[133] Leona Pasion Vda. De Garcia v Diego Locsin therefor issued by him to Salas.
therefor issued by him to Salas. The papers and documents seized
G.R. No. L-45950 | June 20, 1938 | Laurel, J. were kept for a considerable length of time by the Anti-Usury Board
and thereafter were turned over by it to the respondent fiscal
Petitioner: LEONA PASION VIUDA DE GARCIA Fiscal filed six separate criminal cases against the herein petitioner for
Respondents: DIEGO LOCSIN, Judge of First Instance of Tarlac, violation of the Anti-Usury Law.
FELIX IMPERIAL, Provincial Fiscal of Tarlac, and the ANTI-USURY BOARD After seizure, the petitioner, through counsel, demanded from the
respondent Anti-Usury Board the return of the documents seized, but
Summary: denied.
Anti-Usury Board agent obtained from Justice of Peace a search warrant Petitioner then challenged legality of search warrant, judge denied.
commanding any officer of the law to search the person, house or store of
Garcia for certain books, lists, chits, receipts, documents and other papers Issues:
relating to her activities as usurer. The warrant was issued upon an affidavit W/N the search warrant was legal? No
given by the same Anti-Usury Board agent. Garcia was not there, so the W/N Petitioner waived her constitutional immunity? No
warrant was served to her bookkeeper, Salas.
Ratio:
Doctrine: First Issue:
Constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a BoR: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
personal right which may be waived. However, the immunity is personal in papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall
nature—it cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights are not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable
invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her behalf. The cause, to be judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
failure on the part of the petitioner to resist or object to the execution of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
warrant does not constitute an implied waiver of constitutional right. A describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not consent, but is merely a seized.
demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. No waiver by Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is declared a
implication, especially because she had verbally demanded through counsel, popular right and for a search warrant to be valid
prior to institution of the criminal case, her demand of the seized items. Search o it must be issued upon probable cause
invalid. o the probable cause must be determined by the judge
himself and not by the applicant or any other person
Facts: o in the determination of probable cause, the judge must
Petition for mandamus presented to secure the annulment of a examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and
search warrant and two orders of the respondent judge, and the such witnesses as the latter may produce
restoration of certain documents alleged to have been illegally o the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to
seized by an agent of the Anti-Usuary Board. be searched and persons or things to be seized.
November 10, 1934, Mariano G. Almeda, an agent of the Anti-Usuary In the instant case the existence of probable cause was determined
Board, obtained from the justice of the peace of Tarlac, Tarlac, a not by the judge himself but by the applicant. All that the judge did
search warrant commanding any officer of the law to search the was to accept as true the affidavit made by agent Almeda. He did
person, house or store of the petitioner at Victoria, Tarlac, for "certain not decide for himself. It does not appear that he examined the
books, lists, chits, receipts, documents and other papers relating to applicant and his witnesses, if any.
her activities as usurer." Second Issue:
The search warrant was issued upon an affidavit given by Almeda The constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and
Almeda, accompanied by a captain of the Philippine Constabulary, seizures is a personal right which may be waived. The waiver may be
went to the office of the petitioner in Victoria, Tarlac and, after either express or implied.
showing the search warrant to the petitioner's bookkeeper, Alfredo It is well-settled that to constitute a waiver of a constitutional right, it
Salas, and, without the presence of the petitioner who was ill and must appear,
confined at the time, proceeded with the execution thereof. o first, that the right exists;
Two packages of records and a locked filing cabinet containing o secondly, that the persons involved had knowledge, either
several Papers and documents were seized by Almeda and a receipt actual or constructive, of the existence of such right;
o lastly, that said person had an actual intention to relinquish
the right.
She could not have objected because she was sick and was not
present when the warrant was served upon Alfredo Salas. Certainly,
the constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures,
being a personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except the
person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized
to do so in his or her behalf.
In any event, the failure on the part of the petitioner and her
bookkeeper to resist or object to the execution of the warrant does
not constitute an implied waiver of constitutional right. It is, as Judge
Cooley observes, but a submission to the authority of the law.
As the constitutional guaranty is not dependent upon any affirmative
act of the citizen, the courts do not place the citizen in the position of
either contesting an officer's authority by force, or waiving his
constitutional rights; but instead they hold that a peaceful submission
to a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is
merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law.
Judgment:
The writ prayed for is granted. The search warrant, Exhibit B, is hereby declared
void and of no effect; the orders of October 5, 1937 and January 3, 1938 of the
respondent judge are set aside; and the respondents Anti-Usuary Board and
the provincial fiscal of Tarlac or those acting in their behalf, are hereby
ordered to return and restore to the petitioner all the properties, documents,
papers and effects illegally seized from her, within forty-eight (48) hours from
the time this decision becomes final.
