Return of Property Illegally Seized Case: Uy Kheytin vs.

Villareal Facts: Ramon Gayanilo, corporal of the Philippine Constabulary, presented to the judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo an application for search warrant, stating in his application; "That in the house of Chino Uy Kheytin, Sto. Nio St., No. 20, Iloilo, under the writing desk in his store, there is kept a certain amount of opium." Upon that application the said judge, on the same day, issued a search warrant. Armed with that search warrant, the respondent M. S. Torralba, accompanied by some of his subordinates, on the same day (April 30th) searched the house of the petitioner Uy Kheytin and found therein 60 small cans of opium. They wanted to search also the bodega on the ground-floor of the house, but Uy Kheytin positively denied that it was his or that he rented it. Lieutenant Torralba wanted to be sure, and for this reason he placed a guard in the premises to see that nothing was removed therefrom, and then went away to find out who the owner of the bodega was. The next morning he learned from the owner of the house, one Segovia, of the town of Molo, that the Chinaman Uy Kheytin was the one who was renting the bodega. Thereupon Lieutenant Torralba and his subordinates resumed the search and then and there found and seized other articles such as opium liquid, empty opium containers, opium pipe and the like. Furthermore, officers seized books, papers, etc. A criminal complaint was filed charging the petitioners with a violation of the Opium Law. They were duly arrested, and a preliminary investigation was conducted by the justice of the peace, after which he found that there was probable cause for believing that the crime complained of had been committed and that the defendants were the persons responsible therefor. Petitioners herein filed a petition in the Court of First Instance, asking for the return of "private papers, books and other property" which the Constabulary officers had seized from said defendants, upon the ground that they had been so seized illegally and in violation of the constitutional rights of the defendants.

Petitioners contend that the search was illegal and therefore asking for the return of the items seized. Issue: WON the opium may be returned to the petitioner WON the books,papers, etc may be returned Held: In the present case there was an irregularity in the issuance of the search warrant in question in that the judge did not first examine the complainant or any witnesses under oath. But the property sought to be searched for and seized having been actually found in the place described by the complainant, reasoning by analogy from the case of an improper arrest, we are of the opinion that irregularity is not sufficient cause for ordering the return of the opium found and seized under said warrant, to the petitioners, and exonerating the latter. That the officers of the law believed that the books, papers, etc., which they seized might be used as evidence against the petitioners herein a criminal action against them for a violation of the Opium Law, is no reason or justification under the law for the seizure: First, because they were not "particularly described" or even mentioned in the search warrant; second, because, even if they had been mentioned in the search warrant, they could not be legally seized, for a search warrant cannot be used for the purpose of obtaining evidence; and third, because to compel a person to produce his private papers to be used in evidence against him would be equivalent to compelling him to be a witness against himself. From all of the foregoing our conclusions are: 1. That although in the issuance of the search warrant in question the judge did not comply with the requirements of section 98 of General Orders No. 58, the petitioners are not entitled to the return of the opium and its paraphernalia which were found and seized under said warrant, and much less are they entitled to be exonerated because of such omission of the judge. 2. That the search made on May 1st was a continuation of the search begun on the previous day, and, therefore, did not require another search warrant.

3. That the seizure of the petitioner's books, letters, telegrams, and other articles which have no inherent relation with opium and the possession of which is not forbidden by law, was illegal and in violation of the petitioners' constitutional rights. Therefore, it is hereby ordered and decreed that each and all of the respondents herein, their assistants or successors, be, and they hereby are, forbidden from examining or making any use of said books, letters, telegrams, etc., namely, the articles described in items Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 15 of the sheriff's return (Exhibit 3, reproduced at the top of page 3 of this decision 1) and they are hereby ordered to immediately return the said articles to the petitioners. So ordered.

protested that the search was being made in her husband's absence, was absolutely illegal. The searching officers did not have any search warrant provided. In the course of the illegal search, the searching officers found in Magoncia's house to paltik , a gun, a hand grenade, and a container containing forty-two case ammunitions, the possession of all of Which is punishable by law and prohibited. An information for illegal possession of firearms was filed against Magoncia. His motion, dated January 8, 1947, praying That the above effects be returned to him. To order the return of the prohibited weapons to Magoncia is to justify an illegality or criminal offense. The illegality of the search is independent from the illegal possession of prohibited arms. The illegality of the search did not make legal an illegal possession of firearms. Do not confuse the possession of a thing which is susceptible to legal appropriation and is the subject of free trade, like watch, a box of firearms whose possession is prohibited. Possession of a firearm without a license is a flagrant violation of law and is subject to an arrest the possessor and contraband can be seized

Case: Magoncia vs Palacio Facts:

Zacarias Magoncia was arrested for the crime of robbery gang committed in the house of Hilario Enovejas Ariston in the neighborhood of the town of Asingan, Pangasinan. Without search warrant, they made the seizure, the wife of accused rebuked them "why search the house when my husband is away?"The cops found in the home a paltik , shotgun clandestine manufacture a hand grenade, a box that contained 42 bullets and some pieces of cotton cloth Hilario Property Enovejas, homeowner assaulted. In this criminal case for illegal possession of firearms, the defendant filed a motion on January 8, 1947 asking the court to order the return of illegally seized the effects of the four policemen of Asingan, Pangasinan and an order that the Provincial Prosecutor desist from using such defects as evidence at the hearing. Confident reports received, the Chief of Police instead of asking for a search warrant from a judge ordered four policemen recording the defendant's home and found stolen pieces of fabric together with a paltik, ammunition and hand grenade

Case: Collector vs. Villaluz Facts:

Petitioner Collector of Customs, Salvador T. Mascardo filed against Cesar T. Makapugay, a letter complaint with respondent Judge of the Circuit Criminal Court for violation of NIRC, Central Bank Circular 265 and RA 1937 claiming that Cesar T. Makapugay "with malicious intention to defraud the government criminally, willfully and feloniously brought into the country FORTY (40) cartons of "untaxed blue seal" Salem cigarettes and FIVE (5) bottles of Johny Walker Scotch Whiskey, also "untaxed", without the necessary permit from the proper authorities. The respondent submitted a Baggage Declaration Entry which did not declare the said articles. Respondent Judge assumed jurisdiction to conduct and did conduct the preliminary investigation, and on July 6, 1971, issued the challenged order, dismissing "the case with prejudice and ordering the return to private respondent the amount of P2,280.00, his passport No. Ag-2456 FA No. B103813, and one (1) box of air-conditioning evaporator only, as well as the forfeiture of forty (40)

Issue: WON the items seized may be returned Held:

No. The search of the house of Zachary Magoncia made by four police officers, on orders of the chief of police of Asingan, over the objections of Magoncia's wife who

cartons of untaxed blue seal Salem cigarettes and five (5) bottles of Johnny Walker Scotch Whiskey" (p. 13, rec.). Armed with said order, private respondent Makapugay demanded that petitioner release the articles so stated. Petitioner Collector of Customs refused to obey the order due to the "prior institution of seizure proceedings thereon." The refusal prompted respondent Makapugay to file a complaint for "Open Disobedience" under Article 231 of the Revised Penal Code, before the City Fiscal of Pasay City. Hence, this petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, seeking to annul and set aside the order dated July 6, 1971 on the ground that respondent Judge has no power to conduct a preliminary investigation of criminal complaints directly filed with him, cannot legally order the dismissal "with prejudice" of a criminal case after conducting a preliminary investigation thereon, and is without authority to order the return of articles subject of seizure proceedings before Customs authorities. In these six cases, one common legal issue is whether a Circuit Criminal Court possesses the power to conduct preliminary investigations which is significant to determine whether items may be returned or not.

such courts of the prerogative to replevin properties subject to seizure and forfeiture proceedings for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code because proceedings for the forfeiture of goods illegally imported are not criminal in nature since they do not result in the conviction of wrongdoer nor in the imposition upon him of a penalty.

Issue: WON the items seized may be returned Held:

The dismissal of a case, even with prejudice, during the stage of preliminary investigation does not bar subsequent prosecution and conviction if the evidence warrants the re-filing of the same becomes next to impossible. For the enforcement of such order would virtually deprive herein petitioner Collector of Customs of the evidence indispensable to a successful prosecution of the case against the private respondent. Worse, the order nullified the power of seizure of the customs official. Respondent Judge ignored the established principle that from the moment imported goods are actually in the possession or control of the Customs authorities, even if no warrant of seizure had previously been issued by the Collector of Customs in connection with seizure and forfeiture proceedings, the Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over such imported goods for the purpose of enforcing the Customs laws, subject to an appeal only to the Court of Tax Appeals and to final review by the Supreme Court. Such exclusive jurisdiction precludes the Court of First Instance as well as the Circuit Criminal Court from assuming cognizance of the subject matter and divests