THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

SANTIAGO SY JUCO, defendant.

Facts:

The crime alleged is fraud of revenue against the Government. Pursuant to a search warrant issued, the
officers searched the building occupied by Santiago Sy Juco. In the process, the authorities seized, among
others, an art metal filing cabinet claimed by Atty. Remo to be his and contained some letters, documents
and papers belonging to his clients. Also, books belonging to Salakam Lumber Co., Inc., were seized.

Issue:

1. Is the search warrant in question valid or not, taking into consideration the provisions of the law and of
the Constitution relative thereto?

2. Does the art metal filing cabinet seized by the agents of the Bureau of Internal Revenue belong to
Santiago Sy Juco or to Teopisto B. Remo?

Ruling:

The search and seizure was not valid. It is not stated in the affidavit that the books, documents or records
referred to therein are being used or are intended to be used in the commission of fraud against the
Government and, notwithstanding the lack of such allegation; the warrant avers that they are actually
being used for such purpose.

Also, it assumes that the entire building is occupied by Santiago Sy Juco, when the only ground upon
which such assumption is based is the BIR agent's statement which is mere hearsay (coming from an
informant) and when in fact part thereof was occupied by Atty. Remo. It was not asked that the things
belonging to Atty. Remo and to others also be searched and seized.

For all the foregoing reasons, and finding that the errors assigned by the appellant are very well founded,
the appealed judgment is reversed, and it is ordered that the art metal filing cabinet, together with the key
thereof seized by the internal revenue agent by virtue of the judicial warrant in question, which is hereby
declared null and void, be immediately returned unopened to the appellant; and that a copy of this
decision be sent to the Solicitor-General for him to take action, if he deems it justified, upon careful
investigation of the facts, against the internal revenue agent or agents who obtained and executed the
warrant in question, in accordance with the provisions of article 129 of the Revised Penal Code, without
special pronouncement as to costs.