UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Crim 2

Ruth Angelica Teoxon (B2023) Prof. Arreza

Alvarez vs CFI of Tayabas
G.R. No. 45358 – January 29, 1937
First Division
Ponente: Imperial, J.

ARTICLE/S INVOKED
Sec 2 of Art III of the 1987 Constitution – The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall
issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized.

Art 129, RPC - Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained - In
addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense, the penalty of
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not
exceeding P200,000 shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall procure a search
warrant without just cause, or, having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use
unnecessary severity in executing the same.

CASE SUMMARY
Petitioner Alvarez filed a case against the CFI of Tayabas for issuing a search warrant and allowing the
agents of the Anti-Usury Board to seize and take possession of his documents. In obtaining a search warrant,
the chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board presented an affidavit alleging that the petitioner is a
money-lender charging usurious rates. The chief did not swear to the truth of his statements but upon the
information he received from a person he deemed reliable. Petitioner argues that the search warrant is illegal
on several grounds, while the Anti-Usury Board insinuates that petitioner Alvarez waived his constitutional
right to question the validity of the search warrant. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner,
asserting that the search warrant is indeed illegal on most of the several grounds the petitioner listed down.

FACTS OF THE CASE

● Petitioner asks that the warrant of June 3, 1936 be declared illegal and set aside, and prays that all the
articles in question be returned to him
o Warrant was issued by the Court of First Instance of Tayabas
o Ordered the search of his house and the seizure, at any time of the day or night, of certain
accounting books, documents and papers belonging to him in his residence (Infanta, Tayabas), as
well as the order of a later date, authorizing the agents of the Anti-Usury Board to retain the
articles seized.
● June 3, 1936 – chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board presented to Judge Eduardo David an
affidavit alleging that according to reliable information, petitioner kept in his house “books, 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.
o He DID NOT SWEAR to the truth of his statements, but upon the information received by him
from a reliable person.
o Judge then issued the warrant.
● June 4, 1936 – with said warrant, several agents of the Anti-Usury Board entered the petitioner’s store
and residence at 7PM, and seized several documents1
1
internal revenue licenses for the years 1933 to 1936, one ledger, two journals, two cashbooks, nine order books, four notebooks,
four check stubs, two memorandums, three bankbooks, two contracts, four stubs, forty-eight stubs of purchases of copra, two
inventories, two bundles of bills of lading, one bundle of credit receipts, one bundle of stubs of purchases of copra, two packages
of correspondence, one receipt book belonging to Luis Fernandez, fourteen bundles of invoices and other papers, many documents
and loan contracts with security and promissory notes, 504 chits, promissory notes and stubs of used checks of the Hongkong &
Shanghai Banking Corporation.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Crim 2
Ruth Angelica Teoxon (B2023) Prof. Arreza
o This was made with the opposition of the petitioner who stated his protest below the inventories on
the ground that the agents seized even the originals of the documents.
● Petitioner claims that the search warrant issued by the court is illegal because:
o It has been based upon the affidavit of agent Mariano G. Almeda in whose oath he declared that he
had no personal knowledge of the facts which were to serve as a basis for the issuance of the
warrant but that he had knowledge through mere information secured from another person
o It was not supported by other affidavits aside from that made by the applicant
o It authorized its execution at night
o Lack of adequate description of the books and documents to be seized
o Articles were seized for the purpose of using them as evidence in a criminal case against the
person in whose possession they were found
● Anti-Usury Board insinuated that the petitioner cannot now question the validity of the search warrant or
the proceedings had subsequent to the issuance thereof, because he has waived his constitutional rights
in proposing a compromise whereby he agreed to pay a fine of P200 for the purpose of evading the
criminal proceeding/s
ISSUE/S & RATIO/S (Courts discussion on search warrants is under the NOTES section. Issues will be
discussed here.)
1) W/N search warrant is ilegal if it is based on hearsay
YES, a search warrant is illegal if it is based on hearsay. It appears that the affidavit is insufficient and
fatally defective by reason of the manner in which the oath was made.
● Sec 1 (3), Art III of the (1935) Constitution 2 and Sec 97 of General Orders, No. 58 require that there be
not only probable cause before the issuance of a search warrant but that the search warrant must be based
upon an application supported by oath of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce
o Sec 1(3), Art III of the Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures,
determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved.
o 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 one making the affidavit.
o True test of sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant – whether
it has been drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held
liable for damages caused.
2) W/N the search warrant is illegal because it was not supported by other affidavits aside from
that made by the applicant
YES, the search warrant is illegal as it was based only on the affidavit of the agent who had no personal
knowledge of the facts.
● The judge admitted that he relied exclusively upon the affidavit made by agent Mariano Almeda, and
that he did not require nor take the deposition of any other witness.
o 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.
o Since the affidavit of the agent was insufficient because his knowledge of facts was based on
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.
3) W/N the search warrant can be executed at night
NO, the search warrant in this case cannot be executed at night.
● Sec 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

2
Sec 2, Art III of the 1987 Constitution
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Crim 2
Ruth Angelica Teoxon (B2023) Prof. Arreza
o As the affidavit was declared 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) W/N the search warrant lacked an adequate description of the books and documents to be
seized, thereby making it illegal
NO, the search warrant did not lack an adequate description of the books and documents to be seized.
● Sec 1(3), Art III of the 1935 Constitution and Sec 97 of General Orders, No. 58 provide that the affidavit
to be presented must contain a particular description of the place to be searched and the person or thing
to be seized.
o These provisions are mandatory, but where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their
description must be general, it is not required that a technical description be given.
● The description so made substantially complies with the legal provisions because the officer of the law
who executed the warrant was thereby placed in a position enabling him to identify the articles, which he
did.
5) W/N the search warrant is illegally because the items seized were to be used as evidence in an
investigation (fishing for evidence)
YES, the search warrant issued is illegal. The seizure of books and documents by means of a search warrant
for the purpose of using them as evidence in a criminal case is unconstitutional and is equivalent to a
violation of the constitutional provision3 prohibiting the compulsion of an accused to testify against himself.
6) W/N Alvarez waived his constitutional right to question the validity of the search warrant by
proposing a compromise?
NO, the court is of the opinion that there was no such waiver.
● First, because the petitioner has emphatically denied the offer of compromise and
● Second, if there was a compromise it referred not to the search warrant and the incidents thereof but
to the institution of criminal proceedings for violation of the Anti-Usury Law.
● The waiver would have been a good defense for the respondents had the petitioner voluntarily
consented to the search and seizure of the articles in question, but such was not the case because the
petitioner protested from the beginning and stated his protest in writing in the insu􀀾cient inventory
furnished him by the agents.
RULING
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 SET ASIDE, and it is ordered that the
judge presiding over the CFI of Tayabas direct the immediate return to the petitioner of the nineteen
documents, without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

SEPARATE OPINION/S
● ABAD SANTOS, J – Concurring
o My views on the fundamental questions involved in this case are fully set forth in my
dissenting opinion filed in People vs. Rubio (57 Phil., 384, 395). I am gratified to see that, in
the main, those views have now prevailed. I therefore concur in the decision of the court
herein.
● LAURAL, J – Concurring
o To my mind, the search warrant in this case does not satisfy the constitutional requirement
regarding the particularity of the description of "the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized".
o Reference to "books, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by him in
connection with his activities as money-lender, charging usurious rates of interest in violation
of the law" in the search warrant is so general, loose and vague as to confer unlimited
3
Sec 17, Art III of the 1987 Constitution – No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Crim 2
Ruth Angelica Teoxon (B2023) Prof. Arreza
discretion upon the officer serving the warrant to choose and determine for himself just
what are the "books, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers" used by the petitioner
in connection with his alleged activities as money-lender.
NOTES

● Search Warrant – an order in writing, issued in the name of the People of the PH 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
o While the power to search and seize is necessary to the public welfare, it must be exercised and the
law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of citizens, for the enforcement of no
statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government.
● Constitutional guaranties should be given a liberal/strict construction in favor of the individual, to prevent
stealthy encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation of, the rights secured by them
o It is the general rule that statutes authorizing searched and seizures or search warrants must be strictly
construed.