Case Summary (G.R. No. 132428)
Petitioner–Respondent Relationship
The Bureau of Internal Revenue, through Commissioner Vera and Examiner de León, applied for a search warrant from Judge Ruiz. Bache & Co. and Seggerman were the targets of that warrant and subsequent tax assessments.
Key Dates
• February 25, 1970 – Issuance of Search Warrant No. 2-M-70.
• February 28, 1970 – Execution of the warrant at petitioners’ offices in Makati.
• March 3, 1970 – Petitioners filed before the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal to quash the warrant.
• July 29, 1970 – CFI dismissed the petition to dissolve the warrant.
• February 27, 1971 – Decision on original action reaches the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law
Constitution of 1935, Article III, Section 1, paragraph 3 (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures); Revised Rules of Court, Rules 126, Sections 3–4 (requisites for and procedure in issuing search warrants); National Internal Revenue Code provisions (Sections 46(a), 53, 72, 73, 208, 209).
Facts
Commissioner Vera requested a search warrant alleging violations of multiple revenue-code provisions. Examiner de León and witness Logronio presented a written application, affidavit, deposition, and unsigned warrant to Judge Ruiz, who was hearing another case. The judge had his deputy clerk and stenographer take depositions, listened to them after adjournment, administered an oath for perjury, then signed the documents and issued the warrant. Agents seized six boxes of corporate records, later used to support P2,594,729.97 in tax assessments. Petitioners’ motion before the CFI to quash was denied; they then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
Issue 1: Personal Examination Requirement
Constitutional and rule-making provisions mandate that the issuing judge must personally examine on oath the complainant and any witnesses. Here, Judge Ruiz delegated examination to his deputy clerk and merely listened to stenographic notes; he did not question the parties directly or observe their demeanor, depriving him of meaningful judicial appraisal of probable cause.
Issue 2: Single–Offense Requirement
Rule 126, Section 3, prohibits issuing a warrant for more than one specific offense. The warrant alleged violations of at least four distinct tax offenses spanning Income Tax (Sections 46(a), 72, 73, 53) and Privilege Tax (Sections 208, 209). This shotgun approach contravenes the rule’s clear ban on multi-offense warrants.
Issue 3: Particular Description Requirement
Both the Constitution and Rule 126 require a warrant to particularly describe the things to be seized. The warrant’s broad language (“all business communications,” “books of account,” “records … covering 1966 to 1970”) failed to limit seizure to documents directly related
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 132428)
Facts
- On February 24, 1970, Commissioner Misael P. Vera wrote to Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz, requesting Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 for alleged violations of Section 46(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code and related provisions.
- The next day revenue examiner Rodolfo de Leon and witness Arturo Logronio brought to the Court of First Instance of Rizal the letter-request, an unsigned application for a search warrant, Logronio’s unsworn deposition, and a draft warrant.
- While Judge Ruiz was hearing another case, his deputy clerk took the depositions under stenographic notes; afterwards the stenographer read her notes to the judge, who administered oaths and signed the documents.
- On February 25, 1970, the judge signed and issued Search Warrant No. 2-M-70.
- On February 28, 1970, BIR agents executed the warrant at petitioner’s Makati offices, seized six boxes of documents, and continued despite counsel’s protest that no formal complaint or transcript was attached.
- Petitioners filed a motion in the CFI of Rizal on March 3, 1970, to quash and recall the warrant, enjoin its enforcement, declare it void, and recover damages and fees; respondents answered on March 18, 1970.
- On July 29, 1970, the trial court dismissed the petition to dissolve the warrant.
- On April 16, 1970, the BIR assessed petitioner corporation for ₱2,594,729.97, largely based on the seized documents.
- Petitioners brought an original action in the Supreme Court praying for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and a preliminary injunction to annul the warrant and compel return of their papers.
Procedural Background
- Original action filed in the Supreme Court: certiorari, prohibition, mandamus; prayer for preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction.
- Supreme Court gave due course but denied the preliminary injunction.
- CFI of Rizal had denied petition to quash the warrant.
- BIR’s April 16 assessment prompted urgent Supreme Court relief.
Issues Presented
- Did Judge Ruiz personally examine, under oath, the complainant and witness as required by the Constitution and Rule 126?
- Was Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 issued for more than one specific offense?