Peoplevs. Rubio
Peoplevs. Rubio
Peoplevs. Rubio
ing the time which the commission takes before rendering an order
denying the motion for a rehearing. This rule shall take effect on
January 1, 1933.
Subject to the above observations, the motion to dismiss the
petition for review of the Manila Yellow Taxicab Co., Inc., is denied.
Motion denied.
——————
385
unlawful, and provides that it may be taken. (Boyd vs. United States [1886], 116
U. S., 616; Gouled vs. United States [1920], 255 U. S., 298; U. S. vs. Lefkowitz
[1932], U. S. Supreme Court Advance Opinions.)
5.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.—Books of account, invoices, and records may be so used as
instruments or agencies for perpetrating frauds upon the government as to give
the public an interest in them which would justify the search for and seizure of
them, under a properly issued search warrant, for the purpose of preventing
further frauds.
6.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.—Held in this case, as matters of fact, that the search warrant
conformed to constitutional and statutory provisions, and that it has not been
shown that the seizure of the appellant's books, invoices, and records was made
solely for the purpose of securing evidence to be used against him in a criminal
prosecution.
MALCOLM, J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, Judge Moran presiding, denying appellant's motion to
declare null and void a search warrant issued on December 26, 1930,
and to have returned to him the books of account, invoices, and
records which were seized by virtue of the warrant. The case was
originally assigned to a Division of Five and was there decided, but
subsequently, on representations being made that the interpretation
of an Act of Congress was involved, the Division ordered its
decision set aside and the transfer of the case to the court in banc.
The Administrative Code, section 1434, grants police power to
internal revenue agents. Acting pursuant to this authority, the chief
secret service agent and a supervising agent of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue gave testimony
283641——25
386
cause that the prohibited fraudulent books, invoices and records, exist and
being conducted in the said house, and the occupant of the same keeps in his
possession effects and devices to wit: fraudulent books of the Simplex
Trading Corporation & to subsidiary companies Paramount Trading
Corporation & New York Trading Corp."
387
388
sections 95, 96, 97, 98, and 99 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
reading as follows:
"1. The lower court erred in not holding that the search warrant was illegal and
void for failure to observe the constitutional and statutory provisions providing for
its
issue.
"2. The lower court erred in holding that even if the warrant were illegal and
void appellant's books and papers might be retained because they were proper
subjects for seizure under a search warrant.
"3. The lower court erred in not holding that the seizure of appellant's books
and papers was made solely for the
389
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3c958040f7c6a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/18
3/2/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057
purpose of using them as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution and was,
therefore, unlawful."
The point made in the first error was not originally pressed upon
the trial court, and is plainly without merit. The requirements of the
law were substantially, and even literally, complied with in this case.
Appellant's contention that the search warrant was issued without
the complainants or any witnesses having been examined, is
untenable. The depositions speak for themselves. It is also
contended that the application and the warrant did not particularly
describe the things to be seized. The verified statements of the two
internal revenue agents and the warrant issued by the Court of First
Instance of Manila all describe the property sought to be seized as
"fraudulent books, invoices and records". While it is true that the
property to be seized under a warrant must be particularly described
therein and no other property can be taken thereunder, yet the
description is required to be specific only in so far as the
circumstances will ordinarily allow. It has been held that, where, by
the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather
general, it is not required that a technical description be given, as
this would mean that no warrant could issue. Appellant has not
shown that the internal revenue agents exceeded their powers under
the warrant by seizing property other than that described in the
warrant in question. The list of books, invoices, and records seized
by said officers is the best evidence to show that they strictly obeyed
the command of their warrant by seizing those things, and only
those, described in the search warrant.
Under the second error, it is claimed that "the books, invoices,
and records seized are property which one may lawfully possess;
they^ were searched and seized solely for the purpose of using them
as evidence to prove an offense supposed to have been committed by
appellant against the internal revenue customs laws, which search
and seizure for the purpose intended is prohibited by law." Reliance
390
"A casual examination of the property mentioned in the affidavit and the
list of books, papers, and documents actually seized by the said officers, as
represented by their signed statement, above quoted, will show that the
officers, in executing the said search warrant, did not limit themselves, in
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3c958040f7c6a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/18
3/2/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057
391
was issued. From the above, it will be seen that the three Philippine
cases relied upon by the appellant rest upon different facts from
those in the case at bar.
After the decision in Division had been promulgated, the opinion
of the United States Supreme Court of April 11, 1932, delivered in
the case of United States of America vs. Daniel M. Lefkowitz and
Pauline Paris, was received, and it is now urged that this opinion is
controlling. Of course, if the opinion, on examination, be found to
support the views of the appellant, it would become our duty, even
as against any pride which one might have in maintaining a position
previously taken, to change front to conform to the pronouncements
of the higher court. Turning to the opinion just mentioned, we find it
said: "All the searches and seizures were made without a search
warrant"—in contrast, the searches and seizures in the case at bar
were made with a search warrant. Further, it was said: "The only
question presented is whether the searches of the desks, cabinet and
baskets and the seizures of the things taken from them were
reasonable as an incident of the arrests"—an entirely different state
of facts from those before us. Again, it was said: "The Fourth
Amendment forbids every search that is unreasonable and is
construed liberally to safeguard the right of privacy"—an
admonition which should be respected in this jurisdiction where
constitutional rights are as sacred as in the United States proper. Fi-
nally, a contrast was suggested between the search of one's house or
place of business made contemporaneously with his lawful arrest
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3c958040f7c6a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/18
3/2/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057
"Respondents' papers were wanted by the officers solely for use as evidence of
crime of which respondents were accused or suspected. They could not lawfully be
searched for and taken even under a search warrant issued upon ample evidence and
precisely describing such things and
392
disclosing exactly where they were. (Gouled vs. United States, 255 U. S., 298, 310.)
* * * * * * *
"Here, the searches were exploratory and general and made solely to find
evidence of respondents' guilt of the alleged conspiracy or some other
crime. Though intended to be used to solicit orders for liquor in violation of
the Act, the papers and other articles found and taken were in themselves
unoffending. The decisions of this court distinguish searches of one's house,
office, papers or effects merely to get evidence to convict him of crime from
searches such as those made to find stolen goods for return to the owner, to
take property that has been forfeited to the Government, to discover
property concealed to avoid payment of duties for which it is liable, and
from searches such as those made for the seizure of counterfeit coins,
burglars' tools, gambling paraphernalia and illicit liquor in order to prevent
the commission of crime."
393
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3c958040f7c6a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/18
3/2/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057
search and seizure, if only they fall within the scope of the principles of the cases in
which other property may be seized, and if they be adequately described in the
affidavit and warrant. * * * we cannot doubt that contracts may be so used as
instruments or agencies for perpetrating frauds upon the Government as to give the
public an interest in them Which would justify the search for and seizure of them,
under a properly issued search warrant, for the purpose of preventing further frauds.
* * * * * * *
"As to the contract with Steinthal, also a stranger to the indictment. It is not
difficult, as we have said, to imagine how an executed written contract might be an
important agency or instrumentality in the bribing of a public servant and in
perpetrating frauds upon the Government so that it would have a legitimate and
important interest in seizing such a paper in order to prevent further frauds, *
* *."
394
said: "As we have stated above, the search and seizure in this case
were made under the provisions of the internal-revenue laws and the
authority of a search warrant, and not for the purpose of obtaining
evidence, but with a view to seize the instruments used in the
violation of said laws committed by the defendant." On appeal, the
prosecution persistently maintains its position that the seizure was
made with the object of preventing the use of the books of account,
documents, and papers in the commission of further offenses or
fraud against the Government. Not a scintilla of evidence is to be
found in the record to prove that the Government has used the books
of account, documents, and papers as evidence against the appellant,
or that the Government ever had the intention of so doing. All we
"know is, that an information was filed against Rubio, charging him
with a violation of the Customs Law, and that he compromised
another case with the Bureau of Internal Revenue on the payment of
the sum of P100,000. On this showing, we perforce cannot
395
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3c958040f7c6a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/18
3/2/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057
396
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3c958040f7c6a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/18
3/2/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057
398
399
400
401
The same persons, Juan Evaristo and Augusto Piccio, signed both
statements.
It will be observed, in the first place, that the witnesses could not
even state positively who occupied the premises or house to be
searched. All that they affirmed was "According to the best of
information the house is occupied by Mr. Jose Rubio." In the second
place, the only reasons given for the application for the search
warrant, are as follows: "It has been reported to me by a person
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3c958040f7c6a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/18
3/2/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057
402
403
404
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3c958040f7c6a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/18
3/2/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057
"Here, the searches were exploratory and general and made solely to find
evidence of respondents' guilt of the alleged conspiracy or some other crime.
Though intended to be used to solicit orders for liquor in violation of the Act, the
papers and other articles found and taken were in themselves unoffending. The
decisions of this court distinguish searches of one's house, office, papers or effects
merely to get evidence to convict him of crime from searches such as those made to
find stolen goods for return to the owner, to take property that has been forfeited to
the Government, to discover property concealed to avoid payment of duties for
which it is liable, and from searches such as those made for the seizure of counterfeit
coins burglar's tools, gambling paraphernalia and illicit liquor in order to prevent the
commission of crime. (Boyd vs.
405
United States, 116 U. S., 616, et seq.; 29 L. ed., 746; 6 S. Ct., 524; Weeks vs. United
States, 232 U. S., 383, 395; 58 L. ed., 652, 656; L. R. A., 1915B, 834; 34 S. Ct., 341;
Ann Cas., 1915C, 1177; Gouled vs. United States, supra [255. U. S., 306; 65 L. ed.,
651; 41 S. Ct., 261]; Carrol vs. United States, 267 U. S., 132; 69 L. ed., 543; 39 A.
L. R., 790; 45 S. Ct. 280, supra.)
"In Entick vs. Carrington (19 How. St. Tr., 1029), Lord Gamden declared that
one's papers are his dearest property, showed that the law of England did not
authorize a search of private papers to help forward conviction even in cases of most
atrocious crime and said (p. 1073) : 'Whether this proceedeth from the gentleness of
the law towards criminals, or from a consideration that such a power would be more
pernicious to the innocent than useful to the public, I will not say. It is very certain,
that the law obligeth no man to accuse himself; because the necessary means of
compelling self-accusation, falling upon the innocent as well as the guilty, would be
both cruel and unjust; and it should seem, that search for evidence is disallowed
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3c958040f7c6a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/18
3/2/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057
upon the same principle. There too the innocent would be confounded with the
guilty.'
"The teachings of that great case were cherished by our statesmen when the
Constitution was adopted. In Boyd vs. United States, supra (116 U. S., 630; 29 L.
ed., 751; 6 S. Ct., 524), this court said: The principles laid down in this opinion
(Entick vs. Carrington) affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and
security. * * * They apply to all invasions on the part of the Government and
its employees of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. * * *
Any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private
papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime or to forfeit his goods is
within the condemnation of that judgment. In this regard the Fourth and Fifth
Amendments run almost into each other.' And this court has always construed
provisions of the Constitution having regard to the prin-
406
ciples upon which it was established. The direct operation or literal meaning of the
words used do not measure the purpose or scope of its provisions. (M'Culloch vs.
Maryland, 4 Wheat, 316, 406, 407, 421; 4 L. ed., 579, 601, 602, 605; Boyd vs.
United States, 116 U. S., 616; 29 L. ed., 746; 6 S. Ct, 524, supra; Byars vs. United
States, 273 U. S., 28; 71 L. ed., 520; 47 S. Ct., 248, ubi supra.)"
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3c958040f7c6a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/18
3/2/2019 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 057
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001693c3c958040f7c6a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/18