Case 1: NARCISO ALVAREZ vs.

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS

& THE ANTI-USURY BOARD
1. A search warrant is an order in writing, issued in the name of the
People of the Philippine Islands, signed by a judge or a justice of the
peace, and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for
personal property and bring it before the court (section 95, General
Orders, No. 58, as amended by section 6 of Act No. 2886).,
2. As the protection of the citizen and the maintenance of his
constitutional rights 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 encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation of, the
rights secured by them.
3. Section 101 of General Orders, No. 58 authorizes that the search be
made at night when it is positively asserted in the affidavit that the
property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched. As
we have declared the affidavit insufficient and the warrant issued
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.
4. Section 1, paragraph (3) of Article III of the Constitution, and section
97 of General Orders, No. 58 provide that the affidavit to be
presented, which shall serve as the basis for determining whether
probable cause exists and whether the warrant should be issued,
must contain a particular description of the place to be searched and
the person or thing to be seized.
5. But where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their description
must be rather general, it is not required that a technical description
be given, as this would mean that no warrant could issue
6. 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 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 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 using them as evidence in a criminal
case against the person in whose possession they were found, is
unconstitutional because it makes the warrant unreasonable, and it
is equivalent to a violation of the constitutional provision prohibiting
the compulsion of an accused to testify against himself
FACTS:
7. The petitioner asks the court to declare the search and seizure
illegal made on his house and prays that the articles be returned to
him.

8. The chief secret service agent of Anti Usury Board presented to

Judge David an affidavit alleging that according to reliable
information, the petitioner kept in his house books, documents,
receipts, chit and other papers in connection with his being as a
money lender. The petitioner was charged as lending money with
usurious rates.
9. The chief agent of Anti Usury Board said that the information he has
was from a reliable source. So, a search warrant was issued by the
Judge and around 7pm the store of the Petitioner was search and the
effects were confiscated. The items seized were not deposited to
the court on time thus the court said that they should submit an
explanation why it was not deposited within the time required or
else they will be held in contempt.
10.
The contention of the Anti-Usury Board upon the retention of
the seized materials is for them to investigate and so the court as
them how long.
11.
In view of the foregoing and under the above-cited authorities,
it appears that the affidavit, which served as the exclusive basis of
the search warrant, is insufficient and fatally defective by reason of
the manner in which the oath was made, and therefore, it is hereby
held that the search warrant in question and the subsequent seizure
of the books, documents and other papers are illegal and do not in
any way warrant the deprivation to which the petitioner was
subjected.
12.
It is admitted that the judge who issued the search warrant in
this case, relied exclusively upon the affidavit made by agent
Mariano G. Almeda and that he did not require nor take the
deposition of any other witness.
13.
The purpose of both in requiring the presentation of
depositions is nothing more than to satisfy the committing
magistrate of the existence of probable cause. Therefore, if the
affidavit of the applicant or complainant is sufficient, the judge may
dispense with that of other witnesses. Inasmuch as the affidavit of
the agent in this case 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.
14.
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 As we have declared the
affidavit insufficient and the warrant issued 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.
15.
RULING For the foregoing considerations, the search warrant
and the seizure of June 3, 1936, and the orders of the respondent
court authorizing the retention of the books and documents, are

declared illegal and are set aside, and it is ordered that the judge
presiding over the Court of First Instance of Tayabas direct the
immediate return to the petitioner of the nineteen (19) documents
Case 2: PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. SANTIAGO SY JUCO
16.
REQUISITES FOR THEIR VALIDITY. According to our laws in
force on the date in question, which do not differ substantially from
the provisions of the Constitution in matters regarding search, in
order that a search warrant may be valid, the following requisites,
among others, must be present: that the application upon which it is
issued be supported by oath; that the search warrant particularly
described not only the place to be searched but also the person or
thing to be seized, and that there be probable cause.
17.
Probable cause is meant such facts and circumstances
antecedent to the issuance of the warrant, that are in themselves
sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act in
pursuance thereof.
18.
The warrant in question has gone beyond what had been
applied for by N. M., and the agents who executed it performed acts
not authorized by the warrant, and it is for this and the above-stated
reasons why it is unreasonable, it being evident that the purpose
thereof was solely to fish for evidence or search for it by
exploration, in case some could be found.
19.
A search warrant was applied for and by Narciso Mendiola to
search the building where Sy Juco was allegedly keeping certain
fraudulent books letters and papers or records.
20.
An art metal filing cabinet claimed by Attorney Teopisto B.
Remo to be his and to contain some letters, documents and papers
belonging to his clients. Inasmuch as said officers later refused to
return the filing cabinet in question to him, he filed a petition in the
Court of First Instance of Manila, praying that the Collector of
Internal Revenue and his agents be prohibited from opening said art
metal filing cabinet and that the sheriff of the City of Manila likewise
be ordered to take charge of said property in the meantime, on the
ground that the warrant by virtue of which the search was made is
null and void, being illegal and against the Constitution.
Case 3: Dr. Nemesio Prudente vs Dayrit
21.
Probable Cause: Such facts and circumstances which would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed, and that objects sought in connection
with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

22.
The rule is, that a description of a place to be searched is
sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place intended. In the case at bar, the
application for search warrant and the search warrant itself
described the place to be searched as the premises of the
Polytechnic University of the Philippines, located at Anonas St., Sta.
Mesa, Sampaloc, Manila, more particularly, the offices of the
Department of Military Science and Tactics at the ground floor, and
the Office of the President, Dr. Nemesio Prudente, at PUP, Second
Floor and other rooms at the second floor.
23.
FACTS: A petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the order
of respondent Judge which denied to Quash Search Warrant and the
Motion for Reconsideration.
24.
Dimaglinaw applied for search warrant from Judge Dayrit for a
Violation of a Illegal Possession of firearms. He alleged in his
application that the said Dayrit is concealing firearms, explosives
and handgrenades at the premises of PUP. That he has been
informed and has good and sufficient reasons to believe.
25.
A Deposition of Witness was submitted and subscribed and
sworn. And so the Judge issued a search warrant, stating that a
search can be made night or day.
26.
On November 6, 1987, petitioner moved to quash the search
warrant. He claimed that there was no personal knowledge on the
side of the complainants line witness Lt. Florenio C. Angeles. That
the examination of the said witness was not in the form of searching
questions and answers. The search warrant was a general warrant,
for the reason that it did not particularly describe the place to be
searched and that it failed to charge one specific offense. And that
since the issuance was on Saturday it failed to state that it was
urgent.
27.
Lower court denied petitioners contention.
28.
In his application for search warrant, P/Major Alladin
Dimagmaliw stated that "he has been informed" that Nemesio
Prudente "has in his control and possession" the firearms and
explosives described therein, and that he "has verified the report
and found it to be a fact ." On the other hand, in his supporting
deposition, P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles declared that, as a result of
their continuous surveillance for several days, they "gathered
informations from verified sources" that the holders of the said
firearms and explosives are not licensed to possess them. In other
words, the applicant and his witness had no personal knowledge of
the facts and circumstances which became the basis for issuing the
questioned search warrant, but acquired knowledge thereof only
through information from other sources or persons.
29.
Alvarez Case: "The oath required must refer to the truth of the
facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his
witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the

committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and

seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable
cause." In the case at bar the allegations contained in the
application of Dimaglinaw and the declaration of Angeles in his
deposition were INSUFFICIENT basis for the issuance of a valid
search warrant.
30.
Manifestly, in the case at bar, the evidence failed to show the
existence of probable cause to justify the issuance of the search
warrant. The Court also notes post facto that the search in question
yielded, no armalites, handguns, pistols, assorted weapons or
ammunitions as stated in the application for search warrant, the
supporting deposition, and the search warrant itself. Only three (3)
live fragmentation hand grenades were found in the searched
premises of the PUP, according to the affidavit of an alleged member
of the searching party.
31.
SC RULE: The petition was granted.