166. PEOPLE VS. SY JUCO, 64 PHIL.
667, 674 (1937)
Topic: Probable Cause
FACTS:
Narciso Mendiola, agent and representative of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, alleged that fraudulent books,
letters, and papers were being kept in a building at No. 482 Juan Luna Street, Binondo, Manila, occupied by
Santiago Sy Juco. Acting upon a tip from a person considered reliable, Mendiola applied for a search warrant,
which was issued by Judge Mariano A. Albert of the Court of First Instance of Manila. The warrant directed
peace officers to search the premises and seize articles relating to suspected fraud, to be delivered to the
court for further legal action. The warrant’s affidavit stated that the defendant kept fraudulent books,
correspondence, and records; the affidavit, however, was based on hearsay. Specific language of the warrant
emphasized entering the premises in the daytime, diligently searching for evidentiary items, and seizing them
for court presentation. However, the affidavit failed to specify that the seized items were directly being used
for fraud or to delineate precise property boundaries beyond the premises known to be occupied by Santiago
Sy Juco.
During the execution of the warrant, the agents seized various items including an art metal filing cabinet. The
filing cabinet was claimed by Attorney Teopisto B. Remo as his personal property and as containing
confidential letters, documents, and records belonging to his clients. Attorney Teopisto B. Remo filed a petition
in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking orders to prevent the opening of the filing cabinet and to have
it secured by the sheriff, on the basis that the search warrant was illegal and void as against the Constitution.
A similar petition was filed by the Salakam Lumber Co., Inc. regarding other seized books. Judge Delfin
Jaranilla of the Court of First Instance decided to return the filing cabinet and other seized documents upon
demonstration that they showed no evidence of being used to commit fraud against the Government.
Attorney Teopisto B. Remo appealed the decision, asserting nine errors by the lower court including the
alleged unconstitutionality and inherent invalidity of the search warrant, the improper extension of the
warrant's scope to include property not originally subject to it, the contention that the warrant was applied
solely against Santiago Sy Juco, thereby improperly affecting Remo, and the requirement to open the cabinet,
potentially violating attorney–client privileges.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the search warrant legally valid.
RULING: NO.
In order that a search warrant may be valid, the following requisites, among others, must be present: that the
application upon which it is issued be supported by oath; that the search warrant particularly describes not
only the place to be searched but also the person or thing to be seized, and that there be probable cause.
The Court held that the oath required must be such that it constitutes a guaranty that the person taking it has
personal knowledge of the facts of the case and that it convinces the committing magistrate, not the individual
seeking the issuance of the warrant or the person making the averment by hearsay; of the existence of the
requisite of probable cause. Probable cause are meant such facts and circumstances antecedent to the
issuance of the warrant, that are in themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act
in pursuance thereof.
In the present case, the affidavit supporting the search warrant fails to meet the necessary validity
requirements. First, it does not state that the books, documents, or records mentioned were used or intended
for fraud against the Government, yet the warrant claims they were. Second, it wrongly assumes that the
entire building at No. 482 Juan Luna Street was occupied by Santiago Sy Juco, based solely on hearsay from
Narciso Mendiola, when part of it was actually occupied by the appellant. Third, the warrant exceeded its
scope by authorizing searches beyond what was applied for. The agents also conducted unauthorized actions,
making the warrant unreasonable. It was clearly issued to fish for evidence rather than target a specific crime,
especially since Mendiola’s affidavit did not even specify what crime Juco had committed or was about to
commit. On this point, said affidavit merely contained the following allegation: "It has been reported to us by
a person whom I considered reliable that in said premises are fraudulent book, correspondence and records."
In addition, testimonies conclusively proved that the furniture in question was purchased by said Atty. Remo
at the beginning of January, 1933, and that he had it precisely in a room on one of the upper floors of building
No. 482 on Juan Luna Street, which he was then subleasing from Santiago Sy Juco, to keep his records and
those of his clients. On the other hand, the Court ruled that it is unimportant to determine whether the furniture
in question belongs to Santiago Sy Juco or to Atty. Remo. It should have been alleged by Narciso Mendiola
that it belongs to Santiago Sy Juco, at the time he applied for the issuance of the search warrant, to show
with the other allegations, reasons and evidence that the issuance thereof was justified because of the
existence of probable cause, the latter being a requisite without which the issuance of the judicial warrant
authorizing such search -would be unwarranted.
For all the foregoing reasons, and finding that the errors assigned by the appellant are very well founded, the
appealed judgment is reversed, and it is ordered that the art metal filing cabinet, together with the key thereof,
seized by the internal revenue agents by virtue of the judicial warrant in question, which is hereby declared
null and void, be immediately returned unopened to the appellant
