221. UY KHEYTIN VS. VILLAREAL, 42 PHIL.
886, 896 (1920)
Topic: (Warrantless Searches and Seizures) Customs Inspection
FACTS:
On April 30, 1919, Corporal Ramon Gayanilo of the Philippine Constabulary presented an affidavit before
Judge L. M. Southworth of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. In his sworn application, Gayanilo stated that
in the house of Chino Uy Kheytin, located at Sto. Niño St., No. 20, Iloilo-specifically under the writing desk in
his store-there was kept “a certain amount of opium.” Relying on the complainant’s affidavit, the judge issued
a search warrant that day. The warrant authorized any officer of the law to search the premises for opium and
to seize the substance if found.
On the same day (April 30, 1919), Lieutenant M. S. Torralba, accompanied by subordinate constables,
executed the warrant. They searched Uy Kheytin’s house and discovered 60 small cans of opium in the
described location. When asked to search the bodega on the ground floor, Uy Kheytin denied ownership or
renting of that part. To clarify the bodega’s ownership, Torralba stationed a guard and later inquired with
Segovia, the owner of the house, who revealed that Uy Kheytin was indeed renting the bodega. The following
morning (May 1, 1919), Torralba and his men resumed the search and seized additional articles*
A criminal complaint was subsequently filed in the court of the justice of the peace of Iloilo, charging Uy
Kheytin and his associates (the petitioners) with a violation of the Opium Law. Following arrest and a
preliminary investigation that established probable cause, the case was transmitted to the Court of First
Instance. Pending the filing of a complaint by the provincial fiscal, the petitioners filed a motion in the Court of
First Instance seeking the return of “private papers, books, and other property” unlawfully seized by the
Constabulary officers, upon the ground that they had been so seized illegally and in violation of the
constitutional rights of the petitioners. They contend that the search warrant of April 30th was illegal because
the requisites prescribed by the General Orders No. 58 had not been complied with in its issuance. The lower
court judge, Antonio Villareal, after a thorough hearing, denied the petitioners’ motion, finding that the
searches and seizures were legally conducted. Dissatisfied with the lower court’s decision, the petitioners
elevated the case to the Supreme Court, seeking relief and further declarations through a writ of prohibition.
The petition requested that the respondent judge and court officers desist from taking further cognizance of
actions arising from the allegedly unlawful searches and seizures.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the fact that opium was seized, thereby confirming the affidavit’s substance, negates the effect
of the procedural irregularity.
RULING: NO.
Section 96 of General Orders No. 58 is as follows: A search warrant may be issued upon either of the following
grounds: (1) When the property was stolen or embezzled, and (2) When it was used or when the intent exists
to use it as the means of committing a felony. The petitioners argued that the property ordered to be seized,
namely, opium, under the said search warrant, had not been stolen or embezzled, nor had it been used or
intended to be used as the means of committing a felon.
The Court held that it would be the height of absurdity to hold, upon technical grounds, that a search warrant
is illegal which is issued to search for and seize property the very possession of which is forbidden by law and
constitutes a crime. Opium is such property. "Search-warrants have heretofore been allowed to search for
stolen goods, for goods supposed to have been smuggled into the country in violation of the revenue laws,
for implements of gaming or counterfeiting, for lottery tickets or prohibited liquors kept for sale contrary to law,
for obscene books and paper kept for sale or circulation, and for powder or other explosive and dangerous
material so kept as to endanger the public safety."
In addition, in the present case there was an irregularity in the issuance of the search warrant in question in
that the judge did not first examine the complainant or any witnesses under oath, as required by section 98
of General Orders No. 58. But the property sought to be searched for and seized having been actually found
in the place described by the complainant, reasoning by analogy from the case of an improper arrest, we are
of the opinion that that irregularity is not sufficient cause for ordering the return of the opium found and seized
under said warrant, to the petitioners, and exonerating the latter.
Uy Kheytin v. Villareal did not explicitly discuss customs inspection. However, the case can be connected to
warrantless searches and seizures in customs inspections by analogy:
1. Recognition of Contraband as an Exception to Strict Search Rules:
o In Uy Kheytin, the Supreme Court ruled that search warrants can be issued for contraband
(such as opium) because its possession is inherently illegal. This aligns with the doctrine
in customs law, where smuggled goods or contraband can be seized without a warrant
because they are prohibited by law (e.g., illegal drugs, untaxed goods).
o Similarly, customs authorities can conduct searches and seizures without a warrant
when they have reasonable suspicion that smuggled or prohibited items are being brought
into the country.
2. Customs Inspections as an Exception to the Warrant Requirement:
o Under customs laws, authorities are not required to secure a search warrant to inspect
imported goods, cargo, baggage, or mail at ports of entry. This is based on the state’s
interest in regulating imports and preventing smuggling.
o In Uy Kheytin, while a search warrant was obtained, the ruling justified searches and
seizures of contraband even when procedural defects (such as failure to personally
examine witnesses under oath) were present. This implies that if the object of the search is
inherently illegal (like smuggled goods), the government’s interest outweighs certain
procedural defects.
o This mirrors the doctrine that customs searches do not require a warrant as long as they
are conducted at border points, ports, or customs zones where there is an expectation of
inspection.
3. Plain View Doctrine and Customs Inspections:
o In Uy Kheytin, the police officers seized additional contraband (opium and paraphernalia)
while conducting a lawful search, applying what we now understand as the plain view
doctrine (i.e., evidence in plain sight can be seized without a warrant).
o Similarly, in customs searches, if an officer lawfully inspecting goods sees contraband in
plain view, they can immediately seize it without a warrant.
4. Application to Warrantless Customs Searches:
o Uy Kheytin upheld searches for contraband, even where procedural irregularities
occurred, as long as the illegality of the items was clear.
o This strengthens the argument that customs searches, even without a warrant, are valid
when dealing with smuggled or illegal goods, provided that the seizure is done within
customs jurisdiction (e.g., ports, border checkpoints).
*Additional articles found in the bodega:
No. 2. - One wrap of paper containing a broken bottle of opium liquid, which is kept in a tin box No. 1.
No. 3. - One wrap of paper containing an opium pipe, complete, one opium container, one wrap of opium
ashes, one rag soaked in opium and one thimble with opium.
No. 4. - One leather hand bag containing 7 small bottle containing opium, with two cedulas belonging to
Tian Liong, with key.
No. 5. - One wooden box containing 75 empty cans, opium containers.
No. 6. - One tin box containing 23 small empty cans, opium containers.
No. 7. - One cardboard box containing 3 pieces of wood, one old chisel, one file, one piece of soldering
lead, one box of matches, 5 pieces of iron plates, and several other tin plates.
No. 8. - One roll of 7 ½ sheets of brass.
No. 9. - Three soldering outfits.
No. 10. - One hammer.
No. 11. - One Chinese scale for opium.
No. 12. - Twelve small bottles empty.
No. 13. - Two bottles containing opium.
No. 14. - One bundle of Chinese books of accounts with several personal letter of Chine Uy Kheytin.
No. 15. - One tin box containing 60 cans of molasses, with 1 small bottle containing molasses.
