Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas
Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas
34
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f73760c17f6e85960003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/18
1/5/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 064
35
36
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f73760c17f6e85960003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/18
1/5/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 064
37
IMPERIAL, J.:
40
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f73760c17f6e85960003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/18
1/5/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 064
38 Law. ed., 1047; Boyd vs. U. S., 29 Law. ed., 746; Carroll
vs. U. S., 69 Law. ed., 543, 549). While the power to search
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f73760c17f6e85960003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/18
1/5/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 064
44
116 U. S., 616; Carroll vs. U. S., 267 U. S., 132). Therefore,
it appearing that at least nineteen of the documents in
question were seized for the purpose of using them as
evidence against the petitioner in the criminal proceeding
or proceedings for violation of the Anti-Usury Law, which it
is attempted to institute against him, we hold that the
search warrant issued is illegal and that the documents
should be returned to him.
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 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 referred not to the search
warrant and the incidents thereof but to the institution of
criminal proceedings for violation of the AntiUsury Law.
The waiver would have been a good defense for the
respondents had the petitioner voluntarily consented to the
search and seizure of the articles in question, but such was
not the case because the petitioner protested from the
beginning and stated his protest in writing in the
insufficient inventory furnished him by the agents.
Said board alleges as another defense that the remedy
sought by the petitioner does not lie because he can appeal
from the orders which prejudiced him and are the subject
matter of his petition. Section 222 of the Code of Civil
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f73760c17f6e85960003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/18
1/5/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 064
49
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f73760c17f6e85960003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/18
1/5/2020 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 064
50
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016f73760c17f6e85960003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/18