Case Digest (G.R. No. 45358)
Facts:
Narciso Alvarez v. The Court of First Instance of Tayabas and the Anti-Usury Board, G.R. No. L-45358. January 29, 1937, the Supreme Court En Banc, Imperial, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Narciso Alvarez was the owner of a store and residence in Infanta, Tayabas. On June 3, 1936 the chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board presented an affidavit to Judge Eduardo Gutierrez David of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas alleging that Alvarez kept books, documents and papers used in usurious money‑lending. The affidavit stated the information was received from a “person whom [the affiant] consider[ed] to be reliable” and attested the truth of the statements “to the best of his knowledge and belief,” i.e., the affiant did not swear to personal knowledge of the facts.
Acting on that affidavit the trial judge issued a warrant authorizing a search of Alvarez’s premises “at any time of the day or night” and the seizure of accounting books, papers and related items. On the night of June 4, 1936, agents of the Anti‑Usury Board executed the warrant and seized numerous items (ledgers, journals, cashbooks, invoices, promissory notes, chits, bankbooks, contracts, etc.). Alvarez protested the taking and noted his objection on the seizure inventories.
Alvarez, through counsel, filed successive motions before the Court of First Instance seeking (among other relief) immediate deposit of the seized items with the clerk of court, an order holding the seizing agent in contempt for failing to return the warrant and inventory, cancellation of the warrant, and the return of the seized articles. The trial court initially ordered the deposit of seized articles and required explanation but, after motions by the Anti‑Usury Board, denied cancellation of the warrant and allowed retention of the articles for investigation. The court later directed the Board to specify which documents it needed and granted successive periods to examine them; ultimately nineteen documents remained in the court’s possession pending investigation.
Petitioner then sought relief in the Supreme Court by way of a writ of mandamus (petition for mandamus), asking ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does mandamus lie to obtain the return of documents and to set aside the trial court’s orders, or is there a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law by appeal?
- Was the search warrant and the seizure lawful where the affiant’s oath was based on hearsay and there were no supporting witness affidavits?
- Was the night search authorized by the warrant lawful under the circumstances?
- Was the description of the books and papers in the affidavit and warrant sufficiently particular to satisfy the constitutional and statutory particularity requirement?
- Was the seizure lawful where the purpose of taking the books and papers was to use them as evidence in a prospective criminal...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)