Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26828)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Hon. Guillermo P. Villasor and Ernesto Dacay, G.R. No. L-26828; People of the Philippines v. Ernesto Dacay and Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-29567, November 28, 1969, Supreme Court En Banc, Sanchez, J., writing for the Court.The People (petitioner) sought review of orders arising from a series of NBI raids executed on January 15, 1966 pursuant to several search warrants issued by respondent Judge Guillermo P. Villasor (Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch I). Four warrants directed different NBI agents to search specified premises and seize goods allegedly fraudulently imported (under Section 3602, Tariff and Customs Code, R.A. 1937) and certain books and records allegedly in violation of Section 336 in relation to Section 355 of the National Internal Revenue Code. The NBI agents seized assorted goods, books and documents; inventories were made and the items were initially kept by the NBI and later, by court order of July 9, 1966, turned over to the Clerk of Court.
While one warrant was being served, counsel for Ernesto Dacay moved to strike the two warrants against him for lack of particularity. The trial court issued a “Clarificatory Order” directing the peace officers to seize only the articles specifically mentioned and to limit “other documents” to those pertinent to the fraudulently imported goods. Simultaneously a Municipal Judge of Mandawe issued a separate warrant under which NBI Agent Robles seized several bales of cloth; those bales were later examined by customs, released upon payment of duties, reexamined, stored, and eventually ordered returned under bond; samples were left with the Deputy Clerk of Court.
Dacay instituted Civil Case R-9288 (mandamus) to recover the goods seized by Agent Robles; on May 28, 1969 Judge Alfredo C. Laya of the Court of First Instance of Cebu held that the Mandawe search warrant lacked particularity and declared it null and void — a final judgment from which no appeal was taken. Separately the Bureau of Internal Revenue filed Criminal Case V-10839 against Dacay (failure to translate Chinese books of account) based on items seized; on August 15, 1969 the Court of First Instance acquitted Dacay. Those two final judgments form part of the background to the present petitions.
In the unnumbered criminal proceeding in which Dacay moved (January 26 and March 18, 1966) to have the Cebu City search-and-seizure declared illegal and to bar the use of the seized items, the trial court on July 25, 1966 denied the motion except insofar as it ordered return of specified items (identified in Exhibits A, T-5, T-2, etc.). The People appealed the return order to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. 07473-Cr); the trial court later granted Dacay’s motion for new trial (Sept. 22, 1966) and ordered further hearings requiring custodians to bring the documents to court. The People then sought relief in this Court by two different routes: a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition (G.R. L-26828) attacking the trial court’s grant of a new trial and orders for return/examination of documents, and a petition for review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals’ affirmation (G.R. L-29567). The Court issued a temporary restraining order on November 17, 1966 in L-26828.
On August 19, 1969 Dacay moved to dismiss both cases in the Supreme Court as moot and academic, pointing to his acquittal in Criminal Case V-10839, the final mandamus judgment in R-9288 invalidating the Mandawe warrant, and the ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are the petitions moot or academic in whole or in part because of subsequent events (acquittal, final mandamus judgment, and destruction of seized goods)?
- Should G.R. No. L-29567 be dismissed or otherwise disposed of because the goods seized by NBI Agent Aragon (Exhibit A) were destroyed and because the State failed to prove they were fraudulently imported?
- Is the petition in G.R. No. L-26828 for certiorari and prohibition against the trial court’s orders (including the grant of a new trial and retention of documents) without merit, and must the documents and papers seized by NBI b...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)