constitutional law 2 searches & seizure cases.doc

8/13/2019 constitutional law 2 searches & seizure cases.doc

1/127

G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. ANDRE MARTI, accused-appellant.

BIDIN, J.:pThis is an appeal from a decision rendered by the Special Criminal Court of Manila (Regional Trial Court,Branch !"# convicting accused-appellant of violation of Section $% (b#, &rticle "' in relation to Section ,

&rticle %% and Section $ (e# (i#, &rticle % of Republic &ct )$*, as amended, other+ise no+n as the

angerous rugs &ct.

The facts as summaried in the brief of the prosecution are as follo+s/

0n &ugust %, %123, bet+een %4/44 and %%/44 a.m., the appellant and his common-la+ +ife, Shirley

Reyes, +ent to the booth of the 5Manila 6acing and 78port 9or+arders5 in the 6istang 6ilipino

Comple8, 7rmita, Manila, carrying +ith them four (# gift +rapped pacages. &nita Reyes (the

proprietress and no relation to Shirley Reyes# attended to them. The appellant informed &nita Reyes

that he +as sending the pacages to a friend in :urich, S+iterland. &ppellant filled up the contract

necessary for the transaction, +riting therein his name, passport number, the date of shipment and the

name and address of the consignee, namely, 5;&!T7R 9"7R:, Mattacetr "", 24*$ :urich,

S+iterland5 (ecision, p. )#

&nita Reyes then ased the appellant if she could e8amine and inspect the pacages. &ppellant,

ho+ever, refused, assuring her that the pacages simply contained boos, cigars, and gloves and +eregifts to his friend in :urich. "n vie+ of appellant2, 0ctober ), %123? 7mphasis supplied#.

The pacage +hich allegedly contained boos +as lie+ise opened by @ob Reyes. e discovered that

the pacage contained brics or cae-lie dried mariDuana leaves. The pacage +hich allegedly

contained tabacalera cigars +as also opened. "t turned out that dried mariDuana leaves +ere neatly

stoced underneath the cigars (tsn, p. >1, 0ctober ), %123#.

The AB" agents made an inventory and too charge of the bo8 and of the contents thereof, after signing

a 5Receipt5 acno+ledging custodyof the said effects (tsn, pp. $->, 0ctober 3, %123#.

Thereupon, the AB" agents tried to locate appellant but to no avail. &ppellant


2/127

&ugust $3, %123, appellant, +hile claiming his mail at the Central 6ost 0ffice, +as invited by the AB" to shed

light on the attempted shipment of the seied dried leaves. 0n the same day the Aarcotics Section of the AB"

submitted the dried leaves to the 9orensic Chemistry Section for laboratory e8amination. "t turned out that the

dried leaves +ere mariDuana flo+ering tops as certified by the forensic chemist. (&ppellee$-%>#.

Thereafter, an "nformation +as filed against appellant for violation of R& )$*, other+ise no+n as the

angerous rugs &ct.

&fter trial, the court a !uorendered the assailed decision.

"n this appeal, accused=appellant assigns the follo+ing errors, to +it/

T7 !0;7R C0ERT 7RR7 "A &M"TT"AF "A 7'"7AC7 T7 "!!7F&!!G S7&RC7

&A S7":7 0B@7CTS C0AT&"A7 "A T7 90ER 6&RC7!S.

T7 !0;7R C0ERT 7RR7 "A C0A'"CT"AF &667!!&AT 7S6"T7 T7 EA"S6ET7

9&CT T&T "S R"FTS EA7R T7 C0AST"TET"0A ;"!7 EA7R CEST0"&!

6R0C77"AFS ;7R7 A0T 0BS7R'7.

T7 !0;7R C0ERT 7RR7 "A A0T F"'"AF CR77AC7 T0 T7 76!&A&T"0A 09 T7

&667!!&AT 0A 0; T7 90ER 6&RC7!S C&M7 "AT0 "S 60SS7SS"0A (&ppellant, &rt.""", Constitution# and therefore argues that the same should be held inadmissible in evidence (Sec. > ($#, &rt.

"""#.

Sections $ and >, &rticle """ of the Constitution provide/

Sec. $. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against

unreasonable searches and seiures of +hatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,

and no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e8cept upon probable cause to be

determined personally by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the

complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be

searched and the persons or things to be seied.

Sec. >. (%# The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable e8cept upon

la+ful order of the court, or +hen public safety or order reuires other+ise as prescribed by la+.

($# &ny evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for

any purpose in any proceeding.

0ur present constitutional provision on the guarantee against unreasonable search and seiure had its origin in

the %1>* Charter +hich, +orded as follo+s/

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against

unreasonable searches and seiures shall not be violated, and no +arrants shall issue but

uponprobablecause, to be determined by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation

of the complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to

be searched, and the persons or things to be seied. (Sec. % H>I, &rticle """#

+as in turn derived almost verbatim from the 9ourth &mendment to the Enited States Constitution. &s such,the Court may turn to the pronouncements of the Enited States 9ederal Supreme Court and State &ppellate

Courts +hich are considered doctrinal in this Durisdiction.

Thus, follo+ing the e8clusionary rule laid do+n in Mapp #.$hio by the *+ ederal +upreme -ourt (>)3 ES

)>, 2% S.Ct. %)2, ) !.7d. %42% H%1)%I#, this Court, in +tonehill #..io%no($4 SCR& >2> H%1)3I#, declared as

inadmissible any evidence obtained by virtue of a defective search and seiure +arrant, abandoning in the

process the ruling earlier adopted in Moncado #./eople's -ourt (24 6hil. % H%12I# +herein the admissibility of

evidence +as not affected by the illegality of its seiure. The %13> Charter (Sec. H$I, &rt. "'#

constitutionalied the +tonehillruling and is carried over up to the present +ith the advent of the %123

Constitution.


3/127

"n a number of cases, the Court strictly adhered to the e8clusionary rule and has struc do+n the admissibility

of evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional safeguard against unreasonable searches and seiures.

(Bache J Co., (6hil.#, "nc., v. Rui, >3 SCR& 2$> H%13%I? !im v. 6once de !eon, )) SCR& $11 H%13*I? 6eople

v. Burgos, % SCR& % H%12)I? Roan v. Fonales, %* SCR& )23 H%123I? +ee alsoSalaar v. on. &chacoso,

et al., FR Ao. 2%*%4, March %, %114#.

"t must be noted, ho+ever, that in all those cases adverted to, the evidence so obtained +ere invariably

procured by the State acting through the medium of its la+ enforcers or other authoried government agencies.

0n the other hand, the case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be e8cluded

+as primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and +ithout the

intervention and participation of State authorities. Ender the circumstances, can accused=appellant validly

claim that his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seiure has been violatedK Stated

other+ise, may an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellant2 ES 3*3 H%1))I and Boyd v. Enited States, %%) ES )%) H%22)I?

7mphasis supplied#.

"n urdeau #.Mc.owell ($*) ES )* (%1$%#, % S Ct. *3? )* !.7d. %42#, the Court there in construing the

right against unreasonable searches and seiures declared that/

(t#he 9ourth &mendment gives protection against unla+ful searches and seiures, and as

sho+n in previous cases, its protection applies to governmental action. "ts origin and history

clearly sho+ that it +as intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and

+as not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies? as against such

authority it +as the purpose of the 9ourth &mendment to secure the citien in the right of

unmolested occupation of his d+elling and the possession of his property, subDect to the right of

seiure by process duly served.

The above ruling +as reiterated in +tate #.ryan(*3 6.$d ))% H%1)2I# +here a paring attendant +ho

searched the automobile to ascertain the o+ner thereof found mariDuana instead, +ithout the no+ledge and

participation of police authorities, +as declared admissible in prosecution for illegal possession of narcotics.

&nd again in the %1)1 case of Wal%er #.+tate ($1 S.;.$d %$%#, it +as held that the search and seiure

clauses are restraints upon the government and its agents, not upon private individuals (citing6eople v. 6otter

$4 Cal. &pp.$d )$%, 1 Cap. Rptr, 21$ (%1))#? State v. Bro+n, Mo., >1% S.;.$d 14> (%1)*#? State v. 0lsen,0r., >%3 6.$d 1>2 (%1*3#.

!ie+ise appropos is the case of ernas #.*+ (>3> 9.$d *%3 (%1)3#. The Court there said/

The search of +hich appellant complains, ho+ever, +as made by a private citien L the o+ner

of a motel in +hich appellant stayed overnight and in +hich he left behind a travel case

containing the evidencecomplained of. The search +as made on the motel o+ner


4/127

The fourth amendment and the case la+ applying it do not reuire e8clusion of evidence

obtained through a search by a private citien. Rather, the amendment only proscribes

governmental action.5

The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the Fovernment +ithout the latter

transgressing appellant*#. ;here the contraband articles are identified +ithout

a trespass on the part of the arresting officer, there is not the search that is prohibited by the constitution (ES v

!ee $3 ES **1, 3% !.7d. %$4$ H%1$3I? er v. State of California >3 ES $>, %4 !.7d.$d. 3$) H%1)>I? Moore v.

State, $1 S;$d %$$ H%1)2I#.

"n 3andy #.Wat%ins($>3 9. Supp. $)) H%1)I#, it +as lie+ise held that +here the property +as taen into

custody of the police at the specific reuest of the manager and +here the search +as initially made by the

o+ner there is no unreasonable search and seiure +ithin the constitutional meaning of the term.

That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoed against acts of private

individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. True, the liberties guaranteed

by the fundamental la+ of the land must al+ays be subDect to protection. But protection against +homK

Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship speech in the Bill of Rights ans+ers the uery +hich he himself

posed, as follo+s/

9irst, the general reflections. The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of

constitutional democracy. 6rotection against +homK /rotection against the state.2he ill of

Rights go#erns the relationship between the indi#idual and the state .ts concern is not the

relation between indi#iduals, between a pri#ate indi#idual and other indi#iduals.What the ill of

Rights does is to declare some forbidden "ones in the pri#ate sphere inaccessible to any powerholder. (Sponsorship Speech of Commissioner Bernas , Record of the Constitutional

Commission, 'ol. %, p. )3? @uly %3, %12)? 7mphasis supplied#

The constitutional proscription against unla+ful searches and seiures therefore applies as a restraint directed

only against the government and its agencies tased +ith the enforcement of the la+. Thus, it could only be

invoed against the State to +hom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable e8ercise of po+er is

imposed.

"f the search is made upon the reuest of la+ enforcers, a +arrant must generally be first secured if it is to pass

the test of constitutionality. o+ever, if the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a

private establishment for its o+n and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and +ithout the intervention of


5/127

police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seiure cannot be invoed for only the act of

private individual, not the la+ enforcers, is involved. "n sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and

seiures cannot be e8tended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it +ithin the ambit of

alleged unla+ful intrusion by the government.

&ppellant argues, ho+ever, that since the provisions of the %1>* Constitution has been modified by the presen

phraseology found in the %123 Charter, e8pressly declaring as inadmissible any evidence obtained in violation

of the constitutional prohibition against illegal search and seiure, it matters not +hether the evidence +as

procured by police authorities or private individuals (&ppellant


6/127

reuested him to ship the pacages and gave him 6$,444.44 for the cost of the shipment since the Ferman

national +as about to leave the country the ne8t day (0ctober %*, %123, TSA, pp. $-%4#.

Rather than give the appearance of veracity, +e find appellant


7/127

G.R. No. L!1955" Jun# 19, 196$HARR% S. STONEHILL, ROBERT P. BROO&S, JOHN J. BROO&S an' &ARL BE(&,petitioners,vs.

HON. JOSE ). DIO&NO, *n +* -aa-*/y a SE(RETAR% OF J0STI(E JOSE L0&BAN, *n +* -aa-*/ya A-/*n2 D*r#-/or, Na/*ona3 Bur#au o4 In#/*2a/*on SPE(IAL PROSE(0TORS PEDRO D. (ENON,EFREN I. PLANA an' MAN0EL 7ILLAREAL, JR. an' ASST. FIS(AL MANASES G. RE%ES J0DGEAMADO ROAN, Mun*-*a3 (our/ o4 Man*3a J0DGE ROMAN (ANSINO, Mun*-*a3 (our/ o4 Man*3aJ0DGE HERMOGENES (AL0AG, (our/ o4 F*r/ In/an-# o4 R*a3!u#on (*/y Bran-+, an' J0DGEDAMIAN JIMENE, Mun*-*a3 (our/ o4 u#on (*/y,respondents.

(ON(EP(ION, C.J.:Epon application of the officers of the government named on the margin%L hereinafter referred to as

Respondents-6rosecutors L several Dudges$L hereinafter referred to as Respondents-@udges L issued, on

different dates,>a total of $ search +arrants against petitioners hereinand=or the corporations of +hich they

+ere officers,*directed to the any peace officer, to search the persons above-named and=or the premises of

their offices, +arehouses and=or residences, and to seie and tae possession of the follo+ing personal

property to +it/

Boos of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, Dournals, portfolios,

credit Dournals, type+riters, and other documents and=or papers sho+ing all business transactionsincluding disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette

+rappers#.

as 5the subDect of the offense? stolen or embeled and proceeds or fruits of the offense,5 or 5used or intended

to be used as the means of committing the offense,5 +hich is described in the applications adverted to above

as 5violation of Central Ban !a+s, Tariff and Customs !a+s, "nternal Revenue (Code# and the Revised 6enal

Code.5

&lleging that the aforementioned search +arrants are null and void, as contravening the Constitution and the

Rules of Court L because, inter alia/ (%# they do not describe +ith particularity the documents, boos and

things to be seied? ($# cash money, not mentioned in the +arrants, +ere actually seied? (># the +arrants +ere

issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against them? (# the

searches and seiures +ere made in an illegal manner? and (*# the documents, papers and cash money

seied +ere not delivered to the courts that issued the +arrants, to be disposed of in accordance +ith la+ L

on March $4, %1)$, said petitioners filed +ith the Supreme Court this original action for certiorari,

prohibition, mandamus and inDunction, and prayed that, pending final disposition of the present case, a +rit of

preliminary inDunction be issued restraining Respondents-6rosecutors, their agents and =or representatives

from using the effects seied as aforementioned or any copies thereof, in the deportation cases already

adverted to, and that, in due course, thereafter, decision be rendered uashing the contested search +arrants

and declaring the same null and void, and commanding the respondents, their agents or representatives to

return to petitioners herein, in accordance +ith Section >, Rule )3, of the Rules of Court, the documents,

papers, things and cash moneys seied or confiscated under the search +arrants in uestion.

"n their ans+er, respondents-prosecutors alleged,)

(%# that the contested search +arrants are valid and havebeen issued in accordance +ith la+? ($# that the defects of said +arrants, if any, +ere cured by petitioners# that, in any event, the effects seied are admissible in evidence against herein petitioners,

regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned searches and seiures.

0n March $$, %1)$, this Court issued the +rit of preliminary inDunction prayed for in the petition. o+ever, by

resolution dated @une $1, %1)$, the +rit +as partially lifted or dissolved, insofar as the papers, documents and

things seied from the offices of the corporations above mentioned are concerned? but, the inDunction +as

maintained as regards the papers, documents and things found and seied in the residences of petitioners

herein.3 Thus, the documents, papers, and things seied under the alleged authority of the +arrants in uestion


8/127

may be split into t+o ($# maDor groups, namely/ (a# those found and seied in the offices of the aforementioned

corporations, and (b# those found and seied in the residences of petitioners herein.

&s regards the first group, +e hold that petitioners herein have no cause of action to assail the legality of the

contested +arrants and of the seiures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said corporations

have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of herein petitioners, regardless

of the amount of shares of stoc or of the interest of each of them in said corporations, and +hatever the

offices they hold therein may be.2"ndeed, it is +ell settled that the legality of a seiure can be

contested only by the party +hose rights have been impaired thereby,1and that the obDection to an unla+ful

search and seiure ispurely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. %4Conseuently, petitioners

herein may not validly obDect to the use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and things seied

from the offices and premises of the corporations adverted to above, since the right to obDect to the admission

of said papers in evidence belongsexclusi#ely to the corporations, to +hom the seied effects belong, and may

not be invoed by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity. %%"ndeed, it

has been held/

. . . that the Fovernment


9/127

offense committed +ere abstract. &s a conseuence, it +as impossible for the Dudges +ho issued the +arrants

to have found the e8istence of probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof

that the party against +hom it is sought has performedparticular acts, or committed specific omissions,

violating a given provision of our criminal la+s. &s a matter of fact, the applications involved in this case do not

allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. "t +ould be the legal heresy, of the highest order, to

convict anybody of a 5violation of Central Ban !a+s, Tariff and Customs !a+s, "nternal Revenue (Code# and

Revised 6enal Code,5 L as alleged in the aforementioned applications L +ithout reference to any

determinate provision of said la+s or

To uphold the validity of the +arrants in uestion +ould be to +ipe out completely one of the most fundamental

rights guaranteed in our Constitution, for it +ould place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of

communication and correspondence at the mercy of the +hims caprice or passion of peace officers. This is

precisely the evil sought to be remedied by the constitutional provision above uoted L to outla+ the so-called

general +arrants. "t is not difficult to imagine +hat +ould happen, in times of een political strife, +hen the

party in po+er feels that the minority is liely to +rest it, even though by legal means.

Such is the seriousness of the irregularities committed in connection +ith the disputed search +arrants, that

this Court deemed it fit to amend Section > of Rule %$$ of the former Rules of Court %by providing in its

counterpart, under the Revised Rules of Court %*that 5a search +arrant shall not issue but upon probable

cause in connection with one specific offense.5 Aot satisfied +ith this ualification, the Court added thereto a

paragraph, directing that 5no search +arrant shall issue for more than one specific offense.5The grave violation of the Constitution made in the application for the contested search +arrants +as

compounded by the description therein made of the effects to be searched for and seied, to +it/

Boos of accounts, financial records, vouchers, Dournals, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios,

credit Dournals, type+riters, and other documents and=or papers sho+ing all business transactions

including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and related profit and loss statements.

Thus, the +arrants authoried the search for and seiure of records pertaining to all business transactions of

petitioners herein, regardless of +hether the transactions +ere legal or illegal. The +arrants sanctioned the

seiure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned corporations, +hatever their nature, thus

openly contravening the e8plicit command of our Bill of Rights L that the things to be seied

beparticularly described L as +ell as tending to defeat its maDor obDective/ the elimination of general +arrants.

Relying upon Moncado #s4 /eople's -ourt (24 6hil. %#, Respondents-6rosecutors maintain that, even if the

searches and seiures under consideration +ere unconstitutional, the documents, papers and things thus

seied are admissible in evidence against petitioners herein. Epon mature deliberation, ho+ever, +e are

unanimously of the opinion that the position taen in the Moncado case must be abandoned. Said position +as

in line +ith the &merican common la+ rule, that the criminal should not be allo+ed to go free merely 5because

the constable has blundered,5 %)upon the theory that the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable

searches and seiures is protected by means other than the e8clusion of evidence unla+fully obtained, %3such

as the common-la+ action for damages against the searching officer, against the party +ho procured the

issuance of the search +arrant and against those assisting in the e8ecution of an illegal search, their criminal

punishment, resistance, +ithout liability to an unla+ful seiure, and such other legal remedies as may be

provided by other la+s.o+ever, most common la+ Durisdictions have already given up this approach and eventually adopted the

e8clusionary rule, realiing that this is the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional in:unction against

unreasonable searches and seiures. "n the language of @udge !earned and/

&s +e understand it, the reason for the e8clusion of evidence competent as such, +hich has been

unla+fully acuired, is that e8clusion is the only practical +ay of enforcing the constitutional privilege. "n

earlier times the action of trespass against the offending official may have been protection enough? but

that is true no longer. 0nly in case the prosecution +hich itself controls the seiing officials, no+s

that it cannot profit by their wrong will that wrong be repressed.%2

"n fact, over thirty (>4# years before, the 9ederal Supreme Court had already declared/


10/127

"f letters and private documents can thus be seied and held and used in evidence against a citien

accused of an offense, the protection of the th &mendment, declaring his rights to be secure against

such searches and seiures, is of no #alue, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as

+ell be stricen from the Constitution. 2he efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to

punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles

established by years of endea#or and suffering which ha#e resulted in their embodiment in the

fundamental law of the land.%1

This vie+ +as, not only reiterated, but, also, broadened in subseuent decisions on the same 9ederal

Court. $4&fter revie+ing previous decisions thereon, said Court held, in Mapp #s4 $hio (supra.#/

Today +e once again e8amine the ;olf


11/127

"ndeed, the non-e8clusionary rule is contrary, not only to the letter, but also, to the spirit of the constitutional

inDunction against unreasonable searches and seiures. To be sure, if the applicant for a search +arrant has

competent evidence to establish probable cause of the commission of a given crime by the party against +hom

the +arrant is intended, then there is no reason +hy the applicant should not comply +ith the reuirements of

the fundamental la+. Epon the other hand, if he has no such competent evidence, then it is not possible for the

@udge to find that there is probable cause, and, hence, no Dustification for the issuance of the +arrant. The only

possible e8planation (not Dustification# for its issuance is the necessity of fishing evidence of the commission of

a crime. But, then, this fishing e8pedition is indicative of the absence of evidence to establish a probable

cause.

Moreover, the theory that the criminal prosecution of those +ho secure an illegal search +arrant and=or mae

unreasonable searches or seiures +ould suffice to protect the constitutional guarantee under consideration,

overloos the fact that violations thereof are, in general, committed By agents of the party in po+er, for,

certainly, those belonging to the minority could not possibly abuse a po+er they do not have. Regardless of the

handicap under +hich the minority usually L but, understandably L finds itself in prosecuting agents of the

maDority, one must not lose sight of the fact that the psychological and moral effect of the possibility $%of

securing their conviction, is +atered do+n by the pardoning po+er of the party for +hose benefit the illegality

had been committed.

"n their Motion for Reconsideration and &mendment of the Resolution of this Court dated @une $1, %1)$,

petitioners allege that Rooms Aos. 2% and 1% of Carmen &partments, ouse Ao. $442, e+ey Boulevard,ouse Ao. %>), Colorado Street, and Room Ao. >4 of the &rmy-Aavy Club, should be included among the

premises considered in said Resolution as residences of herein petitioners, arry S. Stonehill, Robert 6.

Broo, @ohn @. Broos and arl Bec, respectively, and that, furthermore, the records, papers and other effects

seied in the offices of the corporations above referred to include personal belongings of said petitioners and

other effects under their e8clusive possession and control, for the e8clusion of +hich they have a standing

under the latest rulings of the federal courts of federal courts of the Enited States. $$

;e note, ho+ever, that petitioners< theory, regarding their alleged possession of and control over the

aforementioned records, papers and effects, and the alleged 5personal5 nature thereof, has Been

&dvanced, notin their petition or amended petition herein, but in the Motion for Reconsideration and

&mendment of the Resolution of @une $1, %1)$. "n other +ords, said theory +ould appear to be readDustment

of that follo+ed in said petitions, to suit the approach intimated in the Resolution sought to be reconsidered and

amended. Then, too, some of the affidavits or copies of alleged affidavits attached to said motion for

reconsideration, or submitted in support thereof, contain either inconsistent allegations, or allegations

inconsistent +ith the theory no+ advanced by petitioners herein.

Epon the other hand, +e are not satisfied that the allegations of said petitions said motion for reconsideration,

and the contents of the aforementioned affidavits and other papers submitted in support of said motion, have

sufficiently established the facts or conditions contemplated in the cases relied upon by the petitioners? to

+arrant application of the vie+s therein e8pressed, should +e agree thereto. &t any rate, +e do not deem it

necessary to e8press our opinion thereon, it being best to leave the matter open for determination in

appropriate cases in the future.

;e hold, therefore, that the doctrine adopted in the Moncado case must be, as it is hereby, abandoned? thatthe +arrants for the search of three (># residences of herein petitioners, as specified in the Resolution of @une

$1, %1)$, are null and void? that the searches and seiures therein made are illegal? that the +rit of preliminary

inDunction heretofore issued, in connection +ith the documents, papers and other effects thus seied in said

residences of herein petitioners is hereby made permanent? that the +rits prayed for are granted, insofar as the

documents, papers and other effects so seied in the aforementioned residences are concerned? that the

aforementioned motion for Reconsideration and &mendment should be, as it is hereby, denied? and that the

petition herein is dismissed and the +rits prayed for denied, as regards the documents, papers and other

effects seied in the t+enty-nine ($1# places, offices and other premises enumerated in the same Resolution,

+ithout special pronouncement as to costs. "t is so ordered.


12/127

:A.M. No. RTJ!9;!968, 1996?LEO7IGILDO 0. MANTARING, complainant, vs. J0DGE MAN0EL A. ROMAN, JR., RT(, Bran-+ ,P*na@a3ayan, Or*#n/a3 M*n'oro an' J0DGE IRENEO B. MOLATO, MT(, Bon2a=on, Or*#n/a3 M*n'oro,respondents4

SG!!&BES

%. REMEDIAL LA) NE) TRIAL REMED% A7AILABLE TO PARTIES DENIED OF A FAIR ANDIMPARTIAL TRIAL. ! There is a remedy available to the party seeing the disualification of the Dudge. "f he isdenied a fair and impartial trial, caused by the DudgeOs bias or preDudice, he can as for a ne+ trial in the

interest of Dustice +hich +ill be granted if that is really the case.

$. ID. (RIMINAL PRO(ED0RE SEAR(H )ARRANT )ARRANT OF ARREST BASIS FORISS0AN(E. ! The issuance of a search +arrant and of a +arrant of arrest reuires the sho+ing of probabilitiesas to different facts. "n the case of search +arrants, the determination is based on the finding that (%# the

articles to be seied are connected to a criminal activity and ($# they are found in the place to be searched. "t is

not necessary that a particular person be implicated. 0n the other hand, in arrest cases, the determination of

probable cause is based on a finding that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested has

committed it.

>. ID. ID. )ARRANT OF ARREST RE0IREMENTS FOR ISS0AN(E. ! "t is no+ settled that inissuing +arrants of arrest in preliminary investigations, the investigating Dudge must/ (a# have e8amined in

+riting and under oath the complainant and his +itnesses by searching uestions and ans+ers? (b# be satisfiedthat probable cause e8ists? and (c# that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in

order not to frustrate the ends of Dustice.

MENDOA, J.:Respondent @udge "reneo B. Molato is the presiding Dudge of the Municipal Trial Court of Bongabon, 0riental

Mindoro. 0n @anuary 3, %11>, an administrative complaint +as filed against him and @udge Manuel &. Roman,

@r., presiding Dudge of the Regional Trial Court of 6inamalayan, 0riental Mindoro, Branch $, by !eovigildo E.

Mantaring, Sr., +ho charged them +ith conduct unbecoming of members of the Dudiciary. 0n 9ebruary $%,

%11, after the parties had filed their respective pleadings and supporting documents, this Court dismissed the

complaint against the t+o for lac of merit. The motion for reconsideration filed by complainant +as

subseuently denied.

;hat is before us no+ is the Supplemental Complaint filed by !eovigildo E. Mantaring, Sr. against @udge

"reneo B. Molato, +hich charges him +ith harassment. "t is alleged that because of the filing of the first

complaint against him, respondent @udge "reneo B. Molato should have inhibited himself from conducting the

preliminary investigation of a criminal case considering that the respondents in that case +ere complainant and

his son. "nstead, it is alleged, he too cogniance of the case and ordered the arrest of complainant and his

son, !eovigildo Mantaring, @r., out of hatred and revenge for them because of the filing of the first case by the

complainant.

The Supplemental Complaint +as referred to the 0ffice of the Court &dministrator +hich, in a Memorandum

dated $* Aovember %11, recommended the dismissal of the case for lac of merit. Aonetheless, the Court

reuired the respondent @udge "reneo B. Molato to comment."n his Comment dated @uly ), %11*, respondent Dudge denies the allegations against him. e avers that on the

application by S60 6acifico !. 9radeDas, he issued a search +arrant +hich resulted in the seiure from a

certain @oel Famo of a home-made gun, a hand grenade, five live ammunitions for Cal. >2 and three live

ammunitions for %$ gauge shotgun? that on &ugust , a complaint for "llegal 6ossession of 9irearms

and &mmunition +as filed against @oel Famo in +hich the herein complainant !eovigildo, Sr. and his son,

!eovigildo, @r., +ere included? that finding that the house in +hich the firearms and ammunition had been found

+as o+ned by complainant and his son, he concluded that there +as probable cause to believe that

complainant and his son +ere guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and accordingly ordered


13/127

their arrest. Respondent Dudge claims that he inhibited himself from the case after he +as ordered by the

78ecutive @udge, RTC, Branch %, 6inamalayan, 0riental Mindoro.

"n his Reply complainant contends that as the search +arrant +as issued only against @oel Famo and

Mantaring, @r. it +as +rong for respondent Dudge to find probable cause against him on the theory that, as

o+ners of the house in +hich the firearms and ammunitions +ere found, they had constructive possession of

the same. e lie+ise contends that respondent Dudge did not inhibit himself until after the preliminary

e8amination +as terminated and the +arrant of arrest issued, and only after complainant had filed a petition for

inhibition +hich the 78ecutive @udge found to be +ell taen.

0n 0ctober %), %11*, this case +as referred to the 0C& for reevaluation, report and recommendation. 0n

@anuary %$, %11), the 0C& submitted a Memorandum, recommending dismissal of the supplemental

complaint for lac of merit, for the follo+ing reasons/

(%# "t is erroneous for herein complainant to euate the application for the issuance of search +arrant +ith the

institution and prosecution of criminal action in a trial court. (Malaloan #s4 Court of &ppeals, $>$ SCR& $1#.

Complainant cannot insist that since his name +as not included in the search +arrant, the house designated to

be searched did not belong to him, and that he +as not present at the preliminary investigation of +itnesses

preparatory to the issuance of the uestioned +arrant of arrest, there +as no basis for respondent Dudge to

order his arrest.

($# Ao taint of irregularity attended the issuance by respondent Dudge of the +arrant of arrest against

complainant and his son. Aeither +as the charge that the +arrant of arrest +as issued by respondent Dudge inthe spirit of anger, hatred or harassment purposes substantiated.

To begin +ith, it cannot be contended that complainant !eovigildo Mantaring, Sr. could not be proceeded

against simply because he +as not included in the search +arrant issued against Famo and !eovigildo

Mantaring, @r., +ho is apparently his son. The determination of probable cause in preliminary investigations is

based solely on the evidence presented by the complainant, regardless of +hether or not the respondent in

that case is named in the proceedings for a search +arrant. &s correctly pointed out by, the 0C&, the

issuance of a search +arrant and of a +arrant of arrest reuires the sho+ing of probabilities as to different

facts. "n the case of search +arrants, the determination is based on the finding that (%# the articles to be

seied are connected to a criminal activity and ($# they are found in the place to be searched. "t is not

necessary that a particular person be implicated. 0n the other hand, in arrest cases, the determination of

probable cause is based on a finding that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested has

committed it.

"n this case, the arrest of herein complainant and his son, together +ith @oel Famo, +as ordered on the basis

of respondentsO finding that the place from +here the guns and ammunitions +ere seied belonged to

complainant !eovigildo Mantaring, Sr. and the testimonies of +itnesses presented by S60 9radeDas. 0f

course complainant denies that the house in +hich the firearms and ammunition +ere found belonged to him

and claims that at the time of the search he +as in Manila. The provincial prosecutor subseuently dismissed

the case against complainant on precisely these grounds, i4e4, that the house did not belong to complainant

and he +as in Manila at the time the search and seiure +ere conducted. But to say this is not to say that

respondent acted arbitrarily or that he abused his po+ers so as to give ground for administrative disciplinary

action against him. "t is only to say that he committed an error of Dudgment for +hich complainantOs remedy isDudicial. ;hat +e thin reuires serious consideration is the contention by the complainant that respondent

Dudge should have inhibited himself from conducting the preliminary investigation of the criminal case,

considering that the respondent +as the present complainant, +ho had earlier filed an administrative case

against the Dudge and another one. ;e are not unmindful of the cases in +hich it +as stated that the mere

filing of an administrative case against a Dudge by one of the parties before him is not a ground for disualifying

him from hearing a case. &n e8amination of these cases reveals, ho+ever, that the administrative cases +ere

filed during the pendency of the cases, and it is evident that the administrative cases +ere filed only to force

the Dudge to inhibit himself from the consideration of the case before him. &s this Court held, if on every

occasion the party apparently aggrieved +ere allo+ed to stop the proceedings in order to a+ait the final


14/127

decision on the desired disualification, or demand the immediate inhibition of the Dudge on the basis alone of

his being so charged, many cases +ould have to be ept pending or perhaps there +ould not be enough

Dudges left to handle all the cases pending in all the courts. 0n the other hand, there is a remedy available to

the party seeing the disualification of the Dudge. "f he is denied a fair and impartial trial, caused by the

DudgeOs bias or preDudice, he can as for a ne+ trial in the interest of Dustice +hich +ill be granted if that is really

the case.

But, in the case at bar, an administrative complaint against respondent and @udge Manuel &. Roman, @r. had

previously been filed and it +as paramount that respondent +as free from any appearance of bias against, or

hostility to+ard, the complainant. The impression could not be helped that his action in that case +as dictated

by a spirt of revenge against complainant for the latterOs having filed an administrative disciplinary action

against the Dudge. The situation called for sedulous regard on his part for the principle that a party is entitled to

nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial Dudge.

This circumstance should have underscored for respondent the need of steering clear of the case because he

might be perceived, rightly or +rongly, to be susceptible to bias and partiality. 9or his Dudgment must not be

tainted by even the slightest suspicion of improbity or preconceived interest in order to preserve at all times the

faith and confidence in courts of Dustice by any party to the litigation.

"ndeed prudence should have made respondent Dudge heed the admonition that Pa spotless dispensation of

Dustice reuires not only that the decision rendered be intrinsically fair but that the Dudge rendering it must at all

times maintain the appearance of fairness and impartiality.QMoreover, +e thin it +as improper for respondent Dudge to have issued the +arrants of arrest against

complainant and his son +ithout any finding that it +as necessary to place them in immediate custody in order

to prevent a frustration of Dustice. "t is no+ settled that in issuing +arrants of arrest in preliminary

investigations, the investigating Dudge must/

(a# have e8amined in +riting and under oath the complainant and his +itnesses by searching uestions and

ans+ers?

(b# be satisfied that probable cause e8ists? and

(c# that there is a need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of

Dustice.

"n this case, respondent Dudge Dustified the issuance of the +arrant of arrest on the follo+ing ground/

"n vie+ of the above considerations Hreferring to the antecedent factsI, it is the honest belief and finding of the

Court that there is sufficient probable cause that the crime of "llegal 6ossession of 9irearms and &mmunition

+as committed and that the named three (># accused @oel Famo, !eovigildo Mantaring, Sr. and !eovigildo

Mantaring @r. are the ones probably guilty thereof for +hich reason ;arrant of &rrest +as issued by

undersigned against them. e thus ordered the issuance of +arrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable

cause, totally omitting to consider the third reuirement that there must be a need to place the respondent

under immediate custody Pin order not to frustrate the ends of Dustice.Q The framers of the Constitution confined

the determination of probable cause as basis for the issuance of +arrants of arrest and search +arrants to

Dudges the better to secure the people against unreasonable searches and seiures. Respondent Dudge failed

to live up to this e8pectation by refusing to inhibit himself even +hen his very impartiality +as in uestion and

+orse by issuing a +arrant of arrest +ithout determining +hether or not it +as Dustified by the need to prevent afrustration of the ends of Dustice. 6arenthetically, the records sho+ that the criminal complaints against herein

complainant and his son +ere eventually dismissed by the 6rovincial 6rosecutor, but not +ithout the follo+ing

parting +ords/ "t cannot be gainsaid that respondents Mantarings +ere greatly preDudiced and suffered

damages as a conseuence of their inclusion in the criminal complaint. The unfortunate incident could have

been avoided had the onorable Municipal Trial @udge e8ercised the necessary prudence and Dudicial

perpecuity HsicI e8pected of an impartial @udge in the conduct of preliminary investigation before issuance of

+arrant of arrest. )HEREFORE, respondent Dudge "reneo B. Molato is R76R"M&A7 and ;&RA7 thatcommission of similar acts in the future +ill be dealt +ith more severely. &ll other charges are dismissed for

lac of merit. S0 0R7R7.


15/127

G.R. No. 8>585 No#@=#r 1


16/127

the fiscal4, %123, the Supreme Court unanimously adopted Circular Ao. %$, setting do+n guidelines for the

issuance of +arrants of arrest. The procedure therein provided is reiterated and clarified in this resolution.

"t has not been sho+n that respondent Dudge has deviated from the prescribed procedure. Thus, +ith regard to

the issuance of the +arrants of arrest, a finding of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac or e8cess of

Durisdiction cannot be sustained.

&nent the third issue, petitioner Beltran argues that 5the reasons +hich necessitate presidential immunity from

suit impose a correlative disability to file suit.5 e contends that if criminal proceedings ensue by virtue of the

6resident


17/127

G.R. No. 81$56 O-/o=#r >1, 1991NI(OMEDES SIL7A C(o@#'#C, MARLON SIL7A, CTa@aC an' ANTONIETA SIL7A, petitioners, vs.THE HONORABLE PRESIDING J0DGE, REGIONAL TRIAL (O0RT OF NEGROS ORIENTAL, BRAN(HIII, D0MAG0ETE (IT%, respondent.FERNAN, C.J."n this special civil action for certiorari, petitioners see the nullification of Search ;arrant Ao. % issued by

respondent @udge as +ell as the return of the money in the amount of 6%,$>%.44 seied from petitioner

&ntonieta Silva.

The antecedent facts are as follo+s/

0n @une %>, %12), M=Sgt. Ranulfo 'illamor, @r., as chief of the 6C Aarcom etachment in umaguete City,

Aegros 0riental, filed an 5&pplication for Search ;arrant5 +ith the Regional Trial Court, Branch """,

umaguete City against petitioners Aicomedes Silva and Marlon Silva. 1This application +as accompanied bya 5eposition of ;itness5 e8ecuted by 6fc. &rthur M. &lcoran and 6at. !eon T. uindo, also dated @une %>,

%12). >0n the same day. @udge Aicarter &. 0ntal, then 6residing @udge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch """,

umaguete City, pursuant to the said 5&pplication for Search ;arrant5 and 5eposition of ;itness5, issued

Search ;arrant Ao. %, directing the aforesaid police officers to search the room of Marlon Silva in the

residence of Aicomedes Silva for violation of Republic &ct Ao. )$*, other+ise no+n as the angerous rugs

&ct of %13$. as amended. 6ertinent portions of Search ;arrant Ao. % read as follo+s/"t appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after e8amining oath (sic# M+324 Ranulfo 24

0illamor, Jr4and his +itnesses (sic# /fc4 Arthur M4 Alcoran and /at4 >eon 24 1uindo that there is

probable cause to believe thatpossession and control of Mari:uana dried lea#es, cigarettes, :ointhas

been committed or is about to be committed and that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe

that mari:uana dried lea#es, cigarettes, :ointhas in possession and=or control at 2ama's Room (Rgt4

side lst loor) located at&ono>imbaga .ri#e, 2an:ay, &eg4 $r4+hich is=are/

(SubDect of the offense stated above

(Stolen or embeled or other proceeds of fruits of the offense?

(Esed or intended to be used as means of committing an offense.

Gou are hereby commanded to mae an immediate search at any time of the day (night# of the room of

2ama +il#a residence of his father -omedes +il#a to open (sic#aparadors, loc%ers, cabinets, cartoons,

containers, forthwith sei"e and ta%e possession of the following property Mari:uana dried lea#es,

cigarettes, :ointand bring the said property to the undersigned to be dealt +ith as the la+ directs. ;"n the course of the search, the serving officers also seied money belonging to &ntonieta Silva in the amount

of 6%,$>%.4.

0n @une %), %12), &ntonieta Silva filed a motion for the return of the said amount on the grounds that the

search +arrant only authoried the serving officers to seie mariDuana dried leaves, cigarettes and Doint, and

that said officers failed or refused to mae a return of the said search +arrant in gross violation of Section %%,

Rule %$) of the Rules of Court. %.4 pending the filing of appropriate charges inconnection +ith the search +arrant.5 50n @uly $2, %123, petitioners filed a motion to uash Search ;arrant Ao. % on the grounds that (%# it +as

issued on the sole basis of a mimeographed 5&pplication for Search ;arrant5 and 5eposition of ;itness5,

+hich +ere accomplished by merely filling in the blans and ($# the Dudge failed to personally e8amine the

complainant and +itnesses by searching uestions and ans+ers in violation of Section >, Rule %$) of the

Rules of Court. 60n &ugust %%, %123, respondent trial court, through @udge 7ugenio M. Cru, +ho, by then, had replaced

retired @udge 0ntal, issued an 0rder denying the motion for lac of merit, finding the reuisites necessary for

the issuance of a valid search +arrant duly complied +ith. $


18/127

& motion for reconsideration dated September %, %123 filed by petitioners +as lie+ise denied by @udge Cru

in an order dated 0ctober %1, %123. ence, this special civil action for certiorari4

6etitioners allege that the issuance of Search ;arrant Ao. % +as tainted +ith illegality and that respondent

@udge should be vie+ed to have acted +ithout or in e8cess of Durisdiction, or committed grave abuse of

discretion amounting to lac of Durisdiction +hen he issued the 0rder dated &ugust %%, %123, denying their

motion to uash Search ;arrant Ao, %. ;e rule for petitioners.

Section $, &rticle """ (Bill of Rights# of the %123 Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty and security

of homes against unreasonable searches and seiures. This section provides/

Sec. $. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against

unreasonable searches and seiures of +hatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and

no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e8cept upon probable cause to be determined

personally by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the

+itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or

things to be seied.

The purpose of the constitutional provision against unla+ful searches and seiures is to prevent violations of

private security in person and property, and unla+ful invasion of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the la+

acting under legislative or Dudicial sanction, and to give remedy against such usurpations +hen attempted. 8Thus, Sections > and , Rule %$) of the Rules of Court provide for the reuisites for the issuance of a search

+arrant, to +it/S7C. >. Re!uisite for issuing search warrant4L & search +arrant shall not issue but upon probable

cause in connection +ith one specific offense to be determined personally by the Dudge after

e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and

particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seied.

S7C. . ?xamination of complainant@ record4L The Dudge must, before issuing the +arrant, personally

e8amine in the form of searching uestions and ans+ers, in +riting and under oath the complainant and

any +itnesses he may produce on facts personally no+n to them and attach to the record their s+orn

statements together +ith any affidavits submitted.

Based on the aforecited constitutional and statutory provisions, the Dudge must, before issuing a search

+arrant, determine +hether there is probable cause by e8amining the complainant and +itnesses through

searching uestions and ans+ers.

"n the case of /rudente #s4 .ayrit,F.R. Ao. 2$234, ecember %, %121, %24 SCR& )1, 3)3 this Court defined

5probable cause5 as follo+s/

The 5probable cause5 for a valid search +arrant, has been defined 5as such facts and circumstances

+hich +ould lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been

committed, and that obDects sought in connection +ith the offense are in the place sought to be

searched5. This probable cause must be sho+n to be +ithin the personal no+ledge of the complainant

or the +itnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay.

"n the case at bar, +e have carefully e8amined the uestioned search +arrant as +ell as the 5&pplication for

Search ;arrant5 and 5eposition of ;itness5, and found that @udge 0ntal failed to comply +ith the legal

reuirement that he must e8amine the applicant and his +itnesses in the form of searching uestions andans+ers in order to determine the e8istence of probable cause. The Doint 5eposition of ;itness5 e8ecuted by

6fc. &lcoran and 6at. uindo, +hich +as submitted together +ith the 5&pplication for Search ;arrant5

contained, for the most part suggestive uestions ans+erable by merely placing 5yes5 or 5no5 in the blans

provided thereon. "n fact there +ere only four (# uestions ased, to +it/

o you personally no+ M+gt4 Ranulfo 0illamor, Jr4the applicant for a search +arrantK

& Bes, sir4

o you have personal no+ledge that the said premises subDect of the offense stated above, and

other proceeds of fruit of the offense, used or obtain (sic# or intended to be used as means of

committing an offenseK


19/127

& Bes, sir4

o you no+ personally +ho is=are the person +ho has=have the property in his=their possession and

controlK

& Bes, sir4

o+ did you no+ all this (sic# thingsK

& 2hrough discreet sur#eillance49The above deposition did not only contain leading uestions but it +as also very broad. The uestions

propounded to the +itnesses +ere in fact, not probing but +ere merely routinary. The deposition +as already

mimeogragphed and all that the +itnesses had to do +as fill in their ans+ers on the blans provided.

"n the case of &olasco #s4 /a8o,F.R. Ao. )124>, 0ctober 2, %12*, %>1 SCR& %*$, %)>, this Court held/

The 5probable cause5 reuired to Dustify the issuance of a search +arrant comprehends such facts and

circumstances as +ill induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuant thereof. 0f the 2

uestions ased, the %st, $nd and th pertain to identity. The >rd and *th are leading not searching

uestions. The )th, 3th and 2th refer to the description of the personalities to be seied, +hich is identical

to that in the Search ;arrant and suffers from the same lac of particularity. The e8amination conducted

+as general in nature and merely repetitious of the deposition of said +itness. Mere generaliation +ill

not suffice and does not satisfy the reuirements or probable cause upon +hich a +arrant may issue.

!ie+ise, in the 6rudente case cited earlier, this Court declared the search +arrant issued as invalid due to the

failure of the Dudge to e8amine the +itness in the form of searching uestions and ans+ers. 6ertinent portion ofthe decision reads/

Moreover, a perusal of the deposition of 6=!t. 9lorencio &ngeles sho+s that it +as too brief and short.

Respondent @udge did not e8amine him 5in the form of searching uestions and ans+ers5. 0n the

contrary, the uestions ased +ere leading as they called for a simple 5yes5 or 5no5 ans+er. &s held in

1uintero #s4 &, 5the uestions propounded by respondent 78ecutive @udge to the applicant


20/127

G.R. No. 8151" Mar-+ 1 of the Ae+ !abor

Code in relation to &rticle >2 of the same code.

This 0R7R is +ithout preDudice to your criminal prosecution under e8isting

la+s.


21/127

one in the City of Manila, this >th day of Aovember, %123.

*. 0n @anuary $), %122 607& irector on !icensing and Regulation &tty. 7stelita B. 7spiritu

issued an office order designating respondents &tty. Marue, &tty. @ovencio &bara and &tty.

7rnesto 'istro as members of a team tased to implement Closure and Seiure 0rder Ao. %$4*

oing so, the group assisted by Mandaluyong policemen and mediamen !ito Castillo of the

6eople. The premises invaded by your Mr. 9erdi Marue and five (*# others (including

$ policemen# are thepri#ate residence of the +ala"ar family, and the entry,

search as +ell as the seiure of the personal properties belonging to our client

+ere +ithout her consent and +ere done +ith unreasonable force and

intimidation, together +ith grave abuse of the color of authority, and constitute

robbery and violation of domicile under &rts. $1> and %$2 of the Revised 6enal

Code.

Enless said personal properties +orth around T7A T0ES&A 67S0S

(6%4,444.44# in all (and +hich +ere already due for shipment to @apan# are

returned +ithin t+enty-four ($# hours from your receipt hereof, +e shall feel free

to tae all legal action, civil and criminal, to protect our client


22/127

Ender the ne+ Constitution, +hich states/

. . . no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e8cept upon probable cause to be

determined personally by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the

complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be

searched and the persons or things to be seied. >

it is only a Dudge +ho may issue +arrants of search and arrest. ;"n one case, it +as declared that mayors may

not e8ercise this po+er/

888 888 888

But it must be emphasied here and no+ that +hat has Dust been described is the state of the

la+ as it +as in September, %12*. The la+ has since been altered. Ao longer does the mayor

have at this time the po+er to conduct preliminary investigations, much less issue orders of

arrest. Section %> of the !ocal Fovernment Code, conferring this po+er on the mayor has

been abrogated, renderedfunctus officio by the %123 Constitution +hich too effect on 9ebruary

$, %123, the date of its ratification by the 9ilipino people. Section $, &rticle """ of the %123

Constitution pertinently provides that 5no search +arrant or +arrant of arrest shall issue e8cept

upon probable cause to be determined personally by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or

affirmation of the complainant and the +itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing

the place to be searched and the person or things to be seied.5 The constitutional proscription

has thereby been manifested that thenceforth, the function of determining probable cause andissuing, on the basis thereof, +arrants of arrest or search +arrants, may be validly e8ercised

only by Dudges, this being evidenced by the elimination in the present Constitution of the phrase,

5such other responsible officer as may be authoried by la+5 found in the counterpart provision

of said %13> Constitution, +ho, aside from Dudges, might conduct preliminary investigations and

issue +arrants of arrest or search +arrants. 2, paragraph (c#, of the !abor Code, as no+ +ritten, +as entered as an amendment by 6residential

ecrees Aos. %1$4 and $4%2 of the late 6resident 9erdinand Marcos, to 6residential ecree Ao. %)1>, in the

e8ercise of his legislative po+ers under &mendment Ao. ) of the %13> Constitution. Ender the latter, the then

Minister of !abor merely e8ercised recommendatory po+ers/

(c# The Minister of !abor or his duly authoried representative shall have the po+er to

recommend the arrest and detention of any person engaged in illegal recruitment.6

0n May %, %12, Mr. Marcos promulgated 6residential ecree Ao. %1$4, +ith the avo+ed purpose of giving

more teeth to the campaign against illegal recruitment. The ecree gave the Minister of !abor arrest and

closure po+ers/

(b# The Minister of !abor and 7mployment shall have the po+er to cause the arrest and

detention of such non-licensee or non-holder of authority if after proper investigation it is

determined that his activities constitute a danger to national security and public order or +ill lead

to further e8ploitation of Dob-seeers. The Minister shall order the closure of companies,

establishment and entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of +orers for overseas

employment, +ithout having been licensed or authoried to do so. $


23/127

0n @anuary $), %12), he, Mr. Marcos, promulgated 6residential ecree Ao. $4%2, giving the !abor Minister

search and seiure po+ers as +ell/

(c# The Minister of !abor and 7mployment or his duly authoried representatives shall have the

po+er to cause the arrest and detention of such non-licensee or non-holder of authority if after

investigation it is determined that his activities constitute a danger to national security and public

order or +ill lead to further e8ploitation of Dob-seeers. The Minister shall order the search of the

office or premises and seiure of documents, paraphernalia, properties and other implements

used in illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies, establishment and entities

found to be engaged in the recruitment of +orers for overseas employment, +ithout having

been licensed or authoried to do so. 8

The above has no+ been etched as &rticle >2, paragraph (c# of the !abor Code.

The decrees in uestion, it is +ell to note, stand as the dying vestiges of authoritarian rule in its t+ilight

moments.

;e reiterate that the Secretary of !abor, not being a Dudge, may no longer issue search or arrest +arrants.

ence, the authorities must go through the Dudicial process. To that e8tent, +e declare &rticle >2, paragraph

(c#, of the !abor Code, unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

The Solicitor Feneral3 of the

"mmigration !a+. ;e have ruled that in deportation cases, an arrest (of an undesirable alien# ordered by the6resident or his duly authoried representatives, in order to carry out a final decision of deportation is valid. 1""t

is valid, ho+ever, because of the recognied supremacy of the 78ecutive in matters involving foreign affairs.

;e have held/ 11

888 888 888

The State has the inherent po+er to deport undesirable aliens (Chuoco Tiaco vs. 9orbes, $$2

E.S. *1, *3 !. 7d. 1)4, 4 6hil. %%$$, %%$*#. That po+er may be e8ercised by the Chief

78ecutive 5+hen he deems such action necessary for the peace and domestic tranuility of the

nation.5 @ustice @ohnson,

*)2, *)1? "n re McCulloch ic, >2 6hil. %#.

The right of a country to e8pel or deport aliens because their continued presence is detrimental

to public +elfare is absolute and unualified (Tiu Chun ai and Fo Tam vs. Commissioner of

"mmigration and the irector of AB", %4 6hil. 11, 1*)#. 1>

The po+er of the 6resident to order the arrest of aliens for deportation is, obviously, e8ceptional. "t (the po+er

to order arrests# can not be made to e8tend to other cases, lie the one at bar. Ender the Constitution, it is the

sole domain of the courts.

Moreover, the search and seiure order in uestion, assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that it +as validly issued,

is clearly in the nature of a general +arrant/

6ursuant to the po+ers vested in me under 6residential ecree Ao. %1$4 and 78ecutive 0rder

Ao. %4$$, " hereby order the C!0SER7 of your recruitment agency being operated at Ao. )%*R.0. Santos St., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila and the seiure of the documents and

paraphernalia being used or intended to be used as the means of committing illegal recruitment,

it having verified that you have L

(%# Ao valid license or authority from the epartment of !abor and 7mployment

to recruit and deploy +orers for overseas employment?

($# Committed=are committing acts prohibited under &rticle > of the Ae+ !abor

Code in relation to &rticle >2 of the same code.

This 0R7R is +ithout preDudice to your criminal prosecution under e8isting la+s. 1;

;e have held that a +arrant must identify clearly the things to be seied, other+ise, it is null and void, thus/


24/127

888 888 888

&nother factor +hich maes the search +arrants under consideration constitutionally

obDectionable is that they are in the nature of general +arrants. The search +arrants describe

the articles sought to be seied in this +ise/

%# &ll printing euipment, paraphernalia, paper, in, photo euipment,

type+riters, cabinets, tables, communications= recording euipment, tape

recorders, dictaphone and the lie used and=or connected in the printing of the

5;7 90REM5 ne+spaper and any and all documents=communications, letters

and facsimile of prints related to the 5;7 90REM5 ne+spaper.

$# Subversive documents, pamphlets, leaflets, boos, and other publications to

promote the obDectives and purposes of the subversive organiations no+n as

Movement for 9ree 6hilippines, !ight-a-9ire Movement and &pril ) Movement?

and

># Motor vehicles used in the distribution=circulation of the 5;7 90REM5 and

other subversive materials and propaganda, more particularly,

%# Toyota-Corolla, colored yello+ +ith 6late Ao. A& 21$?

$# &TSEA, pic-up colored +hite +ith 6late Ao. A' 1)1?

># & delivery truc +ith 6late Ao. ABS *$?

# T0G0T&-T&M&R&;, colored +hite +ith 6late Ao. 6B6 ))*? and*# T0G0T& i-!u8, pic-up truc +ith 6late Ao. AF' 3$ +ith maring 5Bagong

Silang.5

"n +tanford #.+tate of 2exas,the search +arrant +hich authoried the search for 5boos,

records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists, memoranda, pictures, recordings and other +ritten

instruments concerning the Communist 6arties of Te8as, and the operations of the Community

6arty in Te8as,5 +as declared void by the E.S. Supreme Court for being too general. "n lie

manner, directions to 5seie any evidence in connection +ith the violation of SC %>->34> or

other+ise5 have been held too general, and that portion of a search +arrant +hich authoried

the seiure of any 5paraphernalia +hich could be used to violate Sec. *-%13 of the Connecticut

Feneral Statutes (the statute dealing +ith the crime of conspiracy#5 +as held to be a general

+arrant, and therefore invalid. The description of the articles sought to be seied under the

search +arrants in uestion cannot be characteried differently.

"n the Stanford case, the E.S. Supreme court calls to mind a notable chapter in 7nglish history?

the era of disaccord bet+een the Tudor Fovernment and the 7nglish 6ress, +hen 50fficers of

the Cro+n +ere given roving commissions to search +here they pleased in order to suppress

and destroy the literature of dissent both Catholic and 6uritan.5 Reference herein to such

historical episode +ould not be relevant for it is not the policy of our government to suppress

any ne+spaper or publication that speas +ith 5the voice of non-conformity5 but poses no clear

and imminent danger to state security. 12, paragraph (c# of the !abor Code is declared

EAC0AST"TET"0A&! and null and void. The respondents are 0R7R7 to return all materials seied as a

result of the implementation of Search and Seiure 0rder Ao. %$4*.

Ao costs. S0 0R7R7.


25/127

G.R. No. L!9, 19;$NAR(ISO AL7ARE,petitioner,vs.

THE (O0RT OF FIRST INSTAN(E OF TA%ABAS an' THE ANTI!0S0R% BOARD,respondents.

IMPERIAL, J.:The petitioner ass that the +arrant of @une >, %1>), issued by the Court of 9irst "nstance of Tayabas, ordering

the search of his house and the seiure, at any time of the day or night, of certain accounting boos,

documents and papers belonging to him in his residence situated in "nfanta, 6rovince of Tayabas, as +ell as

the order of a later date, authoriing the agents of the &nti-Esury Board to retain the articles seied, be

declared illegal and set aside, and prays that all the articles in uestion be returned to him.

0n the date above-mentioned, the chief of the secret service of the &nti-Esury Board, of the epartment of

@ustice, presented to @udge 7duardo Futierre avid then presiding over the Court of 9irst "nstance of

Tayabas, an affidavit alleging that according to reliable information, the petitioner ept in his house in "nfanta,

Tayabas, boos, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by him in connection +ith his activities

as a money-lender charging usurious rates of interest in violation of the la+. "n his oath at the and of the

affidavit, the chief of the secret service stated that his ans+ers to the uestions +ere correct to the best of his

no+ledge and belief. e did not s+ear to the truth of his statements upon his o+n no+ledge of the facts but

upon the information received by him from a reliable person. Epon the affidavit in uestion the @udge, on saiddate, issued the +arrant +hich is the subDect matter of the petition, ordering the search of the petitioner to %1>),

one ledger, t+o Dournals, t+o cashboos, nine order boos, four noteboos, four checs stubs, t+o

memorandums, three banboos, t+o contracts, four stubs, forty-eight stubs of purchases of copra, t+o

inventories, t+o bundles of bills of lading, one bundle of credit receipts, one bundle of stubs of purchases of

copra, t+o pacages of correspondence, one receipt boo belonging to !uis 9ernande, fourteen bundles of

invoices and other papers many documents and loan contracts +ith security and promissory notes, *4 chits,

promissory notes and stubs of used checs of the ongong J Shanghai Baning Corporation. The search for

and a seiure of said articles +ere made +ith the opposition of the petitioner +ho stated his protest belo+ the

inventories on the ground that the agents seied even the originals of the documents. &s the articles had not

been brought immediately to the Dudge +ho issued the search +arrant, the petitioner, through his attorney, filed

a motion on @une 2, %1>), praying that the agent 7milio !. Siongco, or any other agent, be ordered

immediately to deposit all the seied articles in the office of the cler of court and that said agent be declared

guilty of contempt for having disobeyed the order of the court. 0n said date the court issued an order directing

7milio !. Siongco to deposit all the articles seied +ithin t+enty-four hours from the receipt of notice thereof

and giving him a period of five (*# days +ithin +hich to sho+ cause +hy he should not be punished for

contempt of court. 0n @une %4th, &ttorney &rsenio Rodrigue, representing the &nti-Esury Board, filed a

motion praying that the order of the 2th of said month be set aside and that the &nti-Esury Board be authoriedto retain the articles seied for a period of thirty (>4# days for the necessary investigation. The attorney for the

petitioner, on @une $4th, filed another motion alleging that, not+ithstanding the order of the 2th of said month,

the officials of the &nti-Esury Board had failed to deposit the articles seied by them and praying that a search

+arrant be issued, that the sheriff be ordered to tae all the articles into his custody and deposit of the &nti-

Esury Board be punished for contempt of court. Said attorney, on @une $th, filed an e8 parte petition alleging

that +hile agent 7milio !. Siongco had deposited some documents and papers in the office of the cler of

court, he had so far failed to file an inventory duly verified by oath of all the documents seied by him, to return

the search +arrant together +ith the affidavit it presented in support thereof, or to present the report of the

proceedings taen by him? and prayed that said agent be directed to filed the documents in uestion


26/127

immediately. 0n the $*th of said month the court issued an order reuiring agent 7milio !. Siongco forth+ith to

file the search +arrant and the affidavit in the court, together +ith the proceedings taen by him, and to present

an inventory duly verified by oath of all the articles seied. 0n @uly $d of said year, the attorney for the

petitioner filed another petition alleging that the search +arrant issue +as illegal and that it had nit yet been

returned to date together +ith the proceedings taen in connection there+ith, and praying that said +arrant be

cancelled, that an order be issued directing the return of all the articles seied to the petitioner, that the agent

+ho seied them be declared guilty of contempt of court, and that charges be filed against him for abuse of

authority. 0n September %4, %1>), the court issued an order holding/ that the search +arrant +as obtained and

issued in accordance +ith the la+, that it had been duly complied +ith and, conseuently, should not be

cancelled, and that agent 7milio !. Siongco did not commit any contempt of court and must, therefore, be

e8onerated, and ordering the chief of the &nti-Esury Board in Manila to sho+ case, if any, +ithin the

une8tendible period of t+o ($# days from the date of notice of said order, +hy all the articles seied appearing

in the inventory, 78hibit %, should not be returned to the petitioner. The assistant chief of the &nti-Esury Board

of the epartment of @ustice filed a motion praying, for the reasons stated therein, that the articles seied be

ordered retained for the purpose of conducting an investigation of the violation of the &nti-Esury !a+

committed by the petitioner. "n vie+ of the opposition of the attorney for the petitioner, the court, on September

$*th, issued an order reuiring the &nti-Esury Board to specify the time needed by it to e8amine the

documents and papers seied and +hich of them should be retained, granting it a period of five (*# days for

said purpose. 0n the >4th of said month the assistant chief of the &nti-Esury Board filed a motion praying thathe be granted ten (%4# days to comply +ith the order of September $*th and that the cler of court be ordered

to return to him all the documents and papers together +ith the inventory thereof. The court, in an order of

0ctober $d of said year, granted him the additional period of ten(%4# days and ordered the cler of court to

send him a copy of the inventory. 0n 0ctober %4th, said official again filed another motion alleging that he

needed si8ty ()4# days to e8amine the documents and papers seied, +hich are designated on pages % to of

the inventory by Aos. *, %4%), $>, $*, $), $3, >4, >%, >, >), >3, >2, >1, 4, %, $, > and *, and praying

that he be granted said period of si8ty ()4# days. "n an order of 0ctober %)th, the court granted him the period

of si8ty ()4# days to investigate said nineteen (%1# documents. The petitioner alleges, and it is not denied by

the respondents, that these nineteen (%1#documents continue in the possession of the court, the rest having

been returned to said petitioner.

". & search +arrant is an order in +riting, issued in the name of the 6eople of the 6hilippine "slands,

signed by a Dudge or a Dustice of the peace, and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search

for personal property and bring it before the court (section 1*, Feneral 0rders. Ao. *2, as amended by

section ) of &ct Ao. $22)#. 0f all the rights of a citien, fe+ are of greater importance or more essential

to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves the e8emption of his

private affairs, boos, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of others ( n re 6acific Rail+ays

Commission, >$ 9ed., $%? "nterstate Commerce Commission vs Brimson, >2 !a+. ed., %43? Broyd

#s4E. S., $1 !a+. ed., 3)? Caroll #s4E. S., )1 !a+. ed., *>, *1#. ;hile the po+er to search and

seie is necessary to the public +elfare, still it must be e8ercised and the la+ enforced +ithout

transgressing the constitutional rights or citien, for the enforcement of no statue is of sufficient

importance to Dustify indifference to the basis principles of government (6eople #s47lias, %3 A. 7.,3$#.

"". &s the protection of the citien 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 encroachment upon, or gradual

depreciation on, the rights secured by them(State #s4Custer County, %12 6ac., >)$? State #s4

Mcaniel, $>% 6ac., 1)*? $>3 6ac., >3>#. Since the proceeding is a drastic one, it is the general rule

that statutes authoriing searches and seiure or search +arrants must be strictly construed (Rose #s4

St. Clair, $2 9ed., H$dI, %21? !eonard #s4E. S., ) 9ed. H$dI, >*>? 6erry #s4E. S. % 9ed. H$dI,22? Cofer

#s4State, %%2 So., )%>#.


27/127

""". The petitioner claims that the search +arrant issued by the court is illegal because it has been

based upon the affidavit of agent Mariano F. &lmeda in +hose oath he declared that he had no

personal no+ledge of the facts +hich +ere to serve as a basis for the issuance of the +arrant but that

he had no+ledge thereof through mere information secured from a person +hom he considered

reliable. To the uestion 5;hat are your reason for applying for this search +arrant5, appearing in the

affidavit, the agent ans+ered/ 5"t has been reported to me by a person +hom " consider to be reliable

that there are being ept in said premises, boos, documents, receipts, lists, chits, and other papers

used by him in connection +ith his activities as a money-lender, charging a usurious rate of interest, in

violation of the la+5 and in attesting the truth of his statements contained in the affidavit, the said agent

states that he found them to be correct and true to the best of his no+ledge and belief.

Section %, paragraph >, of &rticle """ of the Constitution, relative to the bill of rights, provides that 5The

right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable

searches and seiures shall not be violated, and no +arrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to

be determined by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the

+itnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place top be searched, and the persons or

things to be seied.5 Section 13 of Feneral 0rders, Ao. *2 provides that 5& search +arrant shall not

issue e8cept for probable cause and upon application supported by oath particularly describing the

place to be searched and the person or thing to be seied.5 "t +ill be noted that both provisions reuire

that there be not only probable cause before the issuance of a search +arrant but that the search+arrant must be based upon an application supported by oath of the applicant ands the +itnesses he

may produce. "n its broadest sense, an oath includes any form of attestation by +hich a party signifies

that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully? and it is sometimes defined

asan out+ard pledge given by the person taing it that his attestation or promise is made under an

immediate sense of his responsibility to Fod (Bouvier3 A. ;.,

%4>? n re Sage, $ 0h. Cir. Ct. HA. S.I, 3? 6umphery #s4State, %$$ A. ;., %1? 6riest #s4State, ) A.

;., )2? State #s4@ones, %* 6ac., >32? &t+ood #s4State, %%% So., 2)*#. The oath reuired must refer

to the truth of the facts +ithin the personal no+ledge of the petitioner or his +itnesses, because the

purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual maing the affidavit and

seeing the issuance of the +arrant, of the e8istence of probable cause (E. S. #s4Tureaud, $4 9ed.,

)$%? E. S. #s4Michalsi, $)* 9ed., 2>1? E. S. #s46itotto, $)3 9ed., )4>? E. S. #s4!ai Che+, $12 9ed.,

)*$#. The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to +arrant issuance of a search +arrant is +hether it has

been dra+n in such a manner that perDury could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for

damages caused (State #s4Roosevelt Country $4th @ud. is. Ct., $ 6ac., $24? State #s4uartier,

$>) 6ac., 3)#.

"t +ill lie+ise be noted that section %, paragraph >, of &rticle """ of the Constitution prohibits

unreasonable searches and seiure. Enreasonable searches and seiures are a menace against +hich

the constitutional guarantee afford full protection. The term 5unreasonable search and seiure5 is not

defined in the Constitution or in Feneral 0rders Ao. *2, and it is said to have no fi8ed, absolute or

unchangeable meaning, although the term has been defined in general language. &ll illegal searches

and seiure are unreasonable +hile la+ful ones are reasonable. ;hat constitutes a reasonable orunreasonable search or seiure in any particular case is purely a Dudicial uestion, determinable from a

consideration of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search, the presence or

absence or probable cause, the manner in +hich the search and seiure +as made, the place or thing

searched, and the character of the articles procured (Fo-Bart "mporting Co. #s4E. S. 3* !a+. ed., >3?

6eru #s4E. S., 9ed., H$dI, 22%?E. S. #s4'atune, $1$ 9ed., 13? &ngelo #s4E. S. 34 !a+, ed., %*?

!ambert #s4E. S. $2$ 9ed., %>? E. S. #s4Bateman, $32 9ed., $>%? Mason #s4Rollins, %) 9ed. Cas.

HAo. 1$*$I, $ Biss., 11#.

"n vie+ of the foregoing and under the above-cited authorities, it appears that the affidavit, +hich served

as the e8clusive basis of the search +arrant, is insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the


28/127

manner in +hich the oath +as made, and therefore, it is hereby held that the search +arrant in uestion

and the subseuent seiure of the boos, documents and other papers are illegal and do not in any

+ay +arrant the deprivation to +hich the petitioner +as subDected.

"'. &nother ground alleged by the petitioner in asing that the search +arrant be declared illegal and

cancelled is that it +as not supported by other affidavits aside from that made by the applicant. "n other

+ords, it is contended that the search +arrant cannot be issued unless it be supported by affidavits

made by the applicant and the +itnesses to be presented necessity by him. Section %, paragraph >, of

&rticle """ of the Constitution provides that no +arrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be

determined by the Dudge after e8amination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the

+itnesses he may produce. Section 12 of Feneral 0rders, Ao. *2 provides that the Dudge or Dustice

must, before issuing the +arrant, e8amine under oath the complainant and any +itnesses he may

produce and tae their depositions in +riting. "t is the practice in this Durisdiction to attach the affidavit of

at least the applicant or complainant to the application. "t is admitted that the Dudge +ho issued the

search +arrant in this case, relied e8clusively upon the affidavit made by agent Mariano F. &lmeda and

that he did not reuire nor tae the deposition of any other +itness. Aeither the Constitution nor

Feneral 0rders. Ao. *2 provides that it is of imperative necessity to tae the deposition of the

+itnesses to be presented by the applicant or complainant in addition to the affidavit of the latter. The

purpose of both in reuiring the presentation of depositions is nothing more than to satisfy the

committing magistrate of the e8istence of probable cause. Therefore, if the affidavit of the applicant orcomplainant is sufficient, the Dudge may dispense +ith that of other +itnesses. "nasmuch as the affidavit

of the agent in this case +as insufficient because his no+ledge of the facts +as not personal but

merely hearsay, it is the duty of the Dudge to reuire the affidavit of one or more +itnesses for the

purpose of determining the e8istence of probable cause to +arrant the issuance of the search +arrant.

;hen the affidavit of the applicant of the complaint contains sufficient facts +ithin his personal and

direct no+ledge, it is sufficient if the Dudge is satisfied that there e8ist probable cause? +hen the

applicant? E. S. #s4Boro+si, $)2 9ed., 42? "n re Tri-State Coal J Coe Co., $*> 9ed., )4*?

6eople #s4Mayen, %22 Cal., $>3? 6eople #s4ahn, $*) "ll. &pp., %$*#? but +here, by the nature of the

goods to be seied, their description must be rather generally, it is not reuired that a technical

description be given, as this +ould mean that no +arrant could issue (6eople #s4Rubio, *3 6hil., $2?

6eople #s4ahn, supra#. The only description of the articles given in the affidavit presented to the Dudge

+as as follo+s/ 5that there are being ept in said premises boos

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	milcah-mae-pascual
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

constitutional law 2 searches & seizure cases.doc

Documents