Republic of the Philippines v Sandiganbayan, Ramas, and Dimaano

G.R. No. 104768 July 21, 2003

Facts:
The Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) investigated various reports
of an alleged unexplained wealth of Major General Josephus Q. Ramas. Evidence on record
showed that Ramas is the owner of a house and lot located in Quezon City and another in Cebu
City. On March 3, 1986, the Constabulary Raiding Team served a Search Warrant captioned
“Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition” at Dimaano’s residence. The raiding team
successfully seized a baby Armalite rifle with 2 magazines; 40 rounds of 5.56 ammunition; and
one pistol, caliber .45. Equipment/Items and communication facilities, and jewelry were also
found on the premises of Elizabeth Dimaano, the mistress of Ramas. Aside from the said
confiscated items, the raiding team was also able to confiscate money amounting to Php
2,870,000.00 and USD 50,000.00 contained in 4 attaché cases owned by Ramas, in the house
of Dimaano. The SALN of Ramas was submitted and the amount of cash confiscated was not
included.
The Sandiganbayan held that there was an illegal search and seizure of the items
confiscated. Thus, the Sandiganbayan rendered a judgment dismissing the complaints against
Ramas and Dimaano for lack of merit and ordered for the confiscated sum of money and items
to be returned to Dimaano.

Issue:
Whether or not the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of Rights of the
10973 Constitution during the interregnum.
Whether or not the items such as sums of money, communications equipment, jewelry,
and land titles confiscated were illegally seized and therefore excluded as evidence.

Held:
The Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not
operative during the interregnum. Even during the interregnum, the Filipino people continued to
enjoy, under the Covenant and the Declaration, almost the same rights found in the Bill of
Rights of the 1973 Constitution. The revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant
or the Declaration during the interregnum. Article 17 (1) of the Covenant, declares that the
revolutionary government had the duty to insure that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or
unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home, or correspondence. The Declaration
provides in its Article 17 (2) that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”. The Court
has interpreted that the Declaration is part of the generally accepted principles of international
law and binding on the State.
When no constitution or Bill of Rights existed, directives and orders issued by the
government officers were valid so long as these officers did not exceed the authority granted
them by the revolutionary government. The warrant, issued by the judge upon proper
application, specified the items to be searched and seized. The warrant is thus valid with
respect to the items specifically described in the warrant. However, the Constabulary raiding
team seized items not included in the warrant. The raiding team had no legal basis to seize the
other items not included in the search warrant without showing that these items could be the
subject of warrantless search and seizure. Clearly, the raiding team exceeded its authority when
it seized the items. The seizure of these items was therefore void, and unless these items are
contraband per se, they must be returned to the person from whom the raiding team seized
them. WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED.