Case Summary (G.R. No. 45358)
Applicable Law
– 1935 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, § 1(3) (security against unreasonable searches and seizures; warrant only upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, with particular description)
– General Orders No. 58, §§ 95, 97, 98, 101 (procedure for search warrants)
– Act No. 2886 (amendment to General Orders No. 58)
Petitioner’s Application and Warrant Issuance
June 3, 1936: Anti-Usury Board’s chief of secret service filed an affidavit alleging Alvarez’s usurious money-lending activities based on information from a “reliable person.” Without personal knowledge, he swore only to the accuracy of hearsay. The trial judge issued a warrant authorizing search “at any time of day or night” and seizure of Alvarez’s books and records.
Seizure and Inventory
Night of June 4, 1936: Agents executed the warrant, seizing ledgers, cashbooks, invoices, chits, promissory notes and other documents. Alvarez protested seizure of originals and contested the scope of the inventory.
Procedural Course in Lower Court
June 8–October 16, 1936: Alvarez moved for return of seized items and for contempt proceedings against agents. The court ordered partial deposit, granted the Anti-Usury Board successive extensions (initially 24 hours, then 30 days, then 60 days) to examine and retain specified documents. Alvarez filed petitions to cancel the warrant, return all items, and punish agents for contempt and abuse of authority.
Constitutional Protections and Judicial Duty
The right to personal security and privacy in one’s house and papers is fundamental. Search-and-seizure statutes must be strictly construed in favor of individuals to prevent arbitrary invasions, consistent with constitutional guaranties.
Affidavit Deficiencies and Personal Knowledge Requirement
The affidavit failed to establish probable cause under Art. III, § 1(3) and Gen. Orders No. 58, § 97, because the affiant lacked personal knowledge of the alleged facts. An oath must affirm facts within the affiant’s direct knowledge to render perjury actionable and to satisfy the magistrate that probable cause exists.
Corroborative Affidavits When Knowledge Is Hearsay
While neither the Constitution nor General Orders mandates multiple affidavits when an applicant’s personal knowledge suffices, hearsay alone is insufficient. Where the applicant’s information is entirely second-hand, corroborating affidavits from witnesses with personal knowledge are required to establish probable cause.
Illegality of Night-time Execution
Gen. Orders No. 58, § 101 permits nighttime searches only if the affidavit positively asserts that the property is on the person or in the place to be searched. The defective affidavit rendered the nighttime entry unlawful.
Particularity of Description
Although warrants must particularly describe the place and items to be seized, a general description may suffice when the nature of the documents makes technical specificity impracticable. Here “books, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers” connected with usury was adequate to guide executing officers.
Seizure for Evidence and Self-Incrimination
Seizing books and papers solely to secure evidence for a criminal prosecution violates the protection against unreasonable seizures a
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 45358)
Facts
- Narciso Alvarez, alleged money-lender charging usurious interest, resided in Infanta, Province of Tayabas.
- On June 3, 1936, Judge Eduardo Gutierrez David of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas issued a warrant ordering a search of Alvarez’s house “at any time of the day or night” for accounting books, documents, receipts, chits and related papers.
- Agents of the Anti-Usury Board executed the search on the night of June 4, 1936, seizing internal revenue licenses (1933–1936), ledgers, journals, cashbooks, order books, check stubs, bank-books, inventories, correspondence bundles, invoices, promissory notes, contracts and 504 chits.
- Alvarez protested the inventory during the seizure and, through counsel, promptly challenged the warrant and subsequent retention of the seized materials.
Procedural History
- June 8, 1936: Alvarez moved to compel deposit of seized articles with the clerk of court and to punish Agent Emilio L. Siongco for contempt.
- June 8 order: directed Siongco to deposit the materials within 24 hours and show cause within five days.
- June 10 motion: Anti-Usury Board sought to retain articles for 30 days for investigation.
- June 20 and 24 petitions: Alvarez renewed demands for deposit, inventory, return of warrant and affidavit, and contempt sanctions.
- June 25 order: required Siongco to file warrant, affidavit, proceedings, and an oath-verified inventory.
- July 2 petition: Alvarez asserted the warrant’s illegality, asked for its cancellation, return of all seized items, contempt sanctions and abuse-of-authority charges.
- September 10 order: held search warrant valid, denied cancellation, exonerated Siongco, and called on the Anti-Usury Board chief to show cause why seized items should not be returned.
- September 25 order: directed the Board to specify which documents it needed and how long for examination.
- September 30 and October 2 orders: granted ten additional days and furnished a copy of the inventory.
- October 10 motion and October 16 order: Board obtained 60 days to examine 19 specified documents, which remained withheld.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework
- Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1(3): “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…particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
- General Orders No. 58 (as amended by Act No. 2886):
- §95 defines a sear