G.R. No. 45358 - Alvarez vs. Court of 1st Instance of Tayabas

On June 3, 1936, the chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board filed with Judge Eduardo G. David an affidavit alleging on “reliable information” that petitioner Narciso Alvarez kept in his Infanta, Tayabas residence books, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used in usurious money-lending. The affiant swore to the truth of his statements “to the best of his knowledge and belief,” based on hearsay.
Relying exclusively on that affidavit, the judge issued a written warrant in the name of the People, authorizing a search “at any time of the day or night” of Alvarez’s house and the seizure of the specified accounting books, documents, papers and related articles, to be delivered to the court.

On the night of June 4, 1936, at approximately 7 p.m., Anti-Usury Board agents executed the warrant and seized numerous items, including internal revenue licenses (1933–1936), ledgers, journals, cashbooks, order books, bankbooks, contracts, invoices, promissory notes, chits and other accounting papers. Alvarez protested in writing that the originals of all these documents were being wrongly seized.
When the seized articles were not promptly brought before the issuing judge, Alvarez filed on June 8 a motion to compel their deposit with the court clerk and to hold agent Emilio L. Siongco in contempt. The court ordered Siongco to deposit the materials within 24 hours and to show cause within five days.

On June 10 and June 20, the Anti-Usury Board and Alvarez each filed competing motions—one seeking to retain the articles for a 30-day investigation, the other seeking a new warrant and contempt sanctions. On June 25, the court ordered Siongco to file the original warrant, supporting affidavit and a sworn inventory of all seized items.
On July 2, Alvarez moved to cancel the warrant, return all documents, and punish Siongco for abuse of authority. On September 10, the court held the warrant valid, exonerated Siongco of contempt, and ordered the Anti-Usury Board chief to show cause within two days why the seized items listed in Exhibit 1 should not be returned.

The Anti-Usury Board requested and obtained multiple extensions—first five days (Sept 25), then ten days (Oct 2), and finally sixty days (Oct 16)—to examine and retain nineteen specific documents (Nos. 5, 10, 16, 23, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45).
Alvarez alleged that those nineteen documents remained unlawfully in court custody, prompting his petition for mandamus before the Supreme Court to annul the warrant and orders, and to compel immediate return of the materials.

Whether an affidavit based solely on hearsay satisfies the constitutional and statutory oath requirement for probable cause.
Whether the trial judge erred in relying on a single affidavit without examining additional witnesses.

Whether an authorization to search “at any time of the day or night” was lawful absent a positive oath that the property was on the premises.
Whether the description of “books, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers” was sufficiently particular to meet constitutional particularity requirements.

Whether seizing private accounting materials for use as evidence in a criminal prosecution violates the constitutional prohibition against self-incrimination.

Whether Alvarez’s alleged offer to compromise constituted a waiver of his rights to challenge the warrant.
Whether an appeal from the interlocutory orders would have been a plain, speedy and adequate remedy instead of mandamus.