Case Digest (G.R. No. 45950)
Facts:
Leona Pasion Viuda de Garcia v. Diego Locsin, G.R. No. 45950. June 20, 1938, the Supreme Court En Banc, Laurel, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Leona Pasion Viuda de Garcia sought a writ of mandamus to annul a search warrant and two orders of the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac and to compel return of papers seized by an agent of the Anti-Usury Board. The respondents named were Diego Locsin (Judge of First Instance of Tarlac), Felix Imperial (Provincial Fiscal of Tarlac), and the Anti-Usury Board.
On November 10, 1934, Mariano G. Almeda, an agent of the Anti-Usury Board, procured from the Justice of the Peace of Tarlac a search warrant (Exhibit B) commanding search of petitioner’s person, house or store for “certain books, lists, chits, receipts, documents and other papers relating to her activities as usurer.” That same day Almeda, accompanied by a Philippine Constabulary captain, showed the warrant to petitioner’s bookkeeper, Alfredo Salas, and—while petitioner was ill and absent—executed the warrant, seizing two packages and a locked filing cabinet and issuing a receipt to Salas.
The seized documents remained in the possession of the Anti-Usury Board for some time and were later turned over to the provincial fiscal, who filed six separate criminal cases against petitioner in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac. Before and after criminal actions were instituted, petitioner through counsel repeatedly demanded the return of the seized papers from the Anti-Usury Board (verbally and by letter dated July 7, 1936); those demands were refused.
In the criminal cases petitioner moved for the return of the papers and challenged the legality of the warrant (motions dated January 7 and June 4, 1937). By resolution of October 5, 1937 the judge below denied the motion of June 4, 1937, ruling that the petitioner had implicitly waived her right by failing to object at the time of the search; a motion for reconsideration was denied ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner waive her constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures by acquiescence or delay?
- Was the search warrant and the subsequent seizure legally issued and executed under the Constitution and the applicable provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and must the seized...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)