thru the affiavit of our infor#er' Mr. -bos.
L. ?h! are !ou appl!in& for search "arrant in the pre#ises of $nifish Pac%in&
CorporationM
-. .ecause of that infor#ation "e receive that the! are usin& onl! eliver! receipts
instea of the le&al sales invoices. It is hi&hl! inicative of frau.
L. Fro# "here i !ou &et that infor#ationM
-. Fro# our infor#er' the for#er e#plo!ee of that establish#ent.
9,
The above portion of the transcript sho"s that Cabaria@s %no"le&e of the alle&e
ille&al activities of petitioners "as ac>uire not throu&h his o"n perception but "as
#erel! supplie b! -bos. Therefore' the eposition of Cabaria' "hich is base on
hearsa!' stanin& alone' cannot Austif! the issuance of the search "arrants.
)*
The application for the "arrants' ho"ever' is not base solel! on Cabaria@s eposition
but is supporte b! that of -bos' "hose %no"le&e of petitioners@ alle&e ille&al
practices "as apparentl! obtaine urin& his e#plo!#ent "ith $nifish. In his
eposition' -bos etaile the sche#es e#plo!e b! Fran% $! an $nifish to evae the
pa!#ent of ta2es' an escribe the place "here the ocu#ents supposel!
eviencin& these sche#es "ere locate3
L Do !ou %no" Fran% $!M
- 6es.
L ?h! o !ou %no" hi#M
- .ecause I "ere /sic0 an e#plo!ee of his fro# +,B* until -u&ust of +,,).
L ?here is this $nifish Pac%in& Corporation locateM
- 1ernan Cortes St.
L ?hat is it bein& en&a&e ofM
- It is en&a&e in cannin& of fish.
L 6ou have e2ecute an affiavit here to the effect that it see#s that in his business
ealin&s that he is actuall! oin& so#ethin& that perpetrate ta2 evasion. Is that
correctM
- 6es.
L 1o" is it oneM
- -s an officer' he is an active #e#ber of the corporation "ho is at the sa#e ti#e
#a%in& his authorit! as appointin& hi#self as the istributor of the co#pan!Ks proucts.
1e sells these proucts thru super#ar%ets in Visa!as an Minanao' in fact' the "hole
Philippines. 1e #a%es it appear that it is the co#pan! "hich is sellin& "hen actuall! it
is hi# sellin& the &oos an he oes not issue an! invoices.
L Since he oes not issue an! invoices' ho" is it oneM
- Thru eliver! receipts.
L Is the eliver! receipt officialM
- No. It is unre&istere.
L For ho" lon& has this been &oin& onM
- -s far as I %no"' it is still in +,B; since "e starte proucin& the sarines.
L ?hen "as the last ti#e that !ou observe that that is "hat he is oin&M
- -u&ust' +,,)' last #onth.
L 1o" i !ou happen to %no" about this last #onthM
- .ecause he elivere to certain super#ar%ets an the pa!#ents of that super#ar%et
i not &o irectl! to the co#pan!. It "ent to hi# an he is the one "ho pai the
co#pan! for the &oos that he sol.
L Can !ou tell this Court the na#e of that certain super#ar%etsM
- ?hite 5ol an 5aisano.
L 1o" i !ou %no" this factM
7
- -s a #ana&er of the co#pan! I have access to all the recors of that co#pan! for
the last three !ears. I "as the Operatin& Chief.
L $ntil no"M
- No. I "as separate alrea!.
L ?henM
- -u&ust' +,,).
L 1o" oes he o this #anipulationM
- 1e sells the &oos to the super#ar%ets after"hich the co#pan!' $nifish "ill eliver
to his custo#ers' then his custo#ers "ill pa! irectl! to hi# an in turn' he pa!s to the
co#pan!.
L -n these transactions' "ere the! reflecte in their boo%s of account or le&er or
"hateverM
- It is "ritten but it is suppose to be a secret transaction.-.(p'i- It is not for the
public' not for the .IR but it is onl! for the purpose of %eepin& the transactions bet"een
the co#pan! an hi#. It is not #ae to be sho"n to the .IR.
L In that boo%s of account' is it reflecte that the! have #ae so#e eliveries to
certain super#ar%etsM
- 6es.
L For the consu#ption of the .IR "hat are the papers that the! sho"M
- It is the private accountin& fir# that prepares ever!thin&.
L .ase on "hatM
- .ase on so#e fictitious recors Aust as the! "ish to eclare.
L In !our affiavit !ou state that there are sales invoices' official receipts' eliver!
receipts' sales recors' etc. These ocu#ents are recors that !ou have state' in
!our affiavit' "hich are onl! for the consu#ption of the co#pan!M
- 6es' not for the .IR.
L ?here are the! %ept no"M
- The! are %ept on the table "hich I have ra"n in the s%etch. This is the birKs
e!evie" /sic0 of the "hole office. ?hen !ou enter thru the oor this 5ina Tan is the one
recorin& all the confiential transactions of the co#pan!. In this table !ou can fin all
the le&ers an noteboo%s.
L This s%etch is a blo"Hup of this portion' E2h. E-EM
- 6es. E2h. E.E is the blo"Hup of E2h. E-E insie the office.
In this blo"Hup there are four personnel plus one ne" personnel. 5ina Tan collects all
the recors fro# this &irl an this &irl #a%es the state#ents. This first &irl elivers the
receipts. The secon &irl prepares the bill of lain&. The thir &irl %eeps the inventor! of
all the stoc%s.
This s%etch here is the boe&a "here the recors are %ept. The recors fro# these
people are store in this place "hich is #ar%e as ECE.
L So "hat !ou "ant to i#press on that no" is that onl! current recors are %ept b!
5ina because accorin& to !ou the "hole recors are alrea! place in the boe&aM
- 6es.
L .ut ho" can !ou enter the boe&aM
- 1ere' fro# the #ain entrance there is a oor "hich "ill lea to this part here. If !ou
&o strai&ht there is a boe&a there an there is also a &uar fro# this e2it ri&ht after
openin& the oor.
L The proble# is that' "hen actuall! in -u&ust have !ou seen the current recors %ept
b! 5inaM
- I cannot e2actl! recall but I have the 2ero2 copies of the recors.
L ?here are the! no"M
- The! are in #! possession /"itness hanlin& 7sic8 to the Court a bunch of recors0.
L The transactions that are reflecte in these 2ero2 copies that !ou have &iven #e'
especiall! this one "hich see#s to be pa&es of a le&er' the! sho" that these are for
the #onths of Ganuar!' Februar!' March' -pril an Ma!. -re these transactions
reflecte in these 2ero2 copies "hich appear in the le&er bein& sho"n to the .IRM
- -s far as I %no"' it i not appear.
8
L ?hat about this one "hich sa!s Colu#nar .oo% Cash Receipt for the #onth of
Ganuar!' "hat oes it sho"M
- It sho"s that Fran% $! is the one purchasin& fro# the co#pan! an these are his
custo#ers.
L Do these entries appear in the colu#nar boo%s "hich are the basis for the report to
the .IRM
- -s far as I %no"' it oes not reflect.
L ?hat are these 2ero2 copies of chec%sM
- I thin% "e cannot trace it up. These ones are the #e#os receive b! $nifish for
pa!#ent of sarines. This is the state#ent of the co#pan! &iven to $! Chin 1o for
collection.
L It is also state in !our affiavit that the co#pan! i#porte so!a oil. 1o" is it oneM
- The co#pan! i#ports so!a oil to be use as a co#ponent in the processin& of
canne tuna for e2port. The co#pan! enAo!s certain .OI privile&e an so it is ta2 free.
-s far as I %no"' the! profit #ore to ispose the prouct locall!. ?hatever e2cess of
this so!a oil are sol to another co#pan!.
L Is that fact reflecte in the 2ero2 copiesM
- No. I have the actual eliver! receipt.
L In other "ors' the co#pan! i#ports so!a oil supposel! to be use as a ra"
#aterial but instea the! are sellin& it locall!M
- 6es. /7?8itness sho"in& DR No. )*:) ate Nove#ber +)' +,,+.0 This eliver!
receipt "as the eliver! receipt to Celebes Cannin& Corp. of the ,* &ra#s so!a oil.
L In other "ors' this so!a oil shoul have to be use b! $nifish but instea the! are
seelin& /sic0 itM
- 6es' at a profit.
L 6ou also sai that there is ta2 evasion in the sellin& of cans. ?hat o !ou #ean b!
thisM
- There is another privile&e 7sic8 b! the .OI for a special price &iven to pac%a&in&
#aterials. ?hen !ou e2port the prouct there is a :*N price ifference. No"' ta%in&
that avanta&e of that e2e#ption' the! sol it to certain co#pan! here' a&ain to
Vir&inia Far#s.
L Do !ou have proof to that effectM
- No' but "e can &et it there.
L ?ill that fact be sho"n in an! liste articles in the application for search "arrant
since accorin& to !ou' !ou have seen this #anipulation reflecte on the boo%s of
account %ept b! 5inaM -re !ou sure that these ocu#ents are still thereM
- 6es. I have receive infor#ation.
CO$RT3 -lri&ht.
)+
-bos state that' as for#er Operatin& Chief of $nifish' he ha access to the co#pan!
recors' an even sho"e the issuin& Au&e photocopies thereof. Thus' "e reAect the
contention that this "itness i not have personal %no"le&e of the facts to "hich he
testifie. The contents of the eposition clearl! e#onstrate other"ise.
The eposition also sho"s that' contrar! to petitioners@ sub#ission' the in>uiries #ae
b! the Au&e "ere far fro# leain& or bein& a rehash of the "itness@ affiavit. ?e fin
such in>uiries to be sufficientl! probin&.
-lle&e lac% of particularit! in the escription of the thin&s sei(e
Petitioners note the si#ilarities in the escription of the thin&s to be sei(e in the
subAect "arrants an those in Stone'ill vs. Dio/no'
)9
$ac'e 0 Co. 1P'il.2, Inc. vs.
Ruiz'
))
an Asian Suret3 0 Insurance Co., Inc. vs. 4errera.
)=
In Stone'ill' the effects to be searche an sei(e "ere escribe as3
E.oo%s of accounts' financial recors' vouchers' Aournals corresponence' receipts'
le&ers' portfolios' creit Aournals' t!pe"riters' an other ocu#ents anIor papers
sho"in& all business transactions incluin& isburse#ent receipts' balance sheets an
relate profit an loss state#ents.E
This Court foun that the fore&oin& escription faile to confor# to the re>uire#ents
set forth b! the Constitution since3
2 2 2 the "arrants authori(e the search for an sei(ure of recors pertainin& to all
,usiness transactions of petitioners herein' re&arless of "hether the transactions
"ere legal or illegal. The "arrants sanctione the sei(ure of all recors of the
petitioners an the afore#entione corporations' "hatever their nature' thus openl!
contravenin& the e2plicit co##an of our .ill of Ri&hts H that the thin&s to be sei(e be
9
particularl3 escribe H as "ell as tenin& to efeat its #aAor obAect3 the eli#ination of
general "arrants.
In $ac'e 0 Co.' this Court struc% o"n a "arrant containin& a si#ilar escription as
those in Stone'ill3
The ocu#ents' papers' an effects sou&ht to be sei(e are escribe in Search
?arrant No. 9HMHF* in this #anner3
E$nre&istere an private boo%s of accounts /le&ers' Aournals' colu#nars' receipts
an isburse#ents boo%s' custo#ersK le&ers0< receipts for pa!#ents receive<
certificates of stoc%s an securities< contracts' pro#issor! notes an ees of sale<
tele2 an coe #essa&es< business co##unications< accountin& an business
recors< chec%s an chec% stubs< recors of ban% eposits an "ithra"als< an
recors of forei&n re#ittances' coverin& the !ears +,;; to +,F*.E
The escription oes not #eet the re>uire#ent in -rt. III' Sec. +' of the Constitution'
an of Sec. )' Rule +9; of the Revise Rules of Court' that the "arrant shoul
particularl! escribe the thin&s to be sei(e.
2 2 2
In $! 4he!tin' et al. vs. Villareal' etc.' et al.' =9 Phil. BB;' B,;' this Court ha occasion
to e2plain the purpose of the re>uire#ent that the "arrant shoul particularl! escribe
the place to be searche an the thin&s to be sei(e' to "it3
E2 2 2 .oth the Gones Ca" /sec. )0 an 5eneral Orers No. ;B /sec. ,F0 specificall!
re>uire that a search "arrant shoul particularl3 descri,e the place to be searche an
the thin&s to be sei(e. The evient purpose an intent of this re>uire#ent is to li#it
the thin&s to be sei(e to those' an onl! those' particularl! escribe in the search
"arrant H to leave the officers of the la" "ith no iscretion re&arin& "hat articles the!
shall sei(e' to the en that Ounreasonable searches an sei(ures@ #a! not be #ae' H
that abuses #a! not be co##itte. That is the correct interpretation of this
constitutional provision borne out b! the -#erican authorities.E
The purpose as thus e2plaine coul' surel! an effectivel!' be efeate uner the
search "arrant issue in this case.
- search "arrant #a! be sai to particularl! escribe the thin&s to be sei(e "hen the
escription therein is as specific as the circu#stances "ill orinaril! allo" /People vs.
Rubio' :F Phil' )B=0< or "hen the escription e2presses a conclusion of fact H not of
la" H b! "hich the "arrant officer #a! be &uie in #a%in& the search an sei(ure
/idem.' issent of -ba Santos' J.'0< or "hen the thin&s escribe are li#ite to those
"hich bear irect relation to the offense for "hich the "arrant is bein& issue /Sec. 9'
Rule +9;' Revise Rules of Court0. The herein search "arrant oes not confor# to an!
of the fore&oin& tests. If the articles esire to be sei(e have an! irect relation to an
offense co##itte' the applicant #ust necessaril! have so#e evience' other than
those articles' to prove the sai offense< an the articles subAect of search an sei(ure
shoul co#e in han! #erel! to stren&then such evience. In this event' the
escription containe in the herein ispute "arrant shoul have #entione' at least'
the ates' a#ounts' persons' an other pertinent ata re&arin& the receipts of
pa!#ents' certificates of stoc%s an securities' contracts' pro#issor! notes' ees of
sale' #essa&es an co##unications' chec%s' ban% eposits an "ithra"als' recors
of forei&n re#ittances' a#on& others' enu#erate in the "arrant.
In Asian Suret3 0 Insurance Co., Inc. vs. 4errera' the escription of the thin&s to be
sei(e' i.e.' EFire Re&isters' Coss' .orereau' -AustersK Report' incluin& subro&ation
receipts an proof of loss' Coss Re&isters' .oo% of -ccounts incluin& cash receipts
an isburse#ents an &eneral le&er' etc.E "as hel to be Ean o#nibus escriptionE
an' therefore' invali3
2 2 2 .ecause of this all e#bracin& escription "hich inclues all conceivable recors
of petitioner corporation' "hich if sei(e 2 2 2' coul paral!(e its business' petitioner in
several #otions file for earl! resolution of this case' #anifeste that the sei(ure of
T?O carloas of their papers has paral!(e their business to the &rave preAuice of
not onl! the co#pan!' its "or%ers' a&ents' e#plo!ees but also of its nu#erous insure
an beneficiaries of bons issue b! it' incluin& the &overn#ent itself' an of the
&eneral public. -n correlatin& the sa#e to the char&es for "hich the "arrant "as
issue' ?e have before $s the infa#ous &eneral "arrants of ol.
In the case at bar' the thin&s to be sei(e "ere escribe in the follo"in& #anner3
+. Multiple sets of .oo%s of -ccounts< Ce&ers' Gournals' Colu#nar .oo%s'
Cash Re&ister .oo%s' Sales .oo%s or Recors< Provisional D Official
Receipts<
9. Prouction Recor .oo%sIInventor! Cists 7'8 Stoc% Cars<
). $nre&istere Deliver! Receipts<
=. $nre&istere Purchase D Sales Invoices<
:. Sales Recors' Gob Orer<
;. Corporate Financial Recors< an
F. .an% State#entsICancelle Chec%s
?e a&ree that #ost of the ite#s liste in the "arrants fail to #eet the test of
particularit!' especiall! since "itness -bos ha furnishe the Au&e photocopies of the
ocu#ents sou&ht to be sei(e. The issuin& Au&e coul have for#e a #ore specific
escription of these ocu#ents fro# sai photocopies instea of #erel! e#plo!in& a
10
&eneric escription thereof. The use of a &eneric ter# or a &eneral escription in a
"arrant is acceptable onl! "hen a #ore specific escription of the thin&s to be sei(e
is unavailable. The failure to e#plo! the specificit! available "ill invaliate a &eneral
escription in a "arrant.
):
The use b! the issuin& Au&e of the ter#s E#ultiple sets of
boo%s of accounts' le&ers' Aournals' colu#nar boo%s' cash re&ister boo%s' sales
boo%s or recors' provisional D official receipts'E Eprouction recor boo%sIinventor!
lists' stoc% cars'E Esales recors' Aob orer'E Ecorporate financial recors'E an Eban%
state#entsIcancelle chec%sE is therefore unacceptable consierin& the circu#stances
of this case.
-s re&ars the ter#s Eunre&istere eliver! receiptsE an Eunre&istere purchase D
sales invoices'E ho"ever' "e hol other"ise. The Solicitor 5eneral correctl! ar&ues
that the serial #ar%in&s of these ocu#ents nee not be specifie as it is not possible
to o so precisel! because the! are unre&istere.
);
?here' b! the nature of the &oos
to be sei(e' their escription #ust be rather &eneral' it is not re>uire that a technical
escription be &iven' as this "oul #ean that no "arrant coul issue. Ta%in& into
consieration the nature of the articles so escribe' it is clear that no other #ore
ae>uate an etaile escription coul have been &iven' particularl! because it is
ifficult to &ive a particular escription of the contents thereof.
)F
-lthou&h it appears
that photocopies of these unre&istere ocu#ents "ere a#on& those hane b! -bos
to the issuin& Au&e' it "oul be i#practical to re>uire the latter to specif! each an
ever! receipt an invoice' an the contents thereof' to the #inutest etail.
The &eneral escription of #ost of the ocu#ents liste in the "arrants oes not
rener the entire "arrant voi. Insofar as the "arrants authori(e the search an
sei(ure of unre&istere eliver! receipts an unre&istere purchase an sales
invoices' the "arrants re#ain vali. The search "arrant is severable' an those ite#s
not particularl! escribe #a! be cut off "ithout estro!in& the "hole "arrant. In
5nited States v. Coo/'
)B
the $nite States Court of -ppeals /Fifth Circuit0 #ae the
follo"in& pronounce#ent3
2 2 2. The leain& ecision is Ada3 v. Superior Court' :) Cal.9 FB,' );9 P.9 =F' +)
Cal.Rptr. =+: /+,;+0. In Ada3' a "arrant "as issue authori(in& the sei(ure of t"o
particularl! escribe boo%s an #!ria other &enerall! escribe ite#s. On appeal'
the California Supre#e Court hel that onl! the boo%s "ere particularl! escribe in
the "arrant an la"full! sei(e. The court ac%no"le&e that the "arrant "as fla"e'
but rather than suppress ever!thin& sei(e' the court chose to sever the efective
portions of the "arrant an suppress onl! those ite#s that "ere not particularl!
escribe.
-lthou&h the "arrant "as efective 2 2 2 it oes not follo" that it "as invali as a
"hole. Such a conclusion "oul #ean that the sei(ure of certain articles' even thou&h
proper if vie"e separatel!' #ust be cone#ne #erel! because the "arrant "as
efective "ith respect to other articles. The invali portions of the "arrant are
severable fro# the authori(ation relatin& to the na#e boo%s 2 2 2. The search for an
sei(ure of these boo%s' if other"ise vali' "ere not renere ille&al b! the efects
concernin& other articles.
2 2 2
2 2 2 ?e a&ree "ith the reasonin& of the Supre#e Court of California an the #aAorit!
of state courts that have consiere this >uestion an hol that in the usual case the
istrict Au&e shoul sever the infir# portion of the search "arrant as passes
constitutional #uster. See 5nited States v. Giresi' =BB F.Supp. ==:' =:,H;*
/D.N.G.+,B*0. Ite#s that "ere not escribe "ith the re>uisite particularit! in the
"arrant shoul be suppresse' but suppression of all of the fruits of the search is
harl! consistent "ith the purposes unerl!in& e2clusion. Suppression of onl! the
ite#s i#properl! escribe prohibits the 5overn#ent fro# profitin& fro# its o"n "ron&
an re#oves the court fro# consierin& ille&all! obtaine evience. Moreover'
suppression of onl! those ite#s that "ere not particularl! escribe serves as an
effective eterrent to those in the 5overn#ent "ho "oul be te#pte to secure a
"arrant "ithout the necessar! escription. -s the leain& co##entator has observe'
Eit "oul be harsh #eicine inee if a "arrant "hich "as issue on probable cause
an "hich i particularl! escribe certain ite#s "ere to be invaliate in toto #erel!
because the affiant an the #a&istrate erre in see%in& an per#ittin& a search for
other ite#s as "ell.E 9 ?. CaFave' Search an Sei(ure3 - Treatise on the Fourth
-#en#ent P=.;/f0 /+,FB0.
-ccorin&l!' the ite#s not particularl! escribe in the "arrants ou&ht to be returne to
petitioners.
Petitioners alle&e that the follo"in& articles' thou&h not liste in the "arrants' "ere also
ta%en b! the enforcin& officers3
+. One /+0 co#position noteboo% containin& Chinese characters'
9. T"o /90 pa&es "ritin& "ith Chinese characters'
). T"o /90 pa&es Chinese character "ritin&'
=. T"o /90 pac%s of che#icals'
:. One /+0 boun &ate pass'
;. Suret! -&ree#ent.
),
In aition' the searchin& part! also sei(e ite#s belon&in& to the Pre#ier Inustrial
an Develop#ent Corporation /PIDC0' "hich shares an office "ith petitioner $nifish.
The thin&s belon&in& to petitioner not specificall! #entione in the "arrants' li%e those
not particularl! escribe' #ust be orere returne to petitioners. In orer to co#pl!
"ith the constitutional provisions re&ulatin& the issuance of search "arrants' the
propert! to be sei(e uner a "arrant #ust be particularl! escribe therein an no
other propert! can be ta%en thereuner.
=*
In am,asen vs. People'
=+
it "as hel3
11
Moreover' b! their sei(ure of articles not escribe in the search "arrant' the police
acte be!on the para#eters of their authorit! uner the search "arrant. Section 9'
-rticle III of the +,BF Constitution re>uires that a search "arrant shoul particularl!
escribe the thin&s to be sei(e. EThe evient purpose an intent of the re>uire#ent is
to li#it the thin&s to be sei(e to those' an onl! those' particularl! escribe in the
search "arrant' to leave the officers of the la" "ith no iscretion re&arin& "hat
articles the! shoul sei(e' to the en that unreasonable searches an sei(ures #a!
not be #ae an that abuses #a! not be co##itteE /Corro v. Cisin&' +)F SCR- :=+'
:=F 7+,B:80< .ache D Co. 7Phil.8' Inc. v. Rui(' )F SCR- B9) 7+,F+8< $! 4he!tin v.
Villareal' =9 Phil. BB; 7+,9*80. The sa#e constitutional provision is also ai#e at
preventin& violations of securit! in person an propert! an unla"ful invasions of the
sanctit! of the ho#e' an &ivin& re#e! a&ainst such usurpations "hen atte#pte
/People v. Da#aso' 9+9 SCR- :=F 7+,,98 citin& -lvero v. Di(on' F; Phil. ;)F' ;=;
7+,=;80.
Clearl! then' the #one! "hich "as not inicate in the search "arrant' ha been
ille&all! sei(e fro# petitioner. The fact that the #e#bers of the police tea# "ere
oin& their tas% of pursuin& subversives is not a vali e2cuse for the ille&al sei(ure.
The presu#ption 6uris tantum of re&ularit! in the perfor#ance of official ut! cannot b!
itself prevail a&ainst the constitutionall! protecte ri&ht of an iniviual /People v. Cru('
9)+ SCR- F:, 7+,,=8< People v. Veloso' =B Phil. +;,' +F; 7+,9:80. -lthou&h public
"elfare is the founation of the po"er to search an sei(e' such po"er #ust be
e2ercise an the la" enforce "ithout trans&ressin& the constitutional ri&hts of the
citi(ens /People v. Da#aso' supra' citin& Rori&ue( v. Evan&elista' ;: Phil. 9)*' 9):
7+,)F80. -s the Court aptl! puts it in $aga'ilog v. 7ernandez' +,B SCR- ;+= /+,,+0'
E7(8eal in the pursuit of cri#inals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrar! #ethos that the
Constitution itself abhors.E
The sei(ure of the ite#s not specifie in the "arrants cannot be Austifie b! the
irective in the penulti#ate para&raph thereof to Esei(e an ta%e possession of other
properties relative to such violation'E "hich in no "a! can be characteri(e as a
particular escription of the thin&s to be sei(e.
-s re&ars the articles supposel! belon&in& to PIDC' "e cannot orer their return in
the present proceein&s. The le&alit! of a sei(ure can be conteste onl! b! the part!
"hose ri&hts have been i#paire thereb!' an the obAection to an unla"ful search an
sei(ure is purel! personal an cannot be availe of b! thir parties.
=9
5#EREFORE' the Resolutions of responent Court of -ppeals ate 9F Gune +,,;
an += Ma! +,BF' affir#in& the Orer of the Re&ional Trial Court ate +F Gul! +,,:'
are hereb! -FFIRMED insofar as sai Resolutions uphel the valiit! of the subAect
Search ?arrants authori(in& the sei(ure of the unre&istere eliver! receipts an
unre&istere purchase an sales invoices' but REVERSED "ith respect to the rest of
the articles subAect of sai "arrants. The responent .ureau of Internal Revenue is
hereb! orere to return to petitioners all ite#s sei(e fro# the subAect pre#ises an
belon&in& to petitioners' e2cept the unre&istere eliver! receipts an unre&istere
purchase an sales invoices.
SO ORDERED.
12