Frank Uy & Unifish Packing Corp.
v BIR Issue: Whether or not the search warrant is valid, considering
Facts:
 Rodrigo Abos, a former Operating Chief of Unifish,
reported to the BIR that petitioners are committing acts
in violation of the National Internal Revenue Code
o Selling by the thousands cartons of canned
sardines without issuing receipts
o Selling of imported oil and cans to local
customers, when these exempted from tax on
the condition that they are to be used in the
manufacturing of tuna for export
 Nestor Labaria, Asst. Chief of the Special Investigation
Branch of the BIR applied for search warrants, which
the RTC Judge Gozo issued for violation of Sec 153 of
the NIRCode
 A second warrant was issued, almost identical to the
first, except for the city address (changed from Cebu
City to Mandaue City), and the addition of “alias Frank
Uy”
 A third warrant was issued for violations of Sec 238 of
the NIRCode. Aside from this, it was identical to the first
two warrants issued
 Acting on these warrants, BIR agents seized the
records and documents of Unifish
the facts that there are: A) inconsistencies with the description
of place to be searched; B) inconsistencies with the names of
the persons against whom the warrants were issued; C) two
warrants issued for the same crime, same place and same
occasion; D) doubts as to existence of probable cause; and E)
doubts as to particularity of description of the things to be
seized.
Ruling:
A. Place to be searched
 It was not shown that there were two “Hernan Cortes
St.” in Cebu and Mandaue; further, the officers tasked
with the search had no difficulty in locating the place to
be searched, and was able to distinguish the same from
all other places in the community. Hence, it satisfied
the constitutional requirement in particularity of the
place to be searched.
B. Persons named in the warrant
 When the search is for specifically described premises
and not for the search of a person, the failure to name
such person does not invalidate the search warrant;
even if the person is named incorrectly, it is not a
defect so fatal that it voids the whole warrant
C. Two warrants for the same crime, place and occasion E. Things to be seized

 The second search warrant was issued merely for the  The description of things to be seized must be as
purpose of correction; it was an attempt of the Judge to specific as the circumstances allow, and limited to
be more precise in the parties whom the warrant was those with direct relation to the offense
issued against, and the place to be searched  The description of places, amounts, persons, and other
 Regarding the first two warrants, which were issued for pertinent data must have been included by the Judge,
the same crime, place and occasion, the first warrant considering that he was provided with photocopies of
should be deemed revoked by the second. the same—the circumstance allows for a more specific
description of the things to be seized
 But as to the terms “unregistered delivery receipts” and
D. Existence of probable cause “unregistered purchase and sales invoices”, serial
markings need not be specified, as it is impossible
 Probable cause must be issued after personal
because they are unregistered
determination of the Judge based on the testimonies of
 A search warrant is severable; lack of particularity with
the complainant and his witnesses, which in turn must
certain things does not render the others void
be based on their personal knowledge
 Labaria’s testimony is hearsay, as he had no personal
knowledge of the fraudulent acts of Unifish, and only
relied upon the knowledge of Abos
 The warrant however was not issued based solely on
Labaria’s testimony, but also Abos’
 Abos had personal knowledge of the fraudulent acts of
the company as he was a former Operating Chief of the
same; in fact, he testified to the extent of describing
the places, with accompanying sketches, and providing
photocopied documents which prove the violations
being committed by the company