In an original request by certiorari, the appellant, charged with the crime of treason in

criminal case No. 3522 of the People's Court, alleges that on 4 April 1945 at about 6
p.m., he was arrested by CIC members of the United States Army at their residence on
Calle San Rafael, No. 199- A, Manila, without arrest warrant and was taken to
Muntinlupa prisons, Rizal; that a week later his wife who had moved home, Residence
on Calle Rosario, No. 3, Quezon City, was invited by several CIC members under the
command of Lieutenant Olves to witness the record of his house on Calle San Rafael;
who refused to follow them because they didn't wear a registration commandment; but
as they assured that even without their presence they had what to do anyway, she
accompanied them; that upon arrival at the house, he saw that several effects were
scattered on the ground among which various documents; that Lieutenant Olves
informed her that he was carrying some documents to prove the guilt of her husband;
that on June 27 of 1946 the appellant filed a motion before the People's Court asking for
the return of such documents claiming as a reason that they have been obtained from
his residence without a search warrant, and said court, with serious abuse of discretion
or excess of jurisdiction and following the doctrine laid down in the matter of Alvero
against Dizon (76 Phil., 637) denied it; that unless this Court order the Special
Prosecutor to return them to the appellant, their rights constitutional guaranteed by the
Constitution would be violated.

And why not he has another simple, fast and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
the law, he asks that this Court:

o annul the order of the People's Court of July 9, 1946;t

o that said Court be required to order the return to the appellant of such documents
o that an injunction be issued prohibiting the Procurator Special to present them as
evidence against the appellant in the matter of treason.

These requests demonstrate that the documents are relevant evidence, in addition to
admissible because there is no rule that prevents it (Model Code of Evidence, 87). The
contention of the appellant that the decision in the Alvero's case against Dizon 76 Phil.,
637) is not applicable to the particular case. The documents in Alvero's case have been
confiscated by the members of the CIC when the military government exercised its army
functions in full swing of occupation.

However, when they seized on April 11, 1945, the documents that are the subject of this
cause, General MacArthur on behalf of the Government of the United States, had
already restored on February 27 same year, the Commonwealth with all its powers and
prerogatives (41 Off. Gaz., 86). The Commonwealth government was already exercising
all its powers constitutional and legal without any limitation in the City of Manila. The
President had not suspended constitutional guarantees.
It is a well-established doctrine in the Philippines, the United States, England and
Canada that the admissibility of the evidence is not affected by the illegality of the
means that the party has used to obtain it. 1 It is doctrine followed by many years "until
it emerged - said this Court in Pueblo against Carlos, 47 Jur. Fil., 660 - the dire opinion
of the majority in the case of Boyd v. U. S. in 1885, which has exercised pernicious
influence in many states on opinions subsequent courts. "

"The development of this doctrine of the matter of Boyd vs. U. S. was as follows.

o Boyd's case continued without questioning his own court for twenty years;
meanwhile he received frequent disapproval in the State courts (ante, paragraph
2183)
o Then in the matter of Adams vs. New York, in 1904, was implicitly discarded in
the Federal Supreme Court, and the orthodox precedents registered in the state
courts (before, paragraph 2183) were expressly approved.
o Then, after twenty years, in 1914, in the cause of Weeks v. U. S., the Federal
Supreme Court moved at this time not by erroneous history, but by a
sentimentality misplaced - backtracked to the original doctrine of Boyd's cause,
but with a condition, namely that the illegality of registration and confiscation
should first have been directly litigated and established by motion, made before
trial, for the return of confiscated items; so that after said motion, and only then,
the illegality could be noticed in the main trial and the evidence thus obtained
should be excluded. . . . "Under the authority of this Weeks doctrine vs. U. S.,
and other decisions of the same school the appellant.

Exercise this appeal, requesting the return of documents illegally taken out sos
members of the CIC. The Constitution guarantees the inviolability of individual rights in
the following terms: "The right of the people to the security of their security shall not be
violated people, dwellings, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and
kidnappings, nor will search or arrest warrants be issued, except for probable cause to
be determined by the judge after examining under oath or rmation to the complainant
and the witnesses that I will present, and with detailed description of the site to be
registered and of the people to be apprehended or of the things to be seized. "(Title III,
article 1, paragraph 3).

We concur with the complainant's claim that, under these constitutional guarantees, he
had the right to have his house respected, his documents should not be confiscated by
any authority or authority agent without a registration order duly issued.

These constitutional limitations, however, do not reach the extreme to exclude as

competent evidence documents obtained illegally or unduly from him. The Rules of the
Courts, Rule 123, determines which tests must be excluded, which the admissible and
competent and not classified as incompetent evidence are obtained illegally. The
fundamental law indicates the limits to where the executive, legislative and judicial
branches in the exercise of their functions. The executive must not abuse its power,
violating the domicile of the citizen or seizing unduly from your assets and documents;
the legislator must not pass laws that make the sacred of the home illusory and the
courts must punish the violators of the Constitution, regardless of whether they are
public officials or do not.

As President Lumpkin said in Williams vs. State, 28 S. E., 624: "As we understand it,
the main, if not the sole, purpose of our constitutional inhibitions against unreasonable
searches and seizures, was to place a salutary restriction upon the powers of
government. That is to say, we believe the framers of the constitutions of the United
States and of this and other states merely sought to provide against any attempt, by
legislation or otherwise, to authorize, justify, or declare lawful, any unreasonable search
or seizure. This wise restriction was intended to operate upon legislative bodies, so as
to render ineffectual any effort to legalize by statute what the people expressly
stipulated could in no event be made lawful; upon executives, so that no law violative of
this constitutional inhibition should ever be enforced; and upon the judiciary, so as to
render it the duty of the courts to denounce as unlawful every unreasonable search and
seizure, whether confessedly without any color of authority, or sought to be justified
under the guise of legislative sanction.

For the misconduct of private persons, acting upon their individual responsibility and of
their own volition, surely none of the three divisions of government is responsible. If an
official, or a mere petty agent of the state, exceeds or abuses the authority with which
he is clothed, he is to be deemed as acting, not for the state, but for himself only; and
therefore he alone, and not the state, should be held accountable for his acts. If the
constitutional rights of a citizen are invaded by a mere individual, the most that any
branch of government can do is to afford the citizen such redress as is possible, and
bring the wrongdoer to account for his unlawful conduct. . . . "

We believe that the authors of the constitution never had the most slight idea of granting
criminal immunity to those who violate the sanctity of the home, or to any offender of the
criminal law for the sole reason that the evidence against the have been obtained
illegally. The healthy, fair and orderly procedure is that is punished in accordance with
article 128 of the Revised Criminal Code to the individual that, as a public official,
without a search warrant, improperly profane the domicile of a citizen and seizes their
papers and qua is punished also to that citizen if he is guilty of a crime, regardless of
whether the proof of guilt has been obtained illegally.
The means used in the acquisition of the document does not alter its probative value.
So in Stevenson vs. Earnest, 80, Ill. 513, it was said: "It is contemplated, and such
ought ever to be the fact, that the records of courts remain permanently in the places
assigned by the law for their custody It does not logically follow, however, that the
records, being obtained, cannot be used as instruments of evidence; for the mere fact of
(illegally) getting them does not change that which is written in them. . .. suppose the
presence of a witness to have been procured by fraud or violence, while the party thus
procuring the attendance of the witness would be liable to severe punishment, surely
that could not be urged against the competency of the witness. If he could not, why shall
a record, although illegally taken from its proper place of custody and brought before the
Court, but otherwise free from suspicion, be held incompetent?"

En Com. vs. Dana, 2 Metc., 329, el Tribunal dijo: "Admitting that the lottery tickets and
materials were illegally seized, still this is no legal objection to the admission of them in
evidence. If the search warrant were illegal, or if the order serving the warrant exceeded
his authority, the party on whose complaint the warrant issued, or the o?cer, would be
responsible for the wrong done. But this is no good reason for excluding the papers
seized, as evidence, if they were pertinent to the issue, as they unquestionably were.

When papers are offered in evidence the Court can take no notice how they were
obtained, — whether lawfully or unlawfully,— nor would they form a collateral issue to
determine that question."

In the case of de Burdeau vs. McDowell, it is stated:

"'We know of no constitutional principle which requires the government to surrender the
papers under such circumstances. "'The papers having come into possession of the
government without a violation of petitioner's rights by governmental authority, we see
no reason why the fact that individuals unconnected with the government may have
wrongfully taken them, should prevent them from being held for use in prosecuting an
offense where the documents are of incriminatory character.' (Bureau vs. McDowell.)

"We are confirmed in this conclusion when we reflect how far- reaching in its effect upon
society the new consequences would be. The pettiest peace officer would have it in his
power, through over-zeal or indiscretions, to confer immunity upon an offender for
crimes the most ?agitious. A room is searched against the law, and the body of a
murdered man is found. If the place of discovery may not be proved, the other
circumstances may be insu?cient to connect the defendant with the crime. The privacy
of the home has been infringed, and the murderer goes free. Another search, once
more against the law, discloses counterfeit money or the implements of forgery. The
absence of a warrant means the freedom of the forger. Like instances can be
multiplied."

Concretemonos al caso presente. Si los documentos cuya devolucion pide

el recurrente, prueban su culpabilidad del delito de traicion, ¿por que el Estado

tiene que devolverlos y librarle de la acusacion? ¿No es esto consentir y convalidar

el crimen? ¿No constituye una aprobacion judicial de la comision de dos delitos, el

de violacion del domicilio del acusado cometido por los miembros del CIC y el de

traicion cometido por el recurrente? Semejante practica fomentaria el crimen en

vez de impedir su comision. Ademas, la obtencion de los documentos no altera su

valor probatorio. Si hubiera mediado un mandamiento de registro, los documentos

serian pruebas admisibles. No hay ninguna disposicion constitucional, ni legal que

libere al acusado de toda responsabilidad criminal porque no hubo mandamiento

de registro. La vindicta publica exige that criminal law offenders are

punished Release the guilty party for the simple fact that the evidence

against him has not been legally obtained is to punish the crime judicially.

Consider a case: Juan who witnesses a murder, gets snatch the dagger from the killer,
and with which he orders him to be arrested and It leads to the presidency of the town.
Along the way he meets Pedro who intercede for the murderer; Juan, for a
misunderstood sentimentality, returns the dagger and help the defendant to make
disappear all vestige of the crime so as not to be discovered. Juan and Pedro, not only
commit unworthy acts of good citizenship, but must be punished by coverts (art. 19,
Cod. Pen. Rev.)

The public will never come to understand why these two individuals must be punished
and, instead, a court, under Weeks doctrine, can order the return of the stolen
document proving the guilt of a defendant and leave this and the one who stole the
document free.

Another case. For suspect catadura, one Jose is arrested for two police officers when
they go to the gallery where the high officials of the executive, legislative and judicial
power together with the representatives diplomats from friendly nations to witness the
anniversary stop of the independence; in his pocket they find a bomb that is capable of
flying all The tribune. Two other police officers, after hearing about the arrest, requisition
the house of Jose and find documents that reveal that he has received orders from a
foreign organization to pulverize all senior government personnel in the First chance
The cops have no arrest warrant, nor Registration Commandment Is it fair that Jose's
motion in the criminal case followed against him, the return of the documents ordered
by the court

Do they prove their crime? Wouldn't anarchism be encouraged with such a practice?
The court would play the sad role of helping those who wish to undermine the bases of
our institutions. In U. S. vs. Snyder, 278 Fed., 650, the Court said: "To hold that no
criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the evidence and tokens of his
crime without a warrant, would be to leave society, to a large extent, at the mercy of the
shrewdest, the most expert, and the most depraved of criminals, facilitating their escape
in many instances. "And in People vs. Mayen, 205 Pac., 435, said: "Upon what theory
can it be held that such proceeding (for the return of the articles) is an incident of the
trial, in such a sense that the ruling thereon goes up on appeal as part of the record and
subject to review by the appellate court? It seems to us rather an independent
proceeding to enforce a civil right in no way involved in the criminal case. The right of
the defendant is not to exclude the incriminating documents from evidence, but to
recover the possession of articles which were wrongfully taken from him. That right
exists entirely apart from any proposed use of the property by the State or its agents. . .
. The fallacy of the doctrine contended for by appellant is in assuming that the
constitutional rights of the defendant are violated by using his private papers as
evidence against him, whereas it was the invasion of his premises and the taking of his
goods that constituted the offense irrespective of what was taken or what use was made
of it; and the law having declared that the articles taken are competent and admissible
evidence, notwithstanding the unlawful search and seizure, how can the circumstance
that the court erred in an independent proceeding for the return of the property on
defendant's demand add anything to or detract from the violation of the defendant's
constitutional rights in the unlawful search and seizure?

The Constitution and the laws of the land are not solicitous to aid persons charged with
crime in their efforts to conceal or sequester evidence of their iniquity. "(8 Wig., 37.)

Weeks' theory vs. U. S. that subverts the test rules is not acceptable in this jurisdiction:
it is contrary to the sense of justice and the orderly and Sound administration of justice.
Orthodox doctrine is imposed by its proven consistency over many years. Do not leave
if He wants constitutional rights respected and not desecrated. The culprits must receive
their punishing punishment, although the evidence against them have been obtained
illegally. 2 And those who in violation of the law and the Constitution improperly seize
such evidence must also be punished This is how the law prevails, majestic and
colourless.

The application is denied with costs. Moran, Pres., Feria, and Padilla MM. , they are
conform. Tuason, J., concurs in the result.