12/15/2019 Notes, Case Digests et cetera: Alvarez v. CFI, G.R. No.

L-45358 January 29, 1937

Notes, Case Digests et cetera

Repository of materials for the Filipino law student.

Home

Monday, June 20, 2016 Welcome to

thelegaldissenter.blogspot.com!
Alvarez v. CFI, G.R. No. L-45358 January 29, 1937
CASE DIGEST

Facts:
On June 3, 1936, the chief of of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board presented to Judge David, presiding judge of CFI of Tayabas,
alleging that according to reliable information, the petitioner is keeping in his house in Infanta, Tayabas documents, receipts, lists, chits and
other papers used by him in connection with his activities as a money lender charging usurious rates of interest in violation of the law.
In his oath the chief of the secret service did not swear to the truth of his statements upon his knowledge of the facts but the information
received by him from a reliable person. Upon this questioned affidavit, the judge issued the search warrant, ordering the search of the
petitioners house at any time of the day or night, the seizure of the books and documents and the immediate delivery of such to him (judge).
With said warrant, several agents of the Anti-Usury Board entered the petitioner's store and residence at 7 o'clock of the night and seized and
took possession of various articles belonging to the petitioner.
The petitioner asks that the warrant of issued by the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, ordering the search of his house and the seizure, at
Go to the Supreme Court of the
anytime of the day or night, of certain accounting books, documents, and papers belonging to him in his residence situated in Infanta, Philippines Website
Tayabas, as well as the order of a later date, authorizing the agents of the Anti-Usury board to retain the articles seized, be declared illegal
and set aside, and prays that all the articles in question be returned to him.
Issues:
1.) What is the nature of searchers and seizures as contemplated in the law?
2.) What is required of the oath in the issuance of search warrant?
3.) What is the purpose of the disposition in addition to the affidavit?
4.) Whether or not the search warrant could be serve at night?
5.) Whether or not the seizure of evidence to use in an investigation is constitutional?
6.) Whether or not there was a waiver of constitutional guarantees?
Held:
As the protection of the citizen and the maintenance of his constitutional right is one of the highest duties and privileges of the court, these
constitutional guaranties should be given a liberal construction or a strict construction in favor of the individual, to prevent stealthy Go to the Lawphil Website
encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation on, the rights secured by them(State vs. Custer County, 198 Pac., 362; State vs. McDaniel, 231
Pac., 965; 237 Pac., 373). Since the proceeding is a drastic one, it is the general rule that statutes authorizing searches and seizure or search
warrants must be strictly construed (Rose vs. St. Clair, 28 Fed., [2d], 189; Leonard vs. U. S., 6 Fed. [2d], 353; Perry vs. U. S. 14 Fed. [2d],88;
Cofer vs. State, 118 So., 613).
Unreasonable searches and seizures are a menace against which the constitutional guarantee afford full protection. The term "unreasonable
search and seizure" is not defined in the Constitution or in General Orders No. 58, and it is said to have no fixed, absolute or unchangeable
meaning, although the term has been defined in general language. All illegal searches and seizure are unreasonable while lawful ones are
reasonable. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure in any particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable
from a consideration of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search, the presence or absence or probable cause, the
manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured (Go-Bart Importing
Co. vs. U. S. 75 Law. ed., 374; Peru vs. U. S., 4 Fed., [2d], 881;U. S. vs. Vatune, 292 Fed., 497; Angelo vs. U. S. 70 Law, ed., 145; Lambert vs. Blog Archive
U. S. 282 Fed., 413; U. S. vs. Bateman, 278 Fed., 231; Mason vs. Rollins, 16 Fed. Cas. [No. 9252], 2 Biss., 99).
https://thelegaldissenter.blogspot.com/2016/06/alvarez-v-cfi-gr-no-l-45358-january-29.html 1/3
12/15/2019 Notes, Case Digests et cetera: Alvarez v. CFI, G.R. No. L-45358 January 29, 1937
Neither the Constitution nor General Orders. No. 58 provides that it is of imperative necessity to take the deposition of the witnesses to be ▼ 2016 (24)
presented by the applicant or complainant in addition to the affidavit of the latter. The purpose of both in requiring the presentation of
▼ June (24)
depositions is nothing more than to satisfy the committing magistrate of the existence of probable cause. Therefore, if the affidavit of the
American Bible Society v. City
applicant or complainant is sufficient, the judge may dispense with that of other witnesses. Inasmuch as the affidavit of the agent in this case of Manila, GR No. L...
was insufficient because his knowledge of the facts was not personal but merely hearsay, it is the duty of the judge to require the affidavit of
one or more witnesses for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause to warrant the issuance of the search warrant. When Amarga v. Abbas, 98 Phil. 739
(1956)
the affidavit of the applicant of the complaint contains sufficient facts within his personal and direct knowledge, it is sufficient if the judge is
satisfied that there exist probable cause; when the applicant's knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay, the affidavit of one or more witnesses Alvarez v. CFI, G.R. No. L-
45358 January 29, 1937
having a personal knowledge of the fact is necessary. We conclude, therefore, that the warrant issued is likewise illegal because it was based
only on the affidavit of the agent who had no personal knowledge of the facts. Almario v. Alba, G.R. No. L-
Section 101 of General Orders, No. 58 authorizes that the search be made at night when it is positively asserted in the affidavits that the 66088 January 25, 1984...
property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched. As we have declared the affidavits insufficient and the warrant issued Alih v. Castro, 151 SCRA 279,
exclusively upon it illegal, our conclusion is that the contention is equally well founded and that the search could not legally be made at night. GR No L-69401 June 2...
The only description of the articles given in the affidavit presented to the judge was as follows: "that there are being kept in said premises Alejano v. Cabuay, GR 160792,
books, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as money-lender, charging a usurious August 25, 2005
rate of interest, in violation of the law." Taking into consideration the nature of the article so described, it is clear that no other more Agustin v. Edu, G.R. No. L-
adequate and detailed description could have been given, particularly because it is difficult to give a particular description of the contents 49112 February 2, 1979,...
thereof. The description so made substantially complies with the legal provisions because the officer of the law who executed the warrant was
Aglipay v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-
thereby placed in a position enabling him to identify the articles, which he did. 45459, March 13, 1937
At the hearing of the incidents of the case raised before the court it clearly appeared that the books and documents had really been seized to
Ablaza v. CIR, G.R. No. L-
enable the Anti-Usury Board to conduct an investigation and later use all or some of the articles in question as evidence against the petitioner 33906. December 21,
in the criminal cases that may be filed against him. The seizure of books and documents by means of a search warrant, for the purpose of 1983...
using them as evidence in a criminal case against the person in whose possession they were found, is unconstitutional because it makes the
20th Century Fox Film Corp.
warrant unreasonable, and it is equivalent to a violation of the constitutional provision prohibiting the compulsion of an accused to testify vs. Court of Appeals, ...
against himself (Uy Kheytin vs. Villareal, 42 Phil,, 886; Brady vs. U. S., 266 U. S., 620; Temperani vs. U. S., 299 Fed., 365; U. S. vs. Madden,
Commissioner of Public
297 Fed., 679; Boyd vs. U. S.,116 U. S., 116; Caroll vs. U. S., 267 U. S., 132). Therefore, it appearing that at least nineteen of the documents
Highways vs. Burgos, 96
in question were seized for the purpose of using them as evidence against the petitioner in the criminal proceeding or proceedings for Scr...
violation against him, we hold that the search warrant issued is illegal and that the documents should be returned to him.
City Of Manila vs. Chinese
Community Of Manila, 40...
The Anti-Usury Board insinuates in its answer that the petitioner cannot now question the validity of the search warrant or the proceedings
had subsequent to the issuance thereof, because he has waived his constitutional rights in proposing a compromise whereby he agreed to pay City Government Of Quezon
City vs. Ericta, 122 Scr...
a fine of P200 for the purpose of evading the criminal proceeding or proceedings. We are of the opinion that there was no such waiver, first,
because the petitioner has emphatically denied the offer of compromise and, second, because if there was a compromise it reffered but to Churchill vs. Rafferty, G.R. No.
the institution of criminal proceedings fro violation of the Anti-Usury Law. The waiver would have been a good defense for the respondents L-10572, December...
had the petitioner voluntarily consented to the search and seizure of the articles in question, but such was not the case because the petitioner Ceniza v. Comelec, 96 Scra
protested from the beginning and stated his protest in writing in the insufficient inventory furnished him by the agents. 763 (1980)
National Power Corporation V.
Posted by dissentingopinions at 2:20 PM Hon. Sylva G. Aguirr...
National Housing Authority V.
Hon. Pastor P. Reyes...
No comments: Municipality Of Daet Vs Court
Of Appeals, 93 Scra ...
Post a Comment Esmeraldo Morelos V. Hon.
Francisco Dela Rosa, 102...
Esteban Morano V. Hon.
Martiniano Vivo, 102 Scra
5...
Hilario Camino Moncado v.
People's Court, 80 Phil ...

https://thelegaldissenter.blogspot.com/2016/06/alvarez-v-cfi-gr-no-l-45358-january-29.html 2/3
12/15/2019 Notes, Case Digests et cetera: Alvarez v. CFI, G.R. No. L-45358 January 29, 1937

Mataas Na Lupa Tenants

Enter your comment... Association v. Carlos
Dimay...
Soriano Mata v. Hon.
Josephine K. Bayona, G.R.
No....
Comment as: Google Accoun
Marvel Building Corporation v.
Hon. Blas Ople, 122...
Publish Preview

Labels

American Bible Society Case Digest City of

Newer Post Home Older Post Manila Free Exercise Clause Freedom of
Religion Religious Worship

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

About Me

dissentingopinions
View my complete profile

Awesome Inc. theme. Theme images by ranplett. Powered by Blogger.

https://thelegaldissenter.blogspot.com/2016/06/alvarez-v-cfi-gr-no-l-45358-january-29.html 3/3