Title

Bache and Co. , Inc. vs. Ruiz

Case Ponente Decision Date

G.R. No. L-32409 VILLAMOR, J Feb 27, 1971

In the case of Bache and Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Ruiz, the Supreme Court declared
a search warrant null and void due to the respondent Judge's failure to
personally examine the complait and his witness, the issuance of the
warrant for more than one speci!c o"ense, and the lack of a particular
description of the things to be seized, resulting in the return of the seized
documents and the prohibition of their use against the petitioners.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32409)

GPT-4o (v3)

Facts:

In the case of "Bache & Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Ruiz," the petitioners, Bache & Co.
(Phil.), Inc., a corporation organized under Philippine laws, and its President,
Frederick E. Seggerman, sought to nullify Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 issued by
Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz on February 25, 1970. The warrant was requested by
Misael P. Vera, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, for alleged violations of
Section 46(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code and other related
provisions. Revenue Examiner Rodolfo de Leon and witness Arturo Logronio
applied for the warrant, which was issued without the judge personally
examining the complainant and witness. The search was conducted on
February 28, 1970, at the petitioners' o#ce in Makati, Rizal, resulting in the
seizure of six boxes of documents. Petitioners !led a motion to quash the
warrant, which was denied by the Court of First Instance of Rizal on July 29,
1970. Subsequently, the Bureau of Internal Revenue issued tax assessments
against the corporation based on the seized documents. The petitioners then
:
 brought the case to the Supreme Court, seeking to declare the search warrant
null and void, to stop the enforcement of the tax assessments, and to return the
seized documents.

Issue:

1. Did the respondent Judge fail to personally examine the complainant and
his witness before issuing the search warrant?

2. Was the search warrant issued for more than one speci!c o"ense?

3. Did the search warrant fail to particularly describe the things to be seized?

Ruling:

1. Yes, the respondent Judge failed to personally examine the complainant

and his witness.

2. Yes, the search warrant was issued for more than one speci!c o"ense.

3. Yes, the search warrant did not particularly describe the things to be seized.

Ratio:

The Supreme Court ruled that the search warrant was null and void for several
reasons. First, the respondent Judge did not personally examine the
complainant and his witness, as required by the Constitution and the Revised
Rules of Court. The examination was conducted by the Deputy Clerk of Court,
and the judge merely listened to the stenographer's reading of the notes, which
did not ful!ll the requirement of personal examination. Second, the search
warrant was issued for multiple o"enses under di"erent sections of the
National Internal Revenue Code, violating the rule that a search warrant must
be issued in connection with one speci!c o"ense. Third, the description of the
items to be seized was too broad and general, failing to meet the constitutional
requirement of particularity. The Court emphasized that the purpose of these
requirements is to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures and to protect
individual rights. The Court also noted that the use of the seized documents for
:
 tax assessments while the legality of the search was still pending showed a lack
of respect for judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Court permanently
enjoined the enforcement of the search warrant and the tax assessments based
on the seized documents, and ordered the return of the documents to the
petitioners.
: