ALVAREZ V. CFI G.R. No. L-45358 January 29, 1937
FACTS:
l Petitioner Alvarez asks that the warrant issued by Judge Gutierrez ordering the search and seizure of certain accounting documents at any time of day and night as well as the order authorizing the agents of the Anti-Usury Board to retain the articles seized be declared illegal and set aside and the items be returned to him.
l Petitioner contends that Agent Almeda has no personal knowledge of the facts which was served as the basis for the issuance of the warrant. That he got it only from a reliable source. Thus, the search warrant issued is illegal.
l The articles had not been brought immediately to the judge who issued the search warrant.
l The Anti-Usury Board insinuates in its answer 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 or proceedings.
ISSUE:
WON the requirements to find probable cause was sufficiently made by the judge
WON the search and seizure warrant is valid.
HELD:
1.
l NO. Section 98 of General Orders, No. 58 provides that the judge or justice must, before issuing the warrant, examine under oath the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing. It is the practice in this jurisdiction to attach the affidavit of at least the applicant or complainant to the application.
l It is admitted that the judge who issued the search warrant, in this case, relied exclusively upon the affidavit made by agent Mariano G. Almeda and that he did not require nor take the deposition of any other witness. The affidavit of the agent, in this case, was insufficient because his knowledge of the facts was not personal but merely hearsay.
l When the affidavit of the applicant of the complaint contains sufficient facts within his personal and direct knowledge, it is sufficient the judge is satisfied that there existed probable cause;
l when the applicant's knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay, the affidavit of one or more witnesses having a personal knowledge of the fact is necessary.
l We conclude, therefore, that the warrant issued is likewise illegal because it was based only on the affidavit of the agent who had no personal knowledge of the facts.
2
l NO. In view of the foregoing and under the above-cited authorities, it appears that the affidavit, which served as the exclusive basis of the search warrant, is insufficient and fatally defective by reason of the manner in which the oath was made, and therefore, it is hereby held that the search warrant in question and the subsequent seizure of the books, documents, and other papers are illegal and do not in any way warrant the deprivation to which the petitioner was subjected.
Moreover, Section 101 of General Orders, No. 58 authorizes that the search is made at night when it is positively asserted in the affidavits that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched. However, as declared, the affidavits are insufficient and the warrant issued exclusively upon it is illegal, Therefore, the search could not legally be made at night.