Alvarez v.
CFI Tayabas
January 29, 1937 | J. Imperial
Nature: Original action in the Supreme Court. Mandamus.
Facts
The petitioner asks that the warrant of June 3, 1936 issued by CFI Tayabas, as well as
the order of a later date authorizing the agents of the Anti-Usury Board to retain the
articles seized, be declared illegal and set aside, and prays that all the articles be
returned to him.
o The search warrant was issued by virtue of an affidavit from a reliable
source that the petitioner kept in hi house, books, documents, receipts, lists,
chits, and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as a
money lender.
o The petitioner is said to have been charging usurious rates of interest in
violation of the Anti-Usury law.
o The chief of the secret service to conduct the search swore to the truth of
his statements not upon personal knowledge but from a reliable person.
Having the warrant, several agents of the Anti-Usury Board entered the petitioners
store and residence at 7PM on June 4, 1936 and seized and took possession of the
following articles: internal revenue licenses, 1 ledger, 2 journals, 2 cashbooks, 9 order
books, 4 notebooks, 4 check stubs, 2 memorandums, 3 bankbooks, 2 contracts, 4
stubs, 48 stubs of purchases of copra, 2 inventories, 2 bundles of bills of lading, 1
bundle of credit receipts, 1 bundle of stubs of purchases of copra, 2 packages of
correspondence, 1 receipt book belonging to Luis Fernandez, 14 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 HSBC.
o The search were made with the opposition of the petitioner on the ground
that the agents seized even the originals of the documents.
o The articles were not immediately brought to the judge who issued the
warrant and hence, the petitioner filed a motion on June 8, praying that
Emilio Siongco or any other agent be ordered immediately to deposit all
seized articles and that said agent be declared guilty of contempt of court.
On September 10, 1936, the CFI of Tayabas issued an order holding: that the search
warrant was obtained and issued in accordance with the law, that Emilio Siongco did
not commit any contempt of court and must be exonerated therefore, and that the
chief of the Anti-Usury Board must show cause within 2 days why all the articles must
not be returned to the petitioner.
Issues:
1. WON the search warrant issued is illegal because it has been based upon the affidavit
of Agent Almeda in whose oath he declared that he had no personal knowledge of the
facts. YES.
2. WON the search warrant issued is illegal because it was not supported by other
affidavits aside from that made by the applicant. YES.
3. WON the search warrant issued is illegal because it authorized its execution at night.
YES.
4. WON the search warrant issued is illegal because it lacks an adequate description of
the books and documents to be seized. NO.
5. WON the search warrant issued is illegal because the articles were seized in order
that the Anti-Usury Board might provide itself with evidence to be used by it in the
criminal case which might be filed against the petitioner for violating the Anti-Usury
law. YES.
6. WON the petitioner cannot question the validity of the search warrant because he
waived his constitutional rights in proposing a compromise where he agreed to pay
P200 for the purpose of evading criminal proceedings. NO.
7. WON the remedy sought by the petitioner does not lie because he can appeal from
the orders which prejudiced him and are the subject matter of his petition. NO.
Held
1. Yes.
Art. III Sec. 1 (3) of the 1935 Constitution and General Order 58 Sec. 97 provide
protection against unreasonable search and seizures such that there must be a
probable cause in order to validly issue a search warrant.
In addition, there must be an application for such supported by oath of the applicant
and the witness he may produce. The oath required must refer to the truth of the fact
within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses.
In this case, Almedas affidavit, as the exclusive basis of the search warrant, is
insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the manner in which the oath was made.
2. Yes.
In the general sense, neither the Constitution nor General Order 58 provides that it is
imperative to take the depositions of the witnesses in addition to the affidavit of the
applicant for search warrant.
The purpose of both in requiring the presentation of depositions is nothing more than
to satisfy the committing magistrate of the existence of probable cause.
Hence, if the affidavit of the applicant for search warrant is sufficient, the judge may
dispense of the depositions of other witnesses.
However, in this case, Almedas affidavit was insufficient because his knowledge of the
facts was not personal but merely hearsay. Hence, 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.
3. Yes.
General Order 58 Sec. 101 authorizes that the search be made at night when it is
positively asserted in the affidavit that the property is on the person or in the place
ordered to be searched.
 In this case, the affidavit has been declared insufficient and the warrant issued
exclusively upon it is illegal, hence the search could not legally be made at night.
4. No.
The Constitution and General Order 58 requires that the application for search warrant
must contain a particular description of the place to be searched and the person or
thing to be seized. These provisions are mandatory and strict.
However, when by nature of the articles to be seized, their description must be rather
general, it is not required that a technical description be given.
In this case, the description substantially complies with the legal provisions because
the officer who executed the warrant was thereby placed in a position enabling him to
identify the articles, which he did.
5. Yes.
It is illegal for it is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it makes the warrant
unreasonable, and it is equivalent to a violation of the constitutional provision
prohibiting the compulsion of an accused to testify against him.
In this case, it clearly appeared that the books and documents had really been seized
to enable the Anti-Usury board to conduct an investigation and later use all or some of
the articles in question as evidence against the petitioner in the criminal cases that
may be filed against him.
6. No.
There is no such waiver. First, it is because the petitioner denied the offer of
compromise. Second, it is for the reason that if there was a compromise, it referred
not to the search warrant and the incidents thereof but to the institution of criminal
proceedings for violation of the Anti-Usury Law.
The waiver could have been a good defense for the respondents had the petitioner
voluntarily consented to the search and seizure but such was not the case because
the petitioner protested from the beginning and stated his protest in writing in the
insufficient inventory furnished him by the agents.
7. No.
Sec. 222 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that mandamus will not lie when
there is another plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
In this case, an appeal from said orders would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy because a long time would have to elapse before he recovers possession of
the articles and before his rights are restored to him.
Ruling
The search warrant and the seizure of June 3, 1996, and the orders of the respondent court
authorizing the retention of the articles, are declared ILLEGAL and are SET ASIDE.
It is also ordered that the presiding judge over CFI Tayabas direct the immediate return of the
articles taken from the petitioner.
Digest by RMLP