Alvarez vs. CFI Tayabas

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

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

IMPERIAL, J.:

A search warrant shall not issue except for probable cause and upon application supported by oath particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized.

A search warrant was issued to petitioner alleging violation of the Anti-usury law. The respondent court issued a search warrant based on the information of the secret agent of respondent Board.  Petitioner alleged that the search warrant issued is illegal and that it had not yet been returned to date together with the proceedings taken in connection therewith, and prays that said warrant be cancelled, that an order be issued directing the return of all the articles seized to the petitioner, that the agent who seized them be declared guilty of contempt of court, and that charges be filed against him for abuse of authority.

ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant is valid?

HELD:

No. The search warrant is not valid. Section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the Constitution, relative to the bill of rights, provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Section 97 of General Orders, No. 58 provides that "A search warrant shall not issue except for probable cause and upon application supported by oath particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized."

Petitioner alleged, in support of his claim that the search warrant was obtained illegally, is that 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 or cases which might be filed against him for violation of the Anti-usury Law. The seizure of books and documents by means of a search warrant, for the purpose of using them as evidence in a criminal case against the person in whose possession they were found, 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 himself. Therefore, it appearing that at least nineteen of the documents in question were seized for the purpose of using them as evidence against the petitioner in the criminal proceeding or proceedings for violation against him, the Court hold that the search warrant issued is illegal and that the documents should be returned to him.

Section 97 of General Orders, No. 58 provides that "A search warrant shall not issue except for probable cause and upon application supported by oath particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized."

The secret agent in his oath at the end of the affidavit state that his answers to the questions were correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. He did not swear to the truth of his statements upon his own knowledge of the facts but upon the information received by him from a reliable person.

With regard in issuing warrant must describe particularly the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The Court explained that Section 1, paragraphs 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 exist 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 but where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather generally, it is not required that a technical description be given, as this would mean that no warrant could issue. The only description of the articles given in the affidavit presented to the judge was as follows: "that there are being kept in said premises books, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as money-lender, charging a usurious rate of interest, in violation of the law." Taking into consideration the nature of the article so described, it is clear that no other more adequate and detailed description could have been given, particularly because it is difficult to give a particular description of the contents thereof. The description so made substantially complies with the legal provisions because the officer of the law who executed the warrant was thereby placed in a position enabling him to identify the articles, which he did.

The petitioner alleged as another ground for the declaration of the illegality of the search warrant and the cancellation thereof, the fact that it authorized its execution at night. Section 101 of General Orders, No. 58 authorizes that the search be made at night when it is positively asserted in the affidavits that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched. As we have declared the affidavits insufficient and the warrant issued exclusively upon it illegal, our conclusion is that the contention is equally well founded and that the search could not legally be made at night.