BACHE & CO. V. RUIZ G.R. No. L-32409. February 27, 1971
FACTS:
l Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Misael Vera , wrote a letter addressed to respondent Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz requesting the issuance of a search warrant against Bache& Co., herein petitioner corporation for violation of Section 46(a) of the NIRC in relation to all other pertinent provisions thereof, particularly Sections 53, 72, 73, 208 and 209.
l Vera authorized, Rodolfo de Leon, his Revenue Examiner, to make and file the application of search warrant which was attached to the letter.
l In the afternoon of the following day, respondent De Leon and his witness, respondent Arturo Logronio, went to the CFI of Rizal. They brought the following:
1. Vera’s letter-request; an application for search warrant already filled up but still unsigned by respondent De Leon;
2. An affidavit of respondent Logronio subscribed before respondent De Leon;
3. A deposition in printed form of respondent Logronio already accomplished and signed by him but not yet subscribed; and
4. A search warrant already accomplished but still unsigned by respondent Judge.
l When the respondents arrived at the court, the respondent Judge Ruiz, was still hearing a certain case.
l So, by means of a note, the judge instructed his Deputy Clerk of Court to take the depositions of respondents De Leon and Logronio.
l When the session was adjourned, the deputy clerk informed the judge that the depositions were taken then the stenographer read to the judge her notes; and thereafter, respondent Judge asked respondent Logronio to take the oath and warned him that if his deposition was found to be false and without legal basis, he could be charged for perjury.
l Respondent Judge signed respondent de Leon’s application for a search warrant and respondent Logronio’s deposition, and the Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 was then sign by respondent Judge and accordingly issued.
l Three days later, the agents of BIR served the warrant and seized 6 boxes of documents.
l The petitioners moved to quash the search warrant, filed for an injunction, and other reliefs prayed for but the respondent judge dismissed the petition.
l The Bureau made tax assessments on petitioner corporation in the total sum of P2,594,729.97, partly, if not entirely, based on the documents thus seized. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
WON the search warrant was validly issued.
HELD:
NO. The Court found three (3) defects in the search warrant issued.
1. First, there was no personal examination of the judge.
2. Second, the search warrant was issued for more than one specific offense.
3. Third, the search warrant does not particularly describe the things to be seized.
The petition is granted. Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 issued by respondent Judge is declared null and void
RATIO DECIDENDE:
l In the case at bar, no personal examination at all was conducted by respondent Judge of the complainant (respondent De Leon) and his witness (respondent Logronio).
The reading of the stenographic notes to respondent Judge did not constitute sufficient compliance with the constitutional mandate and the rule; for by that manner respondent Judge did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the complainant and his witness, and to propound initial and follow-up questions which the judicial mind, on account of its training, was in the best position to conceive. These were important in arriving at a sound inference on the all-important question of whether or not there was probable cause. This is pursuant to Art. III, Sec. 1, par. 3, of the Constitution, and Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court. The determination of whether or not a probable cause exists calls for the exercise of judgment after a judicial appraisal of facts and should not be allowed to be delegated in the absence of any rule to the contrary.
l The search warrant in question was issued for at least four distinct offenses under the Tax Code.
1. The first is the violation of Sec. 46(a), Sec. 72 and Sec. 73 (the filing of income tax returns), which are interrelated. T
2. he second is the violation of Sec. 53 (withholding of income taxes at source).
3. The third is the violation of Sec. 208 (unlawful pursuit of business or occupation); and
4. The fourth is the violation of Sec. 209 (failure to make a return of receipts, sales, business or gross value of output actually removed or to pay the tax due thereon).
Hence, it is a clear violation of Sec. 4, Rule 126 of the RRC which states:
“Section 4.Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally 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 things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. ”
The documents, papers and effects sought to be seized are described in Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 in this manner:
"Unregistered and private books of accounts (ledgers, journals, columnars, receipts and disbursements books, customers ledgers); receipts for payments received; certificates of stocks and securities; contracts, promissory notes and deeds of sale; telex and coded messages; business communications, accounting and business records; checks and check stubs; records of bank deposits and withdrawals; and records of foreign remittances, covering the years 1966 to 1970."
The description does not meet the requirement in Art III, Sec. 1, of the Constitution, and of Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, that the warrant should particularly describe the things to be seized.
1. A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow ; or
2. When the description expresses a conclusion of fact — not of law — by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure; or
3. When the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued (Sec. 2, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court).
The herein search warrant does not conform to any of the foregoing tests.
If the articles desired to be seized have any direct relation to an offense committed, the applicant must necessarily have some evidence, other than those articles, to prove the said offense; and
the articles subject of search and seizure should come in handy merely to strengthen such evidence.
In this event, the description contained in the herein disputed warrant should have mentioned, at least, the dates, amounts, persons, and other pertinent data regarding the receipts of payments, certificates of stocks and securities, contracts, promissory notes, deeds of sale, messages and communications, checks, bank deposits and withdrawals, records of foreign remittances, among others, enumerated in the warrant.