Alvarez vs. CFI
Alvarez vs. CFI
GR No. L-45358
Alvarez vs. The Court of First Instance
J. Imperial
[not my digest]
IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Judge Eduardo Gutierrez David Pres. Judge, CFI Tayabas; respondent
Narciso Alvarez petitioner
FACTS
1. Jun. 3, 1936: the chief of of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board went to
respondent Judge alleging that according to reliable information, petitioner is
keeping in his house in Infanta, Tayabas documents, receipts, lists, chits and
other papers used by him in connection with his activities as a money lender
charging usurious rates of interest in violation of the law.
2. In his oath, the chief of the secret service did not swear to the truth of his
statements upon his knowledge of the facts but the information received by him
from a reliable person. Upon this questioned affidavit, the judge issued the
search warrant, ordering the search of the petitioners house at any time of the
day or night, the seizure of the books and documents and the immediate delivery
of such to respondent Judge.
3. With said warrant, several agents of the Anti-Usury Board entered petitioner's
store and residence at 7 o'clock of the night and seized and took possession of
various articles belonging to the petitioner.
4. Petitioner asks that the warrant of issued by CFI Tayabas, ordering the search of
his house and the seizure, at anytime of the day or night, of certain accounting
books, documents, and papers belonging to him in his residence situated in
Infanta, Tayabas, as well as the order of a later date, authorizing the agents of
the Anti-Usury board to retain the articles seized, be declared illegal and set
aside, and prays that all the articles in question be returned to him.
ISSUE W/ HOLDING
1. What is the nature of searches and seizures as contemplated in the law?
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.
Of all the rights of a citizen, few are of greater importance or more
essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security,
1
and that involves the exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers
from the inspection and scrutiny of others.
While the power to search and seize is necessary to the public welfare,
still it must be exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the
constitutional rights of citizens.
As the protection of the citizen 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. Since the
proceeding is a drastic one, it is the general rule that statutes authorizing
searches and seizure or search warrants must be strictly construed.
Unreasonable searches and seizures are a menace against which the
constitutional guarantee afford full protection. The term "unreasonable
search and seizure" is not defined in the Constitution or in General Orders
No. 58, and it is said to have no fixed, absolute or unchangeable meaning,
although the term has been defined in general language.
All illegal searches and seizure are unreasonable while lawful ones are
reasonable. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search or
seizure in any particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable
from a consideration of the circumstances involved, including:
o the purpose of the search,
o the presence or absence or probable cause,
o the manner in which the search and seizure was made,
o the place or thing searched, and
o the character of the articles procured.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Petition granted.