YEE SUE KUY V ALMEDA

G.R. NO. 47021, JUNE 25, 1940

FACTS:

Mariano G. Almeda, chief agent of the Usury Board and respondent, applied for a
search warrant and was approved on the same date, May 5, 1938, before the justice of
the peace of Sagay, Occidental Negros. They applied for it after taking testimonies of
himself and Jose Estrada, special agent of the Usury Board. They claimed that Sam
Sing & Co. is practicing the lending of money with usurious rates. On the same date,
they seized various materials from the petitioners which include notebooks, etc. that are
used to keep track of their money lending scheme. Petitioners protested that the search
and seizure was unconstitutional because the warrant is illegal as it had been applied
three days after the search of their place of business. After many motions on claiming
that the search was illegal and unconstitutional, the petitioners now file a petition to the
Supreme Court on two grounds which were 1) illegal because it was allegedly applied
three days after the search operation, and; 2) illegal because it is unreasonable and
violates the petitioners constitutional right against compelling the accused to testify
against themselves.

Issue: Whether or not the respondents have probable cause in applying for the search
warrant?

Ruling:

Yes. Respondents have probable cause in this case. The Supreme Court stated
that the respondent properly followed with the formalities prescribed by section 1,
paragraph 3, of Article 3 of the Constitution and section 97 of General Orders No. 58.
The respondents swore in their applications and testimonies that they have done their
extensive personal investigations before applying for the said search warrant. They
interviewed dozens of the victims and ensured that the petitioners were indeed lending
money without a license and at usurious rates. If the facts had been stated otherwise in
their testimonies, then they would be held liable for perjury. It had also been stated in the
warrant itself that the Court of First Instance had examined their testimonies and had
found that there is a just and probable cause for the issuance of the said warrant. The
description of the items to be seized is sufficient as it is not too specific or technical.

Therefore the petition is dismissed.